Is It Ethical To Kill To Save Others?

Philosophical Questions: Is It Ethical To Kill To Save Others?

Philosophical & Personal Debate

Personal Preservation

To save your own life or the life of your family – family measurable in that specific degree that they have a very personal influence on you and in your life. Yes, there would be no issue.

Assassination

I believe it is ethical to kill those who oppress, exploit, and cause suffering to others. Politicians, leaders of the World Trade Court, and some high ranking members of corporations deserve this kind of punishment. It is in the best interest of the common people to inform themselves of the issues in the world today and act upon those issues in an extreme manner to protect themselves and others. I highly recommend researching corporations such as Monsanto for a start.

Taking one person's life to

Taking one person's life to save 100 others is logical, but emotions might keep us from otherwise making this decision. The further we can keep emotion from these decisions the better. Say the person you were going to kill was some random guy you don't know, and all you would have to do is press a button to kill him/her. This would be a whole lot easier if this person was, say your brother, mother, son, etc, and you would have to strangle them. The second situation involves a huge amount of emotion with most people that would otherwise keep them from making the logical choice.

I'm not saying emotions are bad, they just have their downsides. If it wasn't for emotions we'd be cold hard machines. Emotions are human (animals too) characteristics, and like all human characteristics, they have equal ups and equal downs.

But would it be ethical? Well keeping 100 mothers from crying is more ethical than keeping just 1 mother from crying. Not saving these lives because (in simple terms) "you don't have the balls" to make the necessary decision is selfish. You do not want to get your hands dirty, you do not want to have to go through this, so you are going to let 100 people die.

It is both yes and no..

For me, it is both YES and No, It is ethical in a way that you save one’s life whether you kill someone or not. It is better to kill someone who cause suffering to others than to see someone who suffers from those kind of person. And I do believe that if somebody died or if somebody was killed, it is their fate that brings them to it; it is the end of their life line. And even though they already gone, only the body was died, but their soul reaches its perfection (it is according to the Philosophy of man of Socrates).

But, it is also not ethical in a way that “we don’t have any license to take somebody’s life.” Only God owned those rights to take one person’s life in order to save others who deserve to live more. No one has the right to kill others, and besides there’s another way to save lives.

Feel that if you choose to

I feel that if you choose to kill one to save many that your committing a crime but the amount of necessity can change the morality of the situation giving the killer of one the obligation to do so.

