[ange7]

Originally posted by Tom

Same

But out of the options you gave it would be B, only because I'd rather live with the guilt of killing 1 person than being responsible for 30 people. But its not really a choice because if you dont people will die anyway, so either way death is involved.

Yeah Tom I would go for option B too but there's no right answer ... it's just a test to see at what point you would kill in cold blood.
Your right...either way people die yes but it is still a hard choice In option B you actively choose to directly take a human life in cold blood where as in option A your hands are clean but your indirectly responsible for the deaths of 30. So to answer it you need to weigh up the moral repulsion of taking a single person's life versus the "greater good" that would come as a consequence ie 20 get to live.
Oh and lol Netto.. option C would be shoot the commander!

[lily.]

I think I'd take option A.

I couldn't kill an innocent, even if it were to save the rest.

On the other hand..

See, that's a difficult one ange

[Lauren]

Ange, I'd take option A but it wouldn't be an easy choice - and there's a chance that if I was in that situation I might change my mind.

[ange7]

Originally posted by Lauren
Ange, I'd take option A but it wouldn't be an easy choice - and there's a chance that if I was in that situation I might change my mind.

Yeah I think buddhists, devout christens, peolpe with VERY strong and uncompromisable moral code would go for option A. Despite option B having a far better outcome for all, and despite the old man pleading with them to kill him so his family can live, option A people would feel the culpability and directness of their action more.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ange7

Yeah I think buddhists, devout christens, peolpe with VERY strong and uncompromisable moral code would go for option A. Despite option B having a far better outcome for all, and despite the old man pleading with them to kill him so his family can live, option A people would feel the culpability and directness of their action more.

Out of interest what would you go for?

[ange7]

Originally posted by Tom

Out of interest what would you go for?

like I said I would go for option B too but there's no right answer. It's just a logic problem that points to whether a person is more idealistic( option a) ie with high unbending ideals
....or pragmatic (option b) somebody who will compromise for the best result and is willing to be more flexible with their ethics and ideals.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by ange7

Yeah Tom I would go for option B too but there's no right answer ... it's just a test to see at what point you would kill in cold blood.
Your right...either way people die yes but it is still a hard choice In option B you actively choose to directly take a human life in cold blood where as in option A your hands are clean but your indirectly responsible for the deaths of 30. So to answer it you need to weigh up the moral repulsion of taking a single person's life versus the "greater good" that would come as a consequence ie 20 get to live.
Oh and lol Netto.. option C would be shoot the commander!

Oh hell It could only work if I get the ruthless dictator, never mind B then. Unless I could tempt him with some rare plant species in return for all 30

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by Dark&Twisty
I would actively seek out and kill someone who had taken my children's lives. If someone took my kids' lives, I'd dedicate my life to taking theirs.

And, yes, it would be pre-meditated, and yes, I'd hand myself in to the police afterwards.

When I read the awful stories about fathers who murder their kids then fail to commit suicide, I wonder how the mother manages to carry on. I'd make it my mission in life to find him and kill him slowly.

Does that make me a sociopath? lol

Just read that and have to say I feel exactly the same, I know I would make it my lifes work to find someone who killed one of my children, they would never enjoy life again if my kids couldnt.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Angiebabe
There would never be a good reason to take the life of another innocent life, cept to save others from certain death.

Even then, I still think I'd miss the perfect moment to strike leaving the descision to late to save anyone in order not to have the burden of killing someone on my conscious forever.

So if you had the chance to kill Hitler before he went on his murderous crusade (assuming you knew what he would have done in history) Would you not have killed him to save the lives of millions!!!!!!Just wondering!!!!!!!

[AngRemembered]

Originally posted by bananarama

So if you had the chance to kill Hitler before he went on his murderous crusade (assuming you knew what he would have done in history) Would you not have killed him to save the lives of millions!!!!!!Just wondering!!!!!!!

The clue here is "INNOCENT LIFE"
so your question is easy (given the bonus insight to his future)
I'd have shot the bas*ard before he could stretch his arm out

[bananarama]

If you or family or anyones life is going to be lost at the hands of a cold blooded killer the only right and respectible thing to do is to save inoccent life by taking the life of a pointlesss killer......It's a no brainer.......Never allow evil to win over good if you have the capability to prevent such.....

In such circumstances there would be no need for guilt feeling......

As a society we cause the death of sick and inoccent people by turning away expensive treatments because we gobble up finite finacial rescources on criminals that contribute nothing but bedlam to society......Is that a moral decision. I don't think so.......

[MR.K!]

Originally posted by Chewy
Since this is a hot topic on the forums at the moment.....

Would you ever take a life? If so why?


I have to say, the only times I would ever kill, is in self defense or in revenge, I would never be able to murder any one in cold blood, or by planned murder

i think it depends. I would never intentionaly murder anybody, obviously, but if a close friend (etc) was suffering from a long illness and WANTED to die then i believe i would want to help them, the problem is that euthanasia is illegal in britain, so i would at least have to consider it before i made a decision.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Angiebabe

The clue here is "INNOCENT LIFE"
so your question is easy (given the bonus insight to his future)
I'd have shot the bas*ard before he could stretch his arm out

That's better but you would have to have beaten me to it......