Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

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?

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

I would kill him.
To save 100 people by the death of 1 man I would, it would be better knowing you saved 100 people than knowing you could have saved the lives of 100 people but did nothing to do so.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

I'd kill him for the sake of saving the other 100 people's lives. If somebody is going to kill other people, they should be killed first.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

The premise is pretty ridiculous, if I had such an indirect impact on the situation I would leave it alone. Especially because I probably wouldn't have tracer rounds to ignite the gunpowder.

If I was faced with killing 1 or killing 100 in a more direct way then I'd kill the 1, though if it was a 1 or 100 decision chances are the 1 would be someone I knew and the 100 would be 100 people I didn't, complicating the decision. Looking at it as numbers I'd kill the 1 but chances are any situation where I'd be presented that choice the people involved would mean something more and I would just go on my gut instinct at the time.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

But he's not killing the other people on purpose. Sure, he may not be the best guys to work there, but he hasn't done anything wrong. Really if you think about it, it would be the person-who-hired-him's fault.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Well, if there was a possiblity if this happening, why was he put in charge of what he's in charge of, which ties in with what you said about who hired him, but still. We should be able to leave a person to their own devices and trust them not to, accident or not, kill 100 people.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Well, if you know what he is doing wrong then you can most likely stop what he is doing rather then killing him.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

I don't think it would be necessary to kill him, all things considered.

Assuming we have a clear shot at the gunpowder in his basement should mean that we have a clear shot of his home, meaning that instead of forcing him to die, say, shoot out a nearby window or something similar to get his attention and force him away from his work. If we were a good distance away, one could peg his leg, and if we were close, we could subdue him physically, since being hit with a gun is definitely not a nice thing. Situation handled and no one has to die.

Or just shoot out a power line. That might work, too.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

The point is that you can't. You've got ten seconds.

Really, the whole point is that there are one hundred people that will die unless you kill someone totally innocent.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Shoot the guy with the bomb.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

If you read it, I said you couldn't.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

I would say "Stop!"
If he doesn't stop in 3 secs, i kill him.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

whats so interesting about this thread

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Good chance there's another way to try this situation.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Take a flamethrower and ****ing torch teh werld.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

That guys is ****ing stupid kill him he would probably kill himself knowing how stupid he is. Seriously this discussion is bull**** I could come up with any kind of situation that's entirely out of context. Lets think realistically here what are the chances of someone this stupid doing this?

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

it seems to me that you are a guest at his house because you are so far away from the plant as it's not stated, that there should ALWAYS be a person at the plant to make sure something like THIS doesn't happen. thus making this a truly hypothetical situation. So it won't matter as to the outcome, thus you could let it meltdown as modern nuclear powerplants have something called a sarcophagus to prevent any nuclear radiation from escaping.

So I'd just sit back and have my tea in hand that the kind man gave me when he invited me over to oversea his little project of fireworks end of that.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

Utilitarians would kill 1 person to save 100
Kantians would not kill anybody

Most people tend towards being utilitarians, as evidenced by this thread.

Kilroy_X (He needs to come back to the forum) would suggest that you simply don't do anything and aren't to blame for any of the consequences.

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

i wouldnt do anything, people die everyday. How is it my responsibility to stop it? As devonin said, id probably be like kilroy and just be like "eh whatever i'm going home"

Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?
 

I wouldn't kill him.

If I don't kill him, I'm not effected.

If I do kill him, Theres the threat of being caught and arrested.

Personally I wouldn't want to risk my own well-being.