What if...
By Daniel Sokol Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do? Such ethical dilemmas provide classic "experiments" for philosophers. Here the Magazine presents four such quandaries and asks readers to vote on what they think is right. [Magazine note: apologies but we have had a technical hitch with the votes. We've replaced the vote modules, and will add those already cast to the totals.] Like scientists, philosophers use experiments to test their theories. Unlike scientists, their experiments do not require sophisticated laboratories, white-robed technicians or even rodents. They occur in the mind, and start with 'What if...'. These "thought experiments" help philosophers clarify their understanding of certain concepts and intuitions. In the field of ethics, thought experimenters typically present a dilemma, examine the most popular "intuitive" response and then show the implications for real-world issues. But such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people. So to reach a larger group, here are four typical experiments. Readers are invited to vote on how they think they would act in each case. Here is a well-known example: 1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected? The creator of the experiment, Judith Thomson, thinks the answer is "no". It would be generous if you did, she claims, but there is no obligation to stay, even if that means the violinist will die. So how is this bizarre scenario related to the real world? Thomson used the experiment to show that a pregnant woman need not go to full term with her baby, as long as she had taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant. It is thus a "pro-choice" argument. The violinist represents the baby, and you - in the hospital bed - play the role of the mother. If you think unhooking yourself from the violinist is acceptable, but aborting an unwanted foetus is not, what are the moral differences between the two cases? In both situations, you could save a person by bearing a great burden for nine months. One major flaw with thought experiments, especially in ethics, is that they are rarely tested on people. The sample size is minuscule. The philosopher will simply assume that most people think that one option is right (or wrong). Philippa Foot, a renowned British philosopher, believed that if a doctor, about to save a patient's life with a large dose of a scarce drug, was suddenly interrupted by the arrival of five patients each in need of one fifth of the drug (without which death would be certain), then the doctor should give it to the five. It is, after all, better to let one person die than five. Elizabeth Anscombe, another prominent philosopher, disagreed: "There seems to me nothing wrong with giving the single patient the massive dose and letting the others die". As these assumptions about people's intuition are central to the arguments of many philosophers, and as these assumptions can be tested, why not do so? 2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR One of the most famous thought experiments in ethics is "the runaway trolley". It aims to clarify how we should distinguish right from wrong. Here is the scenario with two well-known variations. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch? 3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him? Philippa Foot would say that everyone ("without hesitation") would choose to flip the switch in the first trolley case, but that most of us would be appalled at the idea of pushing the fat man. The philosophical puzzle is this: Why is it acceptable to sacrifice the one person in The Runaway Trolley Car but not in The Fat Man case? Can it ever be morally acceptable to kill an innocent person if that is the only way to save many? Should some actions - such as deliberately killing innocent people against their wishes - never be done? The last thought experiment explores this idea: 4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do? Thought experiments, although abstract, possibly implausible and open to different interpretations, can have important repercussions on the way we think and act as individuals. They raise thorny questions about morality in medicine, war, politics and indeed in everyday life. Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die? Are consequences all that matter, or are there some things we should never do, whatever the outcome? By pointing out inconsistencies in our thinking, or simply encouraging us to reflect on issues we usually ignore, they can sharpen our intellect and enrich our moral lives. They also make for great conversation topics at the dinner table or at the pub. But be warned: you may lose friends as a result. And stay away from caves and bridges. Daniel Sokol is a medical ethicist at Imperial College, London. Add your comments on this story, using the form below. I feel sorry for the five people. Not only have they had a runaway trolley hurtling towards them but also got trapped in a cave. What a day! Laura Kingdon, Cwmbran Surely the answer to the runaway trolley depends on the people involved. If it were the choice between five 90-year-olds and a single 20 year old, it would be right to save the 20 year old who, in probability, had longer to live than the others put together? Or what if those five were criminals and the other was a volunteer worker? Joanthan Kelk, Dalry, Scotland It's interesting to compare this with the Iraq war - was it right through intervention to kill as many people as we have in order to save a far greater number that were dying and would continue to die under the regime. Usually people seem to say, no, as it is us pushing the fat man, despite the fact that five people arguably died through our inaction. Brian, England In the case of the Runaway Trolley Car, I would definitely NOT flip the switch. The end doesn't always justify the means. Jenny, Leeds In the examples given we must assume that all involved people are equal. However, would it be right, good or efficent to kill one superior person to save four lesser people? I do not of course mean by race or any such thing but by worth to the whole. If the one person was a brilliant doctor developing a cure for cancer, would you divert the trolley towards him to save four? What about ten? Fifty? A thousand people crammed onto a train car packed with explosives? Chris Fox, Derby I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man. Robin, Edinburgh Thomson's violinist is not the same principle as abortion. If you choose to disconnect yourself you are in essence withdrawing treatment, that is refusing to intervene to save the life of someone who would otherwise die. In an abortion you're choosing to deliberately end the life of someone who would otherwise live. Kate I would like to point out a problem I have with the direct application of the violinist thought experiment, as presented above, to the case of abortion. In the experiment, if the violinist chooses to stay connected, they need have nothing to do with the violinist once the nine months have elapsed. If a woman is pregnant, and chooses to keep the baby, they will have to bring the baby up - with important consequences for her life, that of the baby, and that of those close to her - or give the baby up for adoption - which again is likely to affect her strongly and will certainly affect the baby. Suzanne Aigrain, Cambridge If the violinist were my son or daughter I would not hesitate to stay connected. (Maybe when they recover they will keep their rooms tidy to show their gratitude!) Jack, Coventry Cave Explorers: I am a caver,and I can assure you that the smaller six people definitely would NOT let Big Jack out first- he'd be forced to go last in order to avoid the very situation described... Jane, Epsom It's your birthday. Four of your friends together buy you one lottery ticket as a present. You win £5 million. Do you share the money with these friends, who only spent £0.25 each on your birthday present? Jagdip Singh Ajimal, Manchester These situations in reality aren't as black and white as a yes or no answer - different people will respond differently and for different reasons, and no one is necessarily right or wrong. However, in reality getting involved in choosing who survives will likely get you sued or arrested! Hannah, Wokingham I really enjoyed the puzzle dilemmas, but I thought that the five people should die in the runaway trolley car as it's their fate; flipping the switch would be intentional murder. Also, if I wasn't there to flip the switch they would have died anyway- so its all fate! Ayelee, London You can only flick switches if you have a perfect understanding of the future, otherwise you might save a serial killer or kill a Nobel peace prize winner. It is an infinitely unpredictable world and philosophical conundrums cannot take account of this. As for Big Jack, he's history, primal instincts would take over from philosophy, the only decision to make is where to put the dynamite. Julian, Shrewsbury Would you injure Rooney and put him out of the world cup, or would you rather Gerrard and Lampard and Terry all were injured? Tak Joss, Guildford

Diary Of A Madman?: The Manifesto of Christopher Jordan Dorner

Diary Of A Madman?

To View or Download "The Manifesto of Christopher Jordan Dorner": click here.

