Yes/no.

I don't value people's life the same. It's as easy as that.

Doing nothing (by not killing 1) is not taking the moral high ground. You can not absolve yourself by saying "it's not up to me to play god". Doing nothing is also an action. The statement of the moral question does not care, it is absolute. Say the question was stated such that you had to actively kill the 100 people. Would it change your answer?

Foedan

United States6 Posts

September 02 2011 18:01 GMT

#43

No to both questions, since I don't believe that killing innocents is ever justified. Although the utilitarian argument seems reasonable on first inspection, I find many of the implications extremely troubling.

ChinaLifeXXL

United States365 Posts

September 02 2011 18:08 GMT

#44

The answers SHOULD both be a 'no' so you you're not the one killing anybody but it gets tricky because 100x that amount dies as a direct result.

I voted yes to both cuz I think Ip Man would do the same.

Ip Man kicks alotta ass, you guys.

ymir233

United States8275 Posts

September 02 2011 18:28 GMT

#45

I don't get why this situation has to be forced into a deontological/consequentialist perspective. Once either branch of normative ethics are picked, there's going to be a million people doing the whole "fuck why don't we just moral calculus everything in sight" or "lol what are you going to do when 2 rights clash" thing. So why don't we just do a middle of the ground perspective based on our initial values?

LlamaNamedOsama

United States1900 Posts

September 02 2011 18:48 GMT

#46

On September 03 2011 03:08 ChinaLifeXXL wrote:
The answers SHOULD both be a 'no' so you you're not the one killing anybody but it gets tricky because 100x that amount dies as a direct result.

I voted yes to both cuz I think Ip Man would do the same.

Ip Man kicks alotta ass, you guys.

Are you kidding me? Ip Man wouldn't say yes or no, he'd go and kick ass and save the 100 through wing chun. Duh.