Would you murder an innocent person in order to prevent two innocent people from getting killed by someone else?

Posted by: Trig314

You can assume that you know what the outcome will be for each choice(to kill or not to kill)

33 Total Votes


Kill the innocent person to keep the other person from killing two.
21 votes


Don't kill the person, and let the other person kill two.
12 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Death23 says2015-05-25T18:02:51.2689129-05:00
Not enough information
Trig314 says2015-05-25T18:06:44.5034179-05:00
@Death23: What information is missing?
TeenagerX says2015-05-25T18:19:42.2840357-05:00
Two wrongs don't make a right; your intention to save the other two may be pure but its done through impure works. Ideally, I would not kill anyone if I didn't have to.
Death23 says2015-05-25T18:20:52.3454321-05:00
It says murder so that means it's illegal, but the description seems to indicate that it would be defending others and that there was no other alternative, which would mean that it probably wouldn't be murder. How can this be?
Trig314 says2015-05-25T18:26:18.5653965-05:00
@Death23: What I was trying to say in the decription is that you can assume that you know ahead of time, that if you do choose to murder the innocent person, the other two innocent people won't be killed by another murderer. In other words, you don't have to consider the possibility of the murderer "bluffing" that he's going to kill two people if you don't kill someone else. So basically, you have two choices: Either murder an innocent person directly(like you pulling the trigger) Or: Allow another murderer to kill two innocent people(you didn't kill them directly). Did that clear your confusion?
Death23 says2015-05-25T18:56:50.6761349-05:00
Is it all just random people
Trig314 says2015-05-25T18:59:54.5136499-05:00
@Death23: Yes, random people, but innocent people
Death23 says2015-05-25T19:06:47.7030475-05:00
Well I'm not risking a murder charge over 2 ransoms.
Death23 says2015-05-25T19:07:04.7081165-05:00
Trig314 says2015-05-25T19:10:56.1488196-05:00
You won't be charged with murder; it's just that you will feel guilty knowing that you cold-heartedly murdered someone.
blackkid says2015-05-25T19:19:40.5630969-05:00
Nah, I'm good.
YamaVonKarma says2015-05-25T20:25:00.3468136-05:00
I can assure you I wouldn't feel guilty.
Mister_Man says2015-05-25T20:33:47.4113339-05:00
After reading the comments, and knowing there will be no legal repercussions, I've changed my answer to yes. I'd rather be the reason one person is killed than be the reason two people were killed.
PetersSmith says2015-05-25T22:34:04.1622895-05:00
Why can't we just kill all three people?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-26T08:34:39.5409529-05:00
So wait, how many people are there? I am counting the voter, the innocent who can be killed by the voter, the two innocent who could get killed by someone else, and someone else. So 5 people?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-26T09:44:55.2902767-05:00
Yeah ... I say let the other 2 get killed then kill that killer. That would be the optimal scenario. If thats not an option ... And youre saying 1 person vs. 2 people dying ... No room for retribution ... Then i suppose id be saving the two by killing the one. By those constraints alone i'd have to be the killer for a day. There are just so many variables that would be there though in RL.
Trig314 says2015-05-26T13:02:54.2864281-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe: Yes, 5 people, you, a murderer, and three potential victims. Either you murder one victim, or you allow the other murderer to kill 2 victims. Which choice seems more moral to you?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-26T14:22:36.6670501-05:00
The person who chooses to do the killing of either group is the one in the wrong, naturally. Youre asking if I would take that burden upon myself if it might save 1 more person? Thinking about it now Idk ... I dont think it equates to me to kill one, save one. I think I would have to let that other killer make the choice to kill 2 and go from there. Its not for me to decide to stave them off from killing. Even if I did save the two people ... That other guy is a would be killer that forced my hand and would be out on the loose. This is like something from SAW. That guy forcing my hand is still the real bad guy. He'd be responsible for both the guy I had to kill and my life. Idk ... Thats rough.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-26T14:30:15.1085132-05:00
Last iteration of thought on this, Ok so there are 5 of us. If I allow the other guy to kill, 2 die, he's labelled a murderer and has to suffer that, and I have to suffer that I made the choice for all of us. If I kill, 2 live, I spare a guy from having to kill in my stead, and I can live with a clearer conscience knowing I spared all 3 of them. I'd kill the 1 person, yes.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-26T14:32:36.4868297-05:00
That way too no one else is left with the burden of having to have killed anyone else, let alone 2 people, and suffer with that forever ... Along with the loss of life. I'd rather take that burden on coming from the position im in where I at least get the comfort of knowing what the alternative and reasoning for the kill was. I'd better be able to live with it than that other guy would.
PericIes says2016-02-21T06:16:45.6052599Z
Today I learned that, if this poll is at all indicative of the general population, roughly a third of people think that one innocent life is more important than two equally innocent lives. Yes, I'll take a shot of whiskey, please.
Mister_Man says2016-02-22T08:17:03.7106076Z
@Pericles - either that or they can't read the description, lol. Unfortunately judging by the comments, people seem to think killing two innocent people is more logical/morally right than killing one... Didn't expect such a poor outcome from a site like this.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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