We've become used to the fact that we live in an imperfect Society. It’s actually the reality of the imperfections that we’ve actually become accustomed to. Be it a Massacre in Newtown, or an Aurora movie theater; the recent “buzz” over Drone strikes abroad, or the fact that the United States has a Veteran suicide rate of 22 Personnel a day. That’s one Service Member every 65 minutes… still hasn’t sunk in… Let me try a little harder... OVER 8000 VETERAN/SERVICE PERSONNEL DEATHS PER YEAR!
It’s just unconscious knowledge that, if what we are told is correct, if we all work hard, tell the truth, then good things will come to those who follow “… a prolonged obedience in one direction.” (Nietzsche: Beyond good and Evil: 1973; Eng trans), but there are some exceptions to this rule apparently.
Christopher Jordan Dorner would like to point out that he is one of those exceptions. He feels outraged, wronged, and there is a manhunt out for this man to stop him before he makes even more examples of his uniqueness to getting “screwed over”.

Quote:

… you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous murders and have taken drastic and shocking actions in the last couple of days. You are saying to yourself that this is completely out of character of the man you knew who always wore a smile wherever he was seen. I know I will be vilified by the LAPD and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name.

We’ve all heard “what’s in a name”, but C. J. Dorner seems to have convoluted… diluted the sense of the quote to fit a purpose that just seems a little extreme to say the least. He may not lead a country, but he is quite literally a one-man army. He has skill-sets that have the LAPD so on edge that they have been opening fire at Shadows and Grannies.

Quote:

A name is more than just a noun, verb, or adjective. It’s your life, your legacy, your journey, sacrifices, and everything you’ve worked hard for every day of your life as an adolescent, young adult and adult. Don’t let anybody tarnish it when you know you’ve live up to your own set of ethics and personal ethos.

The previously mentioned skill-set is an extensive military background, that includes Counter-Terrorism Training, EOD Training, Sniper Training, Special Teams, and the list of training goes on.

Dorner wrote in his lengthy manifesto:

Quote:

I know your TTPs (techniques, tactics, and procedures). Any threat assessments you generate will be useless. This is simple. I will mitigate all risks, threats and hazards. I assure you that Incident Command Posts will be target rich environments.

Quote:

“He knows what he's doing," L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck told reporters yesterday "We trained him. He was also a member of the armed forces. It is extremely worrisome and scary, especially for the police officers involved.

Recent incidents, attacks on LAPD, have become a standard bearer for Dorner… stealth, lethality, then attack, and following in the footsteps of his peers, LAPD Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz has been provoking Dorner, as the Police Chief called the slaying a "cowardly ambush" and said Dorner is suspected of opening fire with a rifle about 1:30 a.m. Thursday as he pulled up to the officer and his partner at a street light.
This attack, if Dorner’s Manifesto is any indication, is just the beginning of “the end to LAPD’s corruptive policies and actions” towards good, honest, and hard-working law-abiding citizens.
Quote:
...[I've] exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort. The LAPD has suppressed the truth and it has now led to deadly consequences. The LAPD’s actions have cost me my law enforcement career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09. They cost me my Naval career which started on 4/02 and ends on 2/13. I had a TS/SCI clearance (Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after my termination with LAPD. This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States. I lost my position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon because of the LAPD. I’ve lost a relationship with my mother and sister because of the LAPD. I’ve lost a relationship with close friends because of the LAPD. In essence, I’ve lost everything because the LAPD took my name and new I was INNOCENT!!! XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX all new I was innocent but decided to terminate me so they could continue Ofcr. XXXX. I know about the meeting between all of you where XXXX attorney, XXXX, confessed that she kicked XXXX (excessive force). Your day has come.

Christopher Jordan Dorner is incredibly upset and disturbed… and don’t say “How do you know!!!” I know a person is disturbed when they declare war on Society, and repeatedly say that,

Quote:

Self-Preservation is no longer important to me. I do not fear death as I died long ago on 1/2/09. I was told by my mother that sometimes bad things happen to good people. I refuse to accept that.

I can’t comment at how bad this could get, and I certainly don't agree with Dorner's way of protesting, but if RAMBO, by Sylvester Stallone, is any indication, then LA and the surrounding area is about to become Hope BC all over again.

To View or Download "The Manifesto of Christopher Jordan Dorner click here.

Counsellor To A Student...

Dear CC,

I'm glad you saw me in my office earlier today, and I`m really happy we had our talk.

First, there really are no quick fixes, no shortcuts, but you have to accept this before you can start moving on to an healing phase.

