...allow yourself to die to save the lives of hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
There's a serious problem with that question. There's a complete lack of context. I wouldn't allow myself to die without knowing why I'm dying for the same reason that you wouldn't jump off a bridge because someone tells you so. You need to judge and understand what you're doing before proceeding to take a decision.
There's also a fallacy with that question:
Let's say 1 person dies in a car accident.
Let's say 50 persons die in a car accident.
Let's say 1 000 000 persons die in a car accident.
We can conclude that all of these events are sad.
We can't say that since "only" 1 person died compared to 1 000 000, that "1" doesn't matter.
It's wrong because these 1 000 001 people all matters equally as human beings from an objective point of view.
Anyway, this question is not about how many lives you can save, but what's your position toward self-sacrifice. You can definitely think at soldiers who goes to war only to die "for justice/religion/country/family/etc.". There's no real win-win situation with this problematic so, in a forced process where I have no choice, it would seems logical to die for others. My main concern with this question is if it's possible that these people will be truly saved. I mean, you don't just waste a life for fun. If the circumstances are not certain and very favorable, I would definitely have to reconsider.
The answer can change depending of the context/condition/circumstances.
depends on the people I'm saving. I would not sacrifice my own life to save the lives of pedophile rapist alcatraz inmates, but I would to save innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
Assume such situation exists.
As a human being, I am capable of making one decision.
My head will say no. My heart will say yes.
Contradiction.
Therefore, no such situation exists.
Q.E.D.
Missing step where somehow both your head and your heart are human beings that make your decisions for you. F.
For all of you calling lack of context, here's a some.
You are immune to a disease that currently is ruining the lives of millions and the only way to find a cure is to dissect you and find out what makes you immune.
I just finished reading "The Scorch Trials" that's why i'm asking this.
this question now reminds me of that classic morality question where you have one healthy patient and five dying ones, and the only way to save the five is to kill the one and chop up his body for parts to use in the five.
Comment