 |
|
|
|
| If Killing 1 Innocent Man Could Save The Lives Of 100 Others |
| This is a true story; in the early 1900's, there was a crime committed by a white man, but framed on a black man. The sheriff of the town could testify against the white man, but knew that if he did, the town would riot and kill the black man and anyone who opposed them anyway. What would you do in the sheriff's spot? Condemn an innocent man to death, or condemn 100 others by not doing so? (In actuality, the sheriff didn't testify and the black man was sentenced to death, sad as it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's true, bombing hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved more lives than it claimed |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If I KNEW it would save them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree it is all about safety for the greater masses. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brilliant question. There are a lot of twists you could take in the question to see how the answers
change. There have been studies using hundreds of slightly differing circumstances and the answers
were fascinating.
I would have to be honest and say that I would have done the same as the man in question. What a
horrible decision to make. I feel like a terrible coward now, or perhaps a noble hero. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Under any situation, to a nation, lives of hundred people are always more important compared to only
one person’s life. So, I would like to save those hundred people’s lives. Saving hundred
people’s lives would save hundreds of families and hundreds of future of tomorrow. Apparently it
may seem very aggressive decision but analytically anyone must think about the broader aspect of
such decision, at least from the perspective of nation’s future. From the sheriff’s point of
view though it is desirable to judge the qualities of the innocent person but to avoid greater risk
of riot he also has to kill that innocent person. May be the idea of killing one innocent person
would become a sarcastic gesture to anyone, but I would go for the reality circumstance. Although it
is a fact that one should judge the situation well and then take the decision. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the other 100 were also 'innocent' then yes i would. My reason for this decision is based on a
proverb from The Yellow Emperor. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It would be regretable but if it were to save the lives of many others yes I would probably do it.
Of course I would try and find any possible way out of it first though. But if it was like my best
friend I had to kill I would probably chicken out. I'm only human |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a utilitarian argument. The argument for the greater good so I'll take this side.
If someone has to be sacrificed to save many then this is a viable argument.
I'm not sure that I think this example is a fair example and not from the prospers view as it's a
great debate. Rather I think that the people in question here could have done something to stop
this- they could have appealed to the president, it should never have been allowed.
There are arguments to support the greater good. Perhaps it's better to condemn one person than
hundreds and this has happened in wartime.
It would be a horrible decision to make but you'd have to ask what the consequences for many would
be as opposed to loosing one life. It would be better to save many people than loose them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
.
I would agree with this statement under the right circumstances. 100 against 1 is a big number, and
if I felt that it was important to save these peoples lives, I would. Especially since the 100 of
people have more families than the one man. Less mourning if one man is killed.
Also if it affected something important and moral, I would. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
From the utilitarian point of view, it's all about safety for the greater masses, and unfortunately,
KNOWING that the innocent man would die regardless of how you testify, I would try to save as many
lives as I could. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, this is a slippery slope to go down. Saying you'd kill 1 person to save 100 is like saying you'd
kill 1,000 to save 100,000. Where does it end? How can a person choose how many lives are worth how
many deaths? What gives a person the right to weigh 100 lives more than 1 life?
It all comes down to your principles; can any of you honestly say that you could walk up to that one
and put a bullet in his or her head to save those other 100 people? What if that one person was a
child? This question is easy to answer from a logical standpoint because you don't have to pull the
trigger yourself; you just hypothetically state that yes, 1 person dead is okay when 100 are
alive...but could you really pull the trigger, regardless of the circumstances? I couldn't. I can
see the logic, but I could not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In the end the decision belonged to the black man, not the sheriff. The sheriff had an obligation
to protect the innocent. He should have talked with the black man about the best course of action. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The sheriff has just continued the hypocrisy. Sometimes those 100 people need to die so that balance
can be restored to the system. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No I would not, because then you are compromised and your ability to seek justice is compromised.
The next time it happens you are forced to make the same decision over and over until more than a
hundred lives are lost by not fighting for the truth. When if you had stood up in the beginning
maybe that cycle could be broken. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What is the greater good? Are the ideals of justice no matter the consequence the greater good? In
a country that was founded on a constitution of laws and rights, then these ideals must be held onto
no matter the consequence. Right is right, and fear is not going to change that. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it is the choice of the innocent man to sacrifice himself. Far be it from me to say that
that decision lies in the hands of a higher power, I would still say that decision cannot be made by
anyone other than the innocent person them self. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I would kill the stupid racists. They were retarded for killing the man just because he was black. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How could one kill an innocent man to save the lives of others that have bad intensions anyway, I'm
sorry but why hurt someone from something they didn't due. Piss off a few people so what, but do the
right thing and get the guilty |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It can never be morally defensible to kill one innocent person.
The fact that that person is innocent and in this case was clearly so rests the case against killing
them.
The other people here had to choice not to riot and accept the law. If they chose not to they should
have taken the consequences of their own actions.
The sheriff acted wrongly and should have upheld the law as he was sworn to do. He had no right to
break the law and pander to the mob.
Mob rule is illegal in any country and should be treated as such and dealt with.
This case was a terrible example of the state laws of the US and should have been dealt with by the
federal government and taken out of the hands of the state.
No-one should ever be used and sacrificed like this. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It depends on the circumstances, I would not kill someone if I knew it was morally wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a really good debate and an extremely difficult one to answer so I'll try from the against
perspective.
It seems totally immoral to sacrifice one innocent person under these circumstances above.
The black man was completely innocent and had no-one to turn to for help. The law and the human
rights of all citizens should have stopped this.
I gather that this happened in the so called land of the free and equal i.e. America.
That this situation should ever have arisen demonstrates series flaws in the American constitution
and legal system.
Sheriff, surely could have called on the higher courts and the legal system without his state
jurisdiction to save this poor man.
Under these circumstances - no it's not morally, legally or ethically right to sacrifice one
innocent to save a mob who were acting illegally. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If we look at this very situation from a different point of view we will observe that saving one
criminal will give him confidence that he can commit a crime and get away with it by framing someone
else. Several other criminals will take inspiration from this and they too will follow suit. In this
way by not punishing an offender we encourage several other offenders.
Now by punishing this one person who deserves to be punished riots may erupt against the black man
but with proof the sheriff can support the innocent and satisfy the angry mob’s curiosity as well.
It is not about saving that one man it is in fact about where this injustice may lead to in the
future. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 Jan 2008 16:20
Sign In