School??? I know exactly how you feel, at the High School level, and at the University level. I had goals for graduating and a plan laid out for me when I started the 11th grade, but two and a half months into it I had to quit because of bullying - it really was that bad. I suspect it had alot to do with my health as well, in that I was small, sickly, never competed in Gym because of my health, and that kind of stuff gets around and eventually you become a target - Grades 8, 9, and 10 came at me like a Banshee with the proverbial hair-brush... but the day I went home I simply said I quit and I'm not going back until something's changed - I already had an idea it was me, but I just stayed quite so I didn't need to start spilling my guts about my big plan. I took the year off, started exercising as my Dr laid it out for me, and took up a couple hobbies. Sure, I wasn't graduating with friends that I'd known for the better part of a decade, but I went back, made new friends, felt good about myself, and what's most important, GRADUATED.
I never went to my Graduation though. We were always dirt poor, and I mean DIRT POOR; couldn't afford the Tuxedo rental, the Dinner, and the kind of ride that I would've needed for my Prom date. I just got "violently ill" those couple of days. No harm no foul.
As for University, my plans got seriously screwed up... I'm not sure if I'll ever get them back on track, but I've got my degrees, and I did the work, with amazing grades. You wanna talk about attendance due to health??? I've literally had semesters, five in all, completely wiped from my perm. record because of my attendance, my health was seriously flawed and I'm surprised that I've got through five years of post-secondary, but it's all good, because I knew from experience, that this was simply a given in my life, and these things will happen, you can only hope for the best, always the best. Patience...
Throughout the last 10/15 years, I've spent alot of time in Hospitals across my country because of my health. BUT, I was always going to make it because half the fight was already won in just knowing that in toughing the hard crap out, you've got the tough crap beat.
I've never let my health prevent me from doing, and getting what I want or felt I needed. I am a Bona Fide Martial Arts expert, with competition experience at the National and International level, and I've never missed the podium. I have an amazing education, and I've been in the Gym the last couple of years getting back in shape doing the weights and Yoga - I really like the Yoga. I've been told I look good, but I know how I feel, and that's good.
What I guess I could share is that you've got to set yourself up with something to say to yourself when you find yourself in certain situations... I have sayings that I recite almost everyday here's a few of them;
Stance, Attitude, Combinations, Ruthlessness, Timing Beats Speed... if you really think about it, you can apply this anywhere anytime.
Another one that I say to myself when I find I don't have the energy or motivation to get things done is... Do the work and things will work out right. I know it's kinda silly, but these work for me...
One I share with a fellow Martial Artist, Renzo Gracie, is "I'd rather have a broken arm than tap-out" This one is one that oozes "Persevere" an incredibly powerful word, that this quote says to me, and I say to myself when I feel like grabbing my ball and just going home.
I guess what the message here is that these things that you are going through now, right now, are not forever... they are temporary; they are not what defines you as an individual but what is going to help make the definition of you when you come out on top on the other side.
One thing I should say, and I say it with caution because I don't wanna offend you, but you sound depressed, and that's something I know a 'little' about. You might want to think about that, because I learned a long long time ago that... 1. I am not alone with my problems - I don't have to be if I don't want to be... 2. I'm no good to anybody if I'm no good to myself, and this is all about my health. My physical, and my mental well being is my first concern... always.
You've got some amazing experiences ahead of you... hell, sometimes I wish I could go back and do some stuff again, but, guess what? It always finishes with the words "... but with my present Brain and knowledge, and all my experiences."
You're young. You should start that diary now, cuz this thing, Life, is a helluva ride, and somebody's gonna wanna read all about it...
Cheers

The Computer Mouse - Imagine Life Without It...

The Computer Mouse: THE GAME
CHANGER!!!
I want you to think of all the amazing, absolutely life changing inventions of the past 100 years.

What is perhaps one of the most significant inventions, is one that you have just used to get to this thread/post. One of these incredible inventions that changed the world was the Computer Mouse.
By pointing and clicking, you can manipulate virtually anything on your screen; do things that people could never have thought possible thirty years ago, but what if I told you about a guy who thought of the Computer Mouse so far ahead of its time, that his patent expired, and he never became the Guy Billionaire that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerberg could have thanked in person.
Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse in 1963, submitting the patent for it in 1967.


Seriously, if you think of a world without the computer mouse, you should have a moderate panic attack and a slight migraine. Luckily, I had a legally obtained prescription for Stellazine and Propranolol to be "ready-at-hand" as Heidegger would say, for the afformentioned "Panic Attack" - I was warned before-hand.
The first mouse Douglas Englebart assembled was quite literally wood and wheels...
Weird HUH???
Some  'Critics' are now of the opinion that the Mouse is on its way out. I think it's one of those things like Pens, Paper, a good Kitchen Knife, or even fuel for your car; It ain't goin' nowhere
Brohiem...