Killing 1 person to save 10 type of questions

Economics Political Theory
1

I know this was already discussed ad-nauseum, but I’d still like to hear your opinion.

  1. Do you think it is justified to kill 1 person in order to save 10? The assumption here is that the 10 people will necessarily be dead (100% confidence) if you won’t kill that innocent person, and if you do kill him there is a 100% confidence that the 10 innocent people will be saved.

  2. The same as 1, but the confidence is not 100% but 99%

  3. A terrorist is pointing a gun at an innocent man. He will kill that man with 100% confidence. The only way to stop the terrorist is to shoot him, but there is a 90% chance that you will kill an innocent person who is standing in the way. Is it justified to shoot the terrorist?

Thank you!

2

A few observations - but no answers to your questions.

First, there is no such thing as 100% confidence. There is always a possibility of unforeseen.

Second, even if one person believes the confidence is 99%, another may believe it is actually 1%.

Third, imagine a sect believing in the end of the world unless they sacrifice 10 million people.

3

Ugh…

  1. No. You have no duty to act to save those people, but you do have a duty not to kill that person.

  2. It’s negligent, so no… not ethically justifiable, though you’re off the hook 10% of the time if you actually follow through.

You obviously can’t know anything to such an infallible standard in real life.

4

Basically it was said above. If your scenario requires you to aggress upon someone else in order to save any number of 3rd parties it makes no difference. That is no justification. Non-agression principle. Look into it.

Now if you wanted a range of answers you might pose an actual moral dilemma…like..if you could save 10 people you never met, or 1 person you know well, who would you choose.

5

What a joke. I’ve asked Eugene if he would sacrifice Jerusalem if would it save the remainder of Israel and he ignored the question.

6

  1. Let’s say I shoot your mother because she was being held by a terrorist who had wired a building with explosives holding her in a window and the only way to kill him was to shoot through your mother. Will you accept my explanation for shooting, even if there was 100 people in the building? Perhaps if I had waited 3 more seconds, the terrorist would have moved into position where I could kill him without killing your mother. It would not be an acceptable explanation for her death and you would be right to prosecute me for murder even if I said “there was 100% probability those people would die if I didn’t shoot!” The “100%” would be a lie anyway since no one can possibly know what will happen with 100% certainty. So, your “100%” certainty is irrelevant to any questions about right and wrong in this universe.

  2. Certainty is irrelevant. Even assuming we were in a universe where a person could ascertain things with 100% or 99% probability (whatever that even means), intentionally killing an innocent to save others has never been accepted as a justification for homicide and I think it’s obvious why this is the case to anyone but a sociopath.

  3. See 1 and 2 above.

Clayton -

7

Fine. Who in this case should pay the restitution, the terrorist, or the person who kill the innocent? Who shares the liability, and to what extent?

8

  1. Yes. 10>1.

  2. Yes. 9.9>1.

  3. Yes. 1>.9 (because the terrorist is a murderer.)

Source: Math and Logic. Probability and value. There are many unknowns but these are the best options.

9

Is it ok to burn the Mises Institute to the ground if by doing so we would usher in a new era of libertarian utopia?

10

Is it ok to not burn the Mises Institute to the ground if it means eternal totalitarianism and world suffering?

11
  1. and 2.) More of a moral question. Killing is wrong. That being said, you must realize that killing the one person is still murder. I would say give the choice to the 1 man to kill himself.
  1. If it is your bullet, your kill. Unless the terrorist moves him to intercept your bullet.
12

And if he chooses not to kill himself and to let the 10 people die, would you still choose to let them die while sparing his life?

13

If doing so would bring that about then I daresay Jeffery Tucker and Robert Murphy would help me find matches

14

If there was an imminent bomb threat, would you sacrifice Jerusalem if would it save the remainder of Israel?

15

I would sacrifise Jerusalem if I thought that there is a 99% chance that it will save the rest of Israel.

Please answer the following:

“Fine. Who in this case should pay the restitution, the terrorist, or the person who kill the innocent? Who shares the liability, and to what extent?”

16

Strict, individual liability. Each person is only answerable for their own actions and answerable for all their own actions.

Clayton -

17

So should the terrorist be off the hook? I think that’s crazy. It also means every criminal will use human shields in the future. I would not let someone be punished for defending his life even if he killed an innocent man in the process. It is the terrorist who is the cause of this situation in the first place, so he should be liable for all the deaths resulting from it.

18

So if X slaps Y, and this makes Y so angry that he goes and kills Z, is X liable for killing Z? Or does this constitute a new legal cause of action?

In principle, if two people can be joined to the same cause of action, I would imagine that a court would hold them jointly and severally liable, as this is is most likely to facilitate justice, i.e. the compensation of the victim.

19

I wouldn’t want to be around someone who would kill 1 person to save 10. That is pyschopathic. Obliterating a city to save the whole human race, yes probably. Murdering one person to save a million, or at least tens of thousands, perhaps. Killing one person to save 10 like some kind of machine? No. That is sick.

20

Search the historical record for one example in all of human history where sacrificing one or a small number of persons certainly and provably resulted in the saving of lives. It’s never happened, so these scenarios are all bullshit to begin with. My point is that even if it were certainly and provably true that killing a small number of people saved a larger number of people’s lives it wouldn’t matter for your legal defense. Murder is murder. If you did it, you’re liable for it. Case closed. You can’t say, “the terrorist made me do it!” That is not a valid defense unless you’re defending yourself in a government court for your actions as a government official. Then you can shift the blame onto just about anybody and anything for just about any reason. For example, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPXjQHP_2M&playnext=1&list=PLD00FC29618771E01

… was perfectly legal. It’s called a “distraction blow.”

Clayton -