Should you be able to kill one person to save many other people?

  • The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

    Clearly if killing one person will save many then that person has to have done something to deserve death. Looking back in time we can see many instances where killing one or two people could have saved millions of lives. If Hitler had died as a child due to some sort of accident look at how many lives would have been spared. You have to look at the entire picture. Not just the pieces.

  • Not directly, however...

    Say you had one rescue helicopter, a pilot, and only enough time to reach one out of two groups of survivors. Group A is a group of 6 young people. Group B contains 2 young people. "Killing" (killing=not rescuing) group B in order to save group A would probably be a justified decision, seeing as you'd be able to rescue more people.

  • No, because it creates a slippery slope.

    When you justify killing one person to save many others, it creates a slippery slope where you start defining how many people are worth saving, or "if" people could possibly killed, then you could kill someone to prevent those deaths, too. These cases lead to very unethical practices that justify murder.

  • No one should resort to murder

    A lot of people define being a hero in their own ways; personally, I do not believe in vengeance or murder in general. I don't think anyone should ever decide to resort to murder to try to save anyone from anything. There are other ways to handle this type of serious situtation.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.