Can the end justify the means?

[bizy43]

i would also do it the other way to save 1 kill a thousand some people are that important not just personal family but i.e. jesus ghandi but also countless others

as for a child thats a toughie
in some situations yes i could but i would find that hard to live with after

and pulling a trigger for real yeah done that to and tbh in the heat of the moment could shoot anyone ish its after thats the problem

 

[jmelech]

To simply answer the question yes but in my view it depends on the value of the person to the society they live in (for now assuming an adult ignoring robbos comment about a child as he/she would have no current value to society).
i.e I wouldn't kill 1 doctor to save 1000 convicted murderers and rapists. But multiple murderers and rapists to save a single doctor is something that I could agree with (just to flip the question round).
But as Robbo said the principle is something I would go along with, pulling the trigger is another matter.
To further deepen things value of that person to you could be increased by personal ties (family/friends). How would it change then? Would/Could you take all emotion out of the equation to form a logical decision about people's lives?

 

[Ali]

what if that one person who was to be sacrificed for the greater good was a child .. does anything change here ????

.

the thought of that made my heart sink did that

 

[slam]

This topic/question is one that I have thought long and hard about, for myself I have no problem with killing one person whether that be man, women or child. Not only to save people close to me but unknown people as well.
Now the biggest question isn't if I could do it but the circumstances surrounding this event and my reaction to it/them.

 

[WihGlah]

IMO you can only accept the principle if you are prepared to pull the trigger yourself.

If I had to kill one guilty person to save many others I would do it without hesitation, then go right to lunch.

If I had to kill an innocent person to save many others I could do it - but I would feel bad about it.

On the other hand I could also rationalise killing a large number of people to save certain important individuals. (like my kids or a guy who's going to cure cancer.)

I wonder how people would react if you had to kill yourself to save the "many". Is that easier?

 

[Buddha 3]

Can you imagine how Churchill must have felt when he had to decide whether or not evacuate Coventry when it was discovered the Luftwaffe was about to bomb it?
Evacuating would mean saving the lives of hundreds of men, women and children, but it would give the game away to the Germans, informing them that the British had cracked the Enigma code. This would have cost more lives in the long run...

So imagine having to sacrife hundreds of people in one night, to save the lives of thousands over a protracted period, but in unquantifiable ways...

 

[pablo666]

Well it's been a little while since i've posted anything in here, or the forums to be honest, i believe the last time was my obliteration by Missy Q

Given the topic, i agree with what most people said based on the whole you could justify killing one "unknown" person to save the live of hundreds, if not thousands of other people. I believe that myself i could, safely in the knowledge that one life given means many are saved.

Many people brought in the factor of the one person being killed being a family member or friend and saying they could not do it. You have to ask yourself, is the love and care for that one person going to justify to you killing the hundreds or thousands of others who would be killed by the saving of that one person, bearing in mind that each and every one of the individuals killed will have someone like you who loves and cares about them that much. Is your singular emotion stronger than the knowledge you ruined that emotion for multiple more people? Would you save your child, but let one thousand other children die?

I think another factor that needs to be considered is the way in which the "x" amount of people who must be "sacrificed" are so done. Putting a bullet through a head might be all fine, dandy and quick, but could you string "x" amount of people up to a cross by there wrists and ankles and leave them there to die such a slow and painful death?

Another topic that i was wondering about is could you kill a stranger, to save a stranger? Neither person means anything to you, you have never met them, never spoke to them so what justification could you possibly have for saving one over the other?

Just wondered what peoples views on this are.

CK

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

The reality is you'll never know until faced with the decision. People walk past serious crime everyday and don't react so breaking the ultimate taboo is never going to be easy whatever the outcome.
The method will also play a big part in your decision making process - up close or from thousands of feet using a drone. Bet you know which you'd rather have.
I once read 'The Executioners Tale' about Albert Pierrepoint, one of Britain's last official hangmen. The man was an absolute professional who treated those he hung with absolute respect, whatever the crime committed, as he believed their death atoned for their crimes and that they would be answer to their maker. He eventually quit on the strength of his beliefs.
I think I'd put the many over the one but if the one was a child it's a none starter. Which ever way I'd be looking for an alternative solution and if it did come to it I'd be doing it as 'humanely' as possible

 

[jitsuwarrior]

Robo,

In respect to your point about killing a child and not being able to... If your child was being tortured by children similar to that of the Bulger case. Would you still think you wouldn't terminate their existence?

I know in my line of work we are given the legal side to using lethal force, we have to conduct judgemental training every 30 days when on Ops to ensure we are still current in our minds of right and wrong, but even then the ends justifying the means comes down to personal opinion at the time in question.

One of my friends after being shot (hit is body armour) actually punched the three guys with guns. Personally I would have dropped all three and dealt with my thoughts afterwards. Some people react differently to others.

I have seen the Parachute regiment in action, as well as a doctor in Pristina Hospital in the height of the troubles back in 2009. Two Serbians pulled AKs on the ward and threatened to shoot all the patients unless their soldier was treated first. The doctor started screaming at them in anger, and took the guns off them, he was stunned they would threaten him in his ward. The doctor in question was carrying a side arm, but refused to touch it. Some people are truly remarkable in the way they will face danger and respond in a way that will stun others.

 

[Missy-Q]

Robo,

One of my friends after being shot (hit is body armour) actually punched the three guys with guns. Personally I would have dropped all three and dealt with my thoughts afterwards. Some people react differently to others.

man, I would have kept firing until I ran out of ammo, and then I would have reloaded, and done it again...