Most People Would Kill 1 to Save 5

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Fu_Bag, Dec 5, 2011.

  1. Fu_Bag

    Fu_Bag Valued Member

    Some researchers have designed a 3D moral test based off of the "Trolley problem": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem.

    In this test, instead of the one person being fat, he's a hiker, as are the five others. The results of the study were that 90 percent of those tested would choose to kill the one hiker for the sake of the many. Here's the news article link if anyone's interested: http://news.yahoo.com/most-people-kill-1-person-save-5-others-161012445.html

    Any thoughts about the self-defense ramifications of this test? It seems to me that a person protecting their family would be doing what 90 percent of the people in this study did - kill the one person for the sake of the many. Anyone around here have enough experience with self-defense laws to know if this is significant? It seems like it would be, but I'd imagine there must be some counters to this argument in a courtroom.
     
  2. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    It would be a lot of "it depends" for me. If it were complete strangers on the train with me, then I wouldn't sacrifice the one. If it was family and friends and it meant that they would absolutely survive. I wouldn't hesitate.

    From a self defence perspective it wouldn't stand. They aren't under any threat from the hiker. It would be murder. I remember a similar story about a shipwrecked crew a captain and two other sailors to stay alive they eat the boy. I believe they were all found guilty of murder.

    It is not self defence.
     
  3. illegalusername

    illegalusername Second Angriest Mapper

    Seems to be pretty accurate.

    In a purely black-and-white world it would make absolute sense to kill one to save the many. But when you start adding the "what ifs" it gets harder to make the call.

    What if you decide to let 5 criminals die and save a brilliant scientist who is going to cure cancer but the scientist ends up suffering terrible survivor's guilt and kills himself? Then you're screwed either way. Hypothetically.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    It's a messed up scenario because we are faced with that situation every day. There are a lot of people on the organ transplant list who will die. So surely, killing one person to harvest their organs and so save several lives is the equivalent of pulling the lever, but we don't. So why do we pull the lever but we don't harvest the organs of the living?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
  5. Microlamia

    Microlamia Banned Banned

    Because it defeats the idea of saving someone's life in the first place. After all if the person you were planning on killing were on the list themselves you'd be looking for organs for them too, but because they're healthy it's fine to "unwind" them to save more than one person?

    Also, with the case of organs, you're not talking about the two option only choice of saving either one or many..you're talking about actively killing one to save that group.
     
  6. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    If you find a living person who has good tissue matches to 8 seriously ill donors, that's exactly what you are doing. You have a choice of doing nothing, and watching 8 people die or sacrificing one innocent to save 8. We don't do it because it's abhorrent, but that's exactly what this test is asking you to do.
     
  7. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    What if the one person wasn't innocent, what if he/she was going to do horrible things and you had a chance to prevent all that, would that make a difference?
     
  8. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    people "say" they'd do X or Y. no one knows unless they actually are in said situation.
     
  9. Rand86

    Rand86 likes to butt heads



    Huh?
     
  10. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    "We don't do it because it's abhorrent"

    Sorry if I'm not being fluid in my writings today, no sleep and all.

    The act of sacrificing, donating the organs of one to save the lives of 5 or so is seen as abhorrent and yes I would agree with this.

    But what if, the person whose organs you can use wasn't innocent, was in fact evil, or would end up causing atrocities the likes of a new Hitler. Would that change your mind?

    Killing an innocent to save five people. Vs Killing someone evil for the greater good.

    Is it still the same? What would you do then?

    (I hope that makes more sense)
     
  11. Microlamia

    Microlamia Banned Banned

    No, IMO, you're talking two different things.

    In one situation you can either save 1 and let 5 die or save 5 and let 1 die.

    In one situation you can actively kill 1 or let 8 die. It doesn't compare to a situation where no matter what, in the ONLY two options that exist, you are stuck killing someone on one side as a result of saving the other.

    In addition, as I said, this would defeat the objective of saving lives at all. Why let you, or me, or any random member of the public walk around alive when there are people of our tissue type seriously ill? And if you decided that killing people to save multiple other people with their organs was okay then the right to life would come down to whether or not you were sick. Logical diarrhea. You'd need some system where people had to earn the right to life a la Unwind where young people who failed at life somehow or just weren't wanted could be used as spare parts.
     
  12. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    This :cool:
     
  13. Rand86

    Rand86 likes to butt heads

    I vehemently despise "what if" scenarios, particularly when they involve taking of a life.

    How do you know the person is evil?

    What, in your mind, constitutes "evil?"

    How do you know what the person would, or would not, do in the future? Are you psychic?
     
  14. Kid Moe

    Kid Moe Peace that don't belong

    Isn't this whole thread one big "what if" scenario? :p
     
  15. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    Ok, forget the what if. Man is a mass murderer,cannibal, rapist, terrorist, responsible for war crimes, plans to do something big killing millions if not thousands of people. (To me this is evil)

    He has the organs that 5 people need. He's even on death row. He doesn't want to give up his organs. I know what I would chose.
     
  16. Kid Moe

    Kid Moe Peace that don't belong

    Oh... And if it was up to me... Killing one person I do not know to save five people I also do not know... Who cares... :)

    But if it was to save someone I care about... I would nuke an entire city w/o hesitation... :evil:
     
  17. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    That I wouldn't do.
     
  18. Rand86

    Rand86 likes to butt heads

    Does he steal candy from children and kick puppies as well? :rolleyes:

    That's a moot point then, isn't it?
     
  19. Kid Moe

    Kid Moe Peace that don't belong

    LMAO!!! Now that would be the ultimate comic book villain... :)
     
  20. Madao13

    Madao13 Valued Member

    Come on man.. Really??
    If it was for an entire city I wouldn't choose to save a person dear to me, but if it was for a couple of dozens of people.. well that's an other story:p
     

Share This Page