Do the ends justify the means?

[Ncik666]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

[Greatest I Am]

I've done some thinking and here's my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I would basically agree but there are some exceptions to this rule of the many versus the one.

Regards
DL

[Ncik666]

Of course you can also add a lot of qualifiers. Such as: as long as its painless, only a fully grown person, or anything else you can think of.

[Confused]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I couldn't do it. Perhaps it makes me weak, but if the death of one child is required for all of mankind, then all of mankind isn't worthy of life. To me, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts. Now, perhaps if I was actually in the situation, I might feel different. I might have the courage to do what you suggest. But could I live with myself? Never.

[Goat]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I couldn't do it. Perhaps it makes me weak, but if the death of one child is required for all of mankind, then all of mankind isn't worthy of life. To me, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts. Now, perhaps if I was actually in the situation, I might feel different. I might have the courage to do what you suggest. But could I live with myself? Never.

But isn't that what triage does? It chooses who gets treated, and sometimes a choice has to be made that one person lives, yet another is passed over to die.

[McCulloch]

The thing that I find interesting about these types of ethical questions is not the answers particularly, but that religion in general and the Bible specifically is pretty well useless to the believer in answering them.

[Greatest I Am]

I've done some thinking and here's my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I couldn't do it. Perhaps it makes me weak, but if the death of one child is required for all of mankind, then all of mankind isn't worthy of life. To me, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts. Now, perhaps if I was actually in the situation, I might feel different. I might have the courage to do what you suggest. But could I live with myself? Never.

If faced with a true decision you would do the right thing.

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

[Ncik666]

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

Thats something pointed out by Richard Dawkins. If heaven is the domain of the dead and you're supposed to meet untold happiness there why are so many christian people afraid of death?

[jasonm1848]

Strange if you can't live with one death on your conscience but can live with many more. You forget that Heaven is the domain of the dead.

Regards
DL

Thats something pointed out by Richard Dawkins. If heaven is the domain of the dead and you're supposed to meet untold happiness there why are so many christian people afraid of death?

simple
ecc 3:11
[11] He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

other translations render the word used for word as eternity or time indefinite. but when mankind was created he was created to live forever with forever in his heart. As a creature of this world we have this world in our hearts. and the though of abandoning it completely was never meant to cross our minds. Humans fear death because death in something unnatural for them contradictory to our creation.

now to answer the questions of this thread the broad general answer is one man already died to save all life and killing one child to save all life would effectively make that child a new Jesus, contradicting all Christian religion as well as most non Christian religions but strictly for the sake of argument i will give three answers . answer one will be the Christian answer for all questions number two will be my unique answer for each removed from all faith and preconceived notions with slight justification and number three will be a combination without justification.

regardless of method used and circumstance. (ps. question 4 is lame so i will ignore it.)

1)no. In Gods eyes all life is precious. from children in the womb to the elderly and for a human to take another's life for anything other than the self defense or the defense of another is strictly forbidden.

2)yes. regardless of the innocence of the child is not taking its life to save your own including the rest of the world or even just a bus full a children a variation of self defense of the defense of others. what loss is 80 years of life compared to eternity for all

3)yes. If one child's life can redeem the lives of all creation then that child's life is equal to the value of all other life. therefore the one taking that life is also taking the sin of all creation upon himself. Taking that innocent child's life would make all human suffering your own, and you would become something far worse than the devil could ever be. If you're asking if I would become a monster to in turn be the defiled savior of all life, then yes i would take that burden.

[Confused]

I've done some thinking and heres my question. We'll take a really far out example first:
1) If you had to kill one child to save all life in the Universe (including us) could you do it?
2) If you had to kill one child to save all life on Earth could you do it?
3) If you had to kill one child to stop all disease and give humans eternal life could you do it.
4) If you had to kill one child to save a bus load of other children (at least 20) could you do it?

My motive here is to see how far people might go. My answers to all of these are yes. I wouldn't go further than 4 though. I have always believed in the many over the few,
I was wondering what others thought on this subject.

I couldn't do it. Perhaps it makes me weak, but if the death of one child is required for all of mankind, then all of mankind isn't worthy of life. To me, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts. Now, perhaps if I was actually in the situation, I might feel different. I might have the courage to do what you suggest. But could I live with myself? Never.

But isn't that what triage does? It chooses who gets treated, and sometimes a choice has to be made that one person lives, yet another is passed over to die.

I don't triage children. But even when I did, the mindset wasn't who gets treated and who doesn't. It is who has the greatest potential for successful treatment? Those have priority. Now if those with the least potential are still alive afterwards, then all efforts are made to successfully treat them. But the treatment isn't in response to the greater good. It a reaction to the most logical of all possible outcomes. No one is actually written off, though this is likely more of a coping mechanism type of thought to rationalize our choices that a reality.

Perhaps this is rationalizing the choices but still justifying the means to the ends.