These statements and thought exercises have no actual cognitive value. They are as empty as a statement can get, they have no grounding in actuality. I don’t know if any of these words have much meaning as they are not “things”.
If this was an actual thing to worry about the antisocial condition would have been 1) bred out and be a nonfactor 2) we would have a pill or mechanics that could eliminate the “wrongness” of it or insert the “rightness”. But these situations aren’t things, they are non things - or at best, poetry.
To say that the terrorist is not liable is crazy. It goes against any common sense. The terrorist should definitely be liable for the deaths occuring from his actions.
No one except you is trying to limit liability. You want to say that a sharp-shooter intentionally killing an innocent to “stop the terrorist” is not liable for that death. That is crazy and goes against any common sense. Even the Statist courts are not that insane… remember Ruby Ridge? While the sniper got off for murder, the prosecutors had to invent all sorts of verbal gymnastics to get around it. Even the State courts are not so insane as to say “a sniper can blow away anybody he chooses so long as he has the noble intention of stopping a terrorist.”
Ask the guy who needs to die if his life is worth 10 others. Ask him to kill himself if thats the case. Otherwise you’ve no responsibility to the other 10, nor should you impose that responsibility. That issue is between him and those 10.
What exactly is the function/point/ or purpose of these questions?
These questions are all about justifying killing for the “Greater Good”. More people have died trying to achieve the greater good than people who died by not acting to achieve the greater good. One can argue that a healthy person can be sacrificed to harvest his heart, kidneys, liver etc to save ten lives, but living in such a society would be sick. I prefer living in a society where innocents are not sacrificed for the many, nor would I want to have a society where everyone is microchipped and monitored to eliminate crime, living one day as a free individual, even with the risk of being stabbed, beats living 100 years as a drone.
So to answer your question, if one innocent is killed to save a million (with 100% certainty), it is not justified.
14 children > 1.75 senior citizens? I’m looking at potential productivity of citizens, and I feel that the potential productivity of children (as well as bleeding heart sympathy) make children worth way more than senior citizens. Look at it as 14 children = 1.75 senior citizens, I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m more likely to believe that a child is equal to (or worth more or less) than that of a senior citizen, so in a way 14 children > 14 senior citizens, give or take.