Few for Many

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Is it appropriate to kill a few people to save a larger amount of people? Let's say there is a room of 1,000 people. These people have a disease that causes their skin to turn crimson. They will eat anyone who is not crimson skinned. They are full of primitive rage, good luck killing them unarmed. If you choose not to kill them they will be released into another room full of 100,000 uninfected people. Is it right to kill them? Is it appropriate on a smaller scale or a bigger scale?

[PrimedPenguin]

Well this is a difficult one. The most logical think would be to kill the 1000 if a cure cannot be found. I know their human as well but the causality count would be 1000 instead of 100000

[TheBigUnit]

Quarentine if possible

[Manjusri]

Quarantine until a vaccination is found. If not, kill them.

Any rapidly spreading disease / infection is a threat to not only individuals but humanity all together. If a virus broke out and only those infected could spread the disease, would we release them in to the public just because they're people too? I doubt it.

Medical personnel do their best to make sure diseases don't spread, and that if they do spread they have a way to stop it. However if it came to the point of no return, and the only solution were to kill those infected, i don't think they would have any hesitation towards doing what needs to be done.

[TigerBoy]

Quarantine until a vaccination is found. If not, kill them.

Any rapidly spreading disease / infection is a threat to not only individuals but humanity all together. If a virus broke out and only those infected could spread the disease, would we release them in to the public just because they're people too? I doubt it.

Medical personnel do their best to make sure diseases don't spread, and that if they do spread they have a way to stop it. However if it came to the point of no return, and the only solution were to kill those infected, i don't think they would have any hesitation towards doing what needs to be done.

I totally agree with your view, however I'm cynical about the reality.

The stark truth of such situations is rarely so obvious in the heat of the moment, and emotional choices like this only further delays time critical decisions.

In films there's always that person who appeals to emotion rather than logic and does something incredibly stupid in defiance of the odds. In movies we are taught this ridiculous gamble usually pays off against the odds. In reality I fear we'd also risk having some well meaning fool doom us all by trying to save the few.

Honestly, I suspect we'd be screwed either way in practice.

[Human]

for those saying quarantine it's an example, not the basis of the question

i'm not sure but i think if it benefits more it's generally better

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I'm beginning to think my example is complete and total bullshit. In a real situation the people you have to sacrifice are real people with families and friends. Are you people so heartless that you would take these people away from their families?

[Lost in the Echo]

I'm beginning to think my example is complete and total bullshit. In a real situation the people you have to sacrifice are real people with families and friends. Are you people so heartless that you would take these people away from their families?

Well, if you don't kill them then those crimsoned skinned people will kill the others that have a family too.
Also, you said that the crimson skinned people would kill anyone without crimson skin, so if anyone in their family wasn't crimsoned skinned, then they would kill their family too.

So it would just make the most sense to kill the 1,000 with crimson skin.

[CharlieFinley]

How bout a better, more absolute example? There are 10 people tied up on train tracks about a mile down. They will die unless you push one man in front of the train here. You will never be arrested or in any way held accountable for your actions, except by your own conscience. There is no third option.

Is it moral to sacrifice him to save the ten? If so, do you have a moral OBLIGATION to do so? If not, at what numerical disparity does it become acceptable?

I'd say that of course it's moral, and in fact that one has a moral obligation to do so, even at a one-for-two trade. That said, if the one was someone I love, you could put a million people on those tracks down the line and I wouldn't give a shit.

[Aajj333]

How bout a better, more absolute example? There are 10 people tied up on train tracks about a mile down. They will die unless you push one man in front of the train here. You will never be arrested or in any way held accountable for your actions, except by your own conscience. There is no third option.

Is it moral to sacrifice him to save the ten? If so, do you have a moral OBLIGATION to do so? If not, at what numerical disparity does it become acceptable?

I'd say that of course it's moral, and in fact that one has a moral obligation to do so, even at a one-for-two trade. That said, if the one was someone I love, you could put a million people on those tracks down the line and I wouldn't give a shit.

I do think its moral to kill one to save ten and is a moral obligation to do so

[Castle of Glass]

my process in a biological/chemical disease/weapon out break: quarantine --> try and find cure --> if found, cure --> if not, terminate.

if it were only 10 people with the disease, then i would most likely kill them straight away. but if it the numbers went over 100, then quarantine the outbreak area. but if it keeps spreading, i would start to quarantine the non infected people. and i would start to kill the infected people. if all else fails and the quarantine zones are breached, i would nuke the are. yes i know my process is cruel, but survival comes first.

[Korashk]

How bout a better, more absolute example? There are 10 people tied up on train tracks about a mile down. They will die unless you push one man in front of the train here. You will never be arrested or in any way held accountable for your actions, except by your own conscience. There is no third option.

Is it moral to sacrifice him to save the ten? If so, do you have a moral OBLIGATION to do so? If not, at what numerical disparity does it become acceptable?

I'd say that of course it's moral, and in fact that one has a moral obligation to do so, even at a one-for-two trade. That said, if the one was someone I love, you could put a million people on those tracks down the line and I wouldn't give a shit.
I'd say that it's the opposite. You have a moral obligation to not pull the lever and allow the situation to play out. You aren't responsible for the ten people being in their predicament, however if you pull the lever you're responsible for killing the man; murderer. The ten people may not have done anything wrong, but neither did the one man. It's a violation of his natural rights for you to pull that lever.

[CharlieFinley]

I'd say that it's the opposite. You have a moral obligation to not pull the lever and allow the situation to play out. You aren't responsible for the ten people being in their predicament, however if you pull the lever you're responsible for killing the man; murderer. The ten people may not have done anything wrong, but neither did the one man. It's a violation of his natural rights for you to pull that lever.

And what if I were to say that only a coward would use that to justify not acting? All that is required by utilitarianism is that there be a net positive result.

[Korashk]

And what if I were to say that only a coward would use that to justify not acting? All that is required by utilitarianism is that there be a net positive result.
That's why utilitarianism is a flawed moral system. It places the good to the imaginary concept of society higher than that of the good to the individual, which is one that actually exists.

[freaktrain73]

Kill the infected, without question. Why have 100,000 dead when you can have only 1,000 dead.

[Fiction]

If these crimson skinned people have nothing but primitive rage, are they really "people" anymore?

With just primitive rage they have no notion of death. Killing them humanely and calmly would therefore cause minimal emotional harm to them, and before they knew it they'd be gone, and the rest of humanity would be saved.

[Texas warrior]

The need of the many out wight the needs of the few.

[Human]

The need of the many out wight the needs of the few.

I agree. How can it be moral to save 1000 people, not 100,000?

[CharlieFinley]

That's why utilitarianism is a flawed moral system. It places the good to the imaginary concept of society higher than that of the good to the individual, which is one that actually exists.

Society doesn't exist? Or, to be less general, the two people lying on the tracks are an imaginary concept? What the hell? Now, if you want to make this a question of agency, I could understand that. If you wanted to say that it's not justifiable to push someone else and that the only justifiable action is to jump yourself, I could understand that. But I've never heard anyone seriously argue that the problem with utilitarianism is that other people are imaginary. Go figure.

[Taryn98]

Kill them and save the 100000. Seems like an easy scenario to me.