Do you think killing one person to save two people is a rational transaction (yes) or cold-blooded murder (no)?

  • It can be both

    Why can't people understand something conceptually and still think its cold blooded. Still, don't forget, the people who are being saved are equally as human, and their deaths would hurt also. This is not an easy decision, but ultimately, since they're all people, the one person's death is necessary here.

  • This is how we have war.

    Yes, I think that killing one person to save two people is a rational transaction, because it is the best way to save the most people possible. Most wars are started on this premise. People think that it is better to kill the people who want to kill others, so they justify taking force against them first.

  • Killing someone for the SOLE purpose of saving 2 others is very irrational.

    The problem with killing someone to save two lives is that you're not taking into account the life stories of each person. It is the two people's faults for being in such a position to die. It isnt the one person's fault that he is going to survive while the two other people die. Would you kill Franklin Roosevelt to save John Wilkes Booth and Adolf Hitler? I think not. Oh and one more point. Even if the person you're killing is a moderately bad guy (but deserves to live; lets say a thief) and the two people you're saving are good guys, it is still not right. It's not right because the other two people were put in a position to die. It is their right to die. It is their right to be ignorant or to pay up for their risks. You don't have the duty or need to control who lives and who doesnt. Plus, what if the thief was a good guy in the end? It is extremely rare to be in a circumstance where you know exactly, for sure, who is a good guy and who is a bad guy, for you to make a sacrificial decision.

  • Killing one person to save two people is basically cold-blooded murder.

    Killing one person to save two people is not really a rational decision.There are always other avenues of persuasion before two innocent people lose their lives.Especially in a law enforcement situation lots of negotiation tactics can be used before the elected person has to be forced to take innocent lives.

  • Not rational at all

    To kill on person to save two others is basically like saying that you do not value their life as much as you value the other peoples life. There is no reason to think that someones life is less valuable just because you have the potential to save 2 with the cost of 1. Unless the person is willing to sacrifice their own life, it is not worth it and is just cold blooded murder.

  • The ends cannot justify the means

    I reject, in all its forms, a utilitarian philosophy, where the ends are used to justify the means to them. While great care must be given to the intention of an action, intending to cause good by doing evil can never be accepted or justified. Once the first evil is justified by its result, there will follow a steady torrent of new evils in its wake. No man of conscience should ever allow that to happen.

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.