In response to "let me make something clear", posted by a mod telling us that we need to start discussions with more, well, discussing, I decided to start a series of philosophical questions to get people debating. This is the first.
So, you're in a tight situation. There is a man working for a Chemical plant, but he is working from home. You know that in 10 seconds, because of the way he is operating things, he will cause a nuclear meltdown that will destroy the whole plant and probably kill over 100 people. You also know that the man currently has a couple hundred pounds of gunpowder in his basement (he is LEGALLY (but dangerously) holding it for a local firework factory). You have a gun, and have a clear shot at the gunpowder through one of the basement windows. Shooting the gunpowder and killing the man in the explosion is the only way to save the over 100 people in the plant.
Ignoring the fact that gunpowder probably wouldn't blow up if you shot it, and that it's totally ridiculous to have so much of the stuff in your basement (give me a break, it's harder than it seems thinking of these situations), would you do it? Would you kill one innocent man to save 100?
PEOPLE, PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT. THIS SITUATION IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND IN NO WAY WOULD EVER HAPPEN. THE POINT IS NOT TO FIND A WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION, BUT TO DISCUSS WEATER AN INNOCENT PERSON SHOULD BE KILLED IF IT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY OTHERS.
Anyway, haven't you guys seen the Dark Knight? Read my second edit for a slightly better story.
*EDIT*
Okay, I know this is ridiculous, but you get the idea. Also, something to think about: would you have the GUTS to kill the guy? Is it RIGHT to kill him? Would you feel more guilty if you didn't or if you did?
Anyway, continue, I want to see where this goes.
*SECOND EDIT*
Gah! I can't get people to understand this! Okay, lets change up the story. There is a crazy guy. You have a gun. Crazy guy (who you cannot kill at the moment) will kill 100 people (he has a bomb) unless you kill some innocent person within the next ten seconds. Got it?
So, you're in a tight situation. There is a man working for a Chemical plant, but he is working from home. You know that in 10 seconds, because of the way he is operating things, he will cause a nuclear meltdown that will destroy the whole plant and probably kill over 100 people. You also know that the man currently has a couple hundred pounds of gunpowder in his basement (he is LEGALLY (but dangerously) holding it for a local firework factory). You have a gun, and have a clear shot at the gunpowder through one of the basement windows. Shooting the gunpowder and killing the man in the explosion is the only way to save the over 100 people in the plant.
Ignoring the fact that gunpowder probably wouldn't blow up if you shot it, and that it's totally ridiculous to have so much of the stuff in your basement (give me a break, it's harder than it seems thinking of these situations), would you do it? Would you kill one innocent man to save 100?
PEOPLE, PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT. THIS SITUATION IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND IN NO WAY WOULD EVER HAPPEN. THE POINT IS NOT TO FIND A WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION, BUT TO DISCUSS WEATER AN INNOCENT PERSON SHOULD BE KILLED IF IT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY OTHERS.
Anyway, haven't you guys seen the Dark Knight? Read my second edit for a slightly better story.
*EDIT*
Okay, I know this is ridiculous, but you get the idea. Also, something to think about: would you have the GUTS to kill the guy? Is it RIGHT to kill him? Would you feel more guilty if you didn't or if you did?
Anyway, continue, I want to see where this goes.
*SECOND EDIT*
Gah! I can't get people to understand this! Okay, lets change up the story. There is a crazy guy. You have a gun. Crazy guy (who you cannot kill at the moment) will kill 100 people (he has a bomb) unless you kill some innocent person within the next ten seconds. Got it?
Comment