Killing Strangers to Save Your Family's Life

Time for hypothetical situations that could never come true! Yay!

What if someone came up to you and said that you had a choice to make: A weird organization is going to either kill you and four of your family members (or friends, or people you care about) or five people on the other side of the world that you have never met and never would have met in your entire life. You can decide who dies, your loved ones, or the strangers. What do you decide?

Think about that, then move on to this:

The situation's a little different now. Instead of just five people dying, this time, a hundred people are going to die. Either one hundred people from a place you've never even heard of die, or one hundred people that you know (in some sense) will die. First will be you, then your family, then your friends, then people you know (met but weren't friends with), and if that still isn't a hundred people, then people who lived close to you, spanning out until one hundred people are dead. Do you give up your life and the lives of all you care about, or condemn one hundred people to death. You know nothing about the other group that will die if you decide to live. They could all be savages, or they could be close to discovering a new way to bettering mankind.

Think about that, then move on to the final one:

What if one million people had to die? Either you and your family, and so on, die, and then people from the country you currently reside in until one million people are dead, or one million people from some other country die. If you live in the United States, then you could end up killing a million people in Japan. And if you live in England, you could end up killing a million people in the United States. Do you decide to sacrifice yourself and your country's people, or do you wish to destroy a million random lives from some other country?

The choices you made, why did you make them? Are the lives of people you don't know worth less than the lives of people you do know? Would you regret anything, making your choices? What if, in the last scenario, you could decide which country would lose a million people? Would that make the choice easier? Harder?

[size=3]P.S. - I watched Bokurano recently, if anybody notices how these situations and that series are similar.[/h]

It's not really enough information, but I suppose that's the point. The only case, though, in which I would not choose for myself to live, is if there is some severe imparative to keep the other people alive. If I were dead, I wouldn't care what happened to the world, but if I lived, and these other people died, it could screw things up for me.
The first one, with only a few people, will probably always be yes. Very few people I care about at all anyway, so if that many random people I'd never met had to die so that those few and myself could live, I would kill them myself.
Getting into larger populations, the answer is more difficult. Not morally, really, because being objectively moral, it's the same amount of people dying, and without more information on who these people are, it is equally immoral to let either group die.
It is difficult because there is no way of knowing if one in the hundred or million is going to be a viciously evil person on a global scale, or if they are going to end world hunger and cure half of the world's disease. Furthermore, it's difficult to predidict the effects of a million peole suddenly dying. Usually when that happens, it's an attrocity or an act of war. The nation it happens to might assume it some form of chemical warfare or something and decare war on some country they want to blame. In effect, it could start another world war.
On the other hand, I have a better chance of living through a world war than I do of living though death.
So, on all accounts, I would choose for myself to live.
And if I could choose the country to loose a million people, it would have to be either a country full of shits, or a country too full of people. Like China or something.

Sucks for those people I don't know.


Sucks for all those people as well.

Today is just a sucky day for those strangers. It'd be a good day to be an American since I'm not sacrificing myself for total strangers.Since they would be protected only by the umbrella effect.



Why? because I want to live and my survival instinct tells me to prioritize myself over others. I don't know them so I can't make a judgment if they are positive people or the scum of society, but that would have to take into account that I think human life is "special" and "unique". If I got to decide which country took the hit I believe it would make my decision easier.

In each choice, since it is presented in abstract and you don't know who will die on one side, it is pretty much impossible to attempt to judge the value of one set of lives against another. In the abstract then, all of these lives have equal value, from a moral standpoint.

I think a moral solution to these situations, considering one set has to die, would be to flip a coin, or use something similarly random. Thus, both sets of lives have an equal value in abstract, both get an equal chance to live in abstract.

Still, in every situation I'd have to believe I would choose to save myself and the people I know, out of selfishness. With a small group, one might be able to try and say that since the people one knows are general decent people, not criminals, contribute to society, etc(if this is true; it is in my case), the average value of these people to society is probably higher than the average value of 100 random people, but even that is not certain. On the scale of millions, it becomes statistically insignificant. Still, choosing for oneself is not immoral in the sense that the other group of people dying is more evil, but it is unfair to that group in that they get to no probability of survival.

I think increasing the number of people involved makes it harder in the sense that, no matter what I chose, I would feel responsible in some part for getting all those people killed.

i d easily condemn the others...
the only possible drawback is that you have to live with a bad conscience, but i m a master of rationalization, so that shouldnt prove too much of a problem.

and people i dont know are not worth less...per se. just to me. and in the last scenario i would not chose its country, the random factor liberates at least some of my conscience. if i had to chose one i think it would make it harder...but then again, i might just chose vatikan city...so what happens if that country doesnt have 1 million people? i guess the rest of the kills become void, right?

Vatican is spelled with a c.
And if you choose it, and the equation required a million people, I would assume that it would spread outward from that point untill it had a million people. So if you choose Vatican City, it would go out to the entirety of Rome.

not where i live...
but in latin which is what is probably its native language, and of course in english which is the language of the board...anyway...

either way, i d still choose vatican city...it would obliterate most of the catholic clergy, although as of late i think the protestants are even worse...
unfortunately they are too decentralized to strike a crippling blow with the given predicament

I think only Baltic and non-latin-influenced Germanic languages would spellit that way, so you live in...central to eastern Europe or other Indo-European areas?
But, that doesn't really matter, it's spelled "Vatican" in the Vatican, which is the only reason I made a point of it. Didn't mean to be a dick.

I don't see the reasoning behind killing millions of Italians to kill a handfull (relative to total population) of clergymen, most of which probably aren't raping little boys or being otherwise devious. It would have a far larger negative recoil than posiive. So it would not be a logical choice to make. Outside of personal satisfaction, I guess.

i dont see a reason to kill a million people of any country
but if i had to pick a country it would still be them...
probably, either that or the country that either wastes most ressources per capita or has the lowest life expectancy.
besides, the original thought from which i derived my decision was based upon that it would not break national borders if the kill count wasnt achieved.

Still, even if it does not spread beyond the borders of the ciy, and you consider all clergy deviant, there are inoccents inside the city. The only rational advantage would be that it is a small area, so less