Saving or sacrificing?

I was reading and a question popped up to one of the protagonists. He was faceing a large invasion that could possibly kill billions. He was asked if he would sacrifice millions of people through a superweapon to save those billions and end the invasion. My question is if you were given that responsibility that nobody would take, what would you choose? Does the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Or would you give up your loved ones to save thousands of strangers? This question made me think for a long while, and I'm still looking for an answer.

all i can say is i wouldn't push the button and i wouldn't judge if someone else did.

Ah, the age old question of Utilitarianism

I don't think I could ever destroy life myself, not on that scale...

I don't see the needs of the many vs the needs of the few...

I see people vs people...

Numbers are not so significant to me...is someone's life worth less because they're unlucky enough to have ended up being in amongst the 'few'?

If it ever came to it, I have the right to choose to sacrifice my own life...but do I have the right to choose to sacrifice those of others? I don't believe that I do...

Once you put yourself in that position you become God - weighing up people's lives, deciding who is more important.

If someone else wants to play God, then fine...but the idea does not sit right for me personally...

In my opinion, the answer to this question is based on how human beings view themselves being responsible for deaths. Your book's scenario is just like the classic train scenario - you can save a train of people and sacrifice one person, or save that one person and sacrifice a train. Take a look at these two possibilities:

1) The train is going towards a cliff drop off and you can pull a lever in order to divert the train towards the safe road, running over an innocent civilian there.

or

2) The train is going towards a cliff drop off, but you can push this obese person in front of the train to stop the train due to its "flesh radar" ( :dry: bare with me )

What would most people do? In most cases, a person would likely choose the first option, to pull the lever and divert the train towards the civilian, instead of pushing the obese person in front of the train. But why?

As mentioned, this has to do with how people view themselves being responsible for deaths. As you further distance yourself from responsibility of death, the situation becomes more favorable than ones where you are very much directly responsible for death.

So, in the first example, when you pull the lever to divert the train, your mind tells you that you aren't "directly" responsible for killing the civilian, because the lever distances yourself from the death.

But in the second example, when you push the obese person in front of the train, you are directly leading to someone's death - there is no "lever" or device to stand between you and that person's death.

In other words, devices end up being "shields" between the killer and the victim.

This can be related to how soldiers view killing people. At first, soldiers are EXTREMELY disturbed by the thought of killing someone, which is why they are taught to distance themselves from the enemies: calling the enemies "animals", for example, wearing thick armor and helmets, and using a gun instead of knives or bare hands, for example.


In regard to your original question, I really don't know what I would choose to do.

I would have to be presented with the circumstances in my own life to know for sure what I would do. Likely, though, I wouldn't address it like this. It would just be action. I would just do it. I mean, it's a reality right this second that I could choose to dedicate my life to solving the "death by monsoon" problem we have all over the world with storm proof housing or something and if I did so I could save hundreds of thousands of lives at the meager expense of my own. But I haven't jumped up to do that, and no amount of personal involvement from me is going to stop monsoons from happening. Happening to be the one who pushes the button doesn't really inspire judgement from me. The concepts that particular person is dealing with is beyond them. Either way, huge upheaval and loss of life will occur. These things happen.

Interesting. I like the examples that Sean brought up, but my question would be why someone would feel it was their obligation to even do any of it? You didn't cause the train to go out of control. It's a cold opinion, but you don't have to put yourself in that situation.

Kind of like a crazy person with a knife telling you to kill a stranger or they'll kill your wife and whatever you choose will be your fault (which is correct if you choose it is your "fault" what happens) but you don't have to choose and if you don't then what happens is the crazy person's fault. Does that make any sense?

Or maybe there are more choices than those three? Can you jump in front of the train with the flesh radar yourself? Can you pull the lever and yell at the dummy on the tracks to get the hell out of the way? Could you use that super weapon to create a crater between the fighting parties saving them both?

This is the Kobayashi Maru test.

Change the perimeters of the test. Even the smallest event can create a big change.

I would choose the greater good or the least evil....IF they were my only choices. This isn't real and never will be. If I had that kind of power I'd find a way to preserve life.

Wendaline wrote: Interesting. I like the examples that Sean brought up, but my question would be why someone would feel it was their obligation to even do any of it? You didn't cause the train to go out of control...Could you use that super weapon to create a crater between the fighting parties saving them both?

Well, if you're Master Chief, then you most likely could. :laugh:

Haha, sorry, too much Halo 4 recently. I'm going to try Crysis 3 tomorrow.



Carry on with the original topic. :whistle:

This is going to sound callous/cold...fire the super weapon and wipe out the invasion force...now if possible I would rather assassinate the forces leadership and end things with as few casualties as possible...for me it's not a matter of having the right to end lives or not, but a matter of having the strength to take that burden on and carry the weight of those deaths the rest of your life...maybe it's just because I served in the military and my family has a long military history...but I think most military/exmilitary would make the same decision...

V you're a far sweeter/kinder/gentler person than I'll ever be and I admire that, the world needs people like you...unfortunately it hasn't advanced to the point where it doesn't need people like me ...

The train...why not pull the brake lever, stopping the train...if not possible then reroute...anyone foolish enough to be standing in the middle of railroad tracks has bigger issues...seriously how do you not see or hear something that big?

The crazy person with a knife...well I hope they're faster and stronger than me otherwise it may be them that ends up dead (or me, or both)

The kobayashi maru ...I like that idea(tweaking the parameters) I think it's noticeable that in each scenario I at least consider that option...for most decisions I look for all available options...but sometimes all the options suck...then you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't...