Would you kill innocent people to save your loved ones?

[WS78]

Theory, yes I would.

Reality, I'd probably collapse mentally before I even laid a finger on anyone.

 

[Hitro]

I'd kill anyone to save Hitro.

Even Cilpot?

 

[Cimbri]

Yeah. Even Cilpot. Crazy innit?

 

[samildanach]

Negotiating with terrorists is out. I wouldn't assassinate someone under these circumstances even if they were guilty and I was in some way sympathetic to the terrorists cause.

As far as killing innocent people goes I think it's to be avoided. But if they are in the way? Then they are in the way. And if lethal force is required to get them out of the way then that's what should be used.

 

[OrpheusPrime]

Yes I would.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Could you give me one kind of situation where you have to kill a usual innocent civilian in order to save your protected ones ?

The only situation I can see is being 3 on a raft in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and having to kill one of the three in order to eat. But usually, when a boat sink, there are enough dead bodies already to not starve, so even that example is crappy.

 

[Cataphract887]

I would not kill one innocent person to save the life of every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. Profiting from murder is wrong, no matter what.

ten characters

 

[Cilpot]

Yeah. Even Cilpot. Crazy innit?

I'd kill Hitro to save you

 

[Stylesjl]

Yes, screw other people they have hardly ever been good to me anyway

But i probaly couldn't pull it off in practice because of that subconcious ethics thing

 

[Perfection]

Perfection, on the other hand, falls for the bluff and is putty in the terrorist's hand.

This is a hypothetical case where the safety would be garunteed. If it was real life, I'd probobly do something else.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Since the situation is sort of nebulous, it is hard to say. If, for example, a James Bond supervillain put me in a room with two buttons, one of which will kill a stranger, the other will kill a loved one, and if no button is pushed nuclear bombs will destroy the world, then no contest, I'll kill the stranger. I'll feel guilty about it for the rest of my life, but not as guilty as if I'd killed my own wife or child or let the world blow up.
If in the same scenario, except that rather than killing a single stranger the other button would nuke an entire city then the choice becomes much harder. Can't really say what I would do.
Normally the correct answer to any moral conundrum can be answered by asking, "What would Jean-Luc Picard do?" However in this case that falls flat, because Picard (after rejecting whatever Worf suggested, which would involve the phasers) would have Data use the ship's computer to remotely rewire the buttons (possibly with a tachyon pulse of some kind) so that the supervillain was the one killed no matter which one was pressed. I'm assuming we do not have access to Data so I'm screwed.

 

[Gothmog]

Yeah, I'd take the tachyon pulse option too; fits perfectly with this scenario.

OTOH I know that there is no way I could ever kill my immediate family, whatever logic or self consistent moral guidelines might dictate.

 

[greenman1234]

Yes, I would kill someone to save my family. They come before anyone else. as Luis said, I would not kill someone to save my own life.

 

[Cimbri]

I'd kill Hitro to save you

Thanks Cimpot. 'Always knew I could count on you





(Don’t worry. I wouldn’t kill you either, I just had to tell Herman something)

 

[Narz]

Yes.

I think I made a poll about this back in '03.

 

[odintheking]

Well, if it was "kill ten innocents to save your loved one", I would have to let my loved one go, sadly. My family would understand, we're good people. Might as well save the more people you can, right?

 

[RedWolf]

any one who said yes to this is a sick f*ck!!
if u did that ur just as bad as any murdere and deserve to be shot in the head!!

u whold all gladly kill me or some other inocent persion to save ur family!! y me, y any one inocent!! WTH DID THAY DO TO U?!! i whold kill you, and ur family if u ever killd some one to save them.. and by family i mean every one, ur kids, ur wife, ur perants bothers and sisters! u have no right to take any ones life, suchs a questions is soo offending to me!

Chill out psycho... It's just a philisophical question here...

 

[RedWolf]

Normally the correct answer to any moral conundrum can be answered by asking, "What would Jean-Luc Picard do?" However in this case that falls flat, because Picard (after rejecting whatever Worf suggested, which would involve the phasers) would have Data use the ship's computer to remotely rewire the buttons (possibly with a tachyon pulse of some kind) so that the supervillain was the one killed no matter which one was pressed. I'm assuming we do not have access to Data so I'm screwed.

I nominate this for "Post of the Month".

 

[storealex]

I believe a man is guilty of all the good he didn't do.

Inaction means that your have chosen to act with inactivity. Therefore, people die everyday as a result of my actions. I could save them. At least some of them.
The fact that they die in Africa does not make it any less real. If I saw someone lying wounded in the street, I would help him. Even if it exposed me to danger. But for some reason, it's different if the person is lying wounded on an other continent.
Im villing to expose my self to danger, to save a single life here, but Im not villing to spend a significant amount of my money on saving several people elsewhere.

So, Im responsible for death already. Because I'd rather buy an expesive bottle of whiskey than aid to children with smallpox.
Would I be responsible for more deaths, to save my loved ones, who are of course much more dear to me than the stupid whiskey?

I do not know...

 

[WS78]

I believe a man is guilty of all the good he didn't do.

Inaction means that your have chosen to act with inactivity. Therefore, people die everyday as a result of my actions. I could save them. At least some of them.
The fact that they die in Africa does not make it any less real. If I saw someone lying wounded in the street, I would help him. Even if it exposed me to danger. But for some reason, it's different if the person is lying wounded on an other continent.
Im villing to expose my self to danger, to save a single life here, but Im not villing to spend a significant amount of my money on saving several people elsewhere.

So, Im responsible for death already. Because I'd rather buy an expesive bottle of whiskey than aid to children with smallpox.
Would I be responsible for more deaths, to save my loved ones, who are of course much more dear to me than the stupid whiskey?

I do not know...

Very enlightening post (some say depressing) and very philosophical (in the realistic and literal sense of the word)
Makes me more aware in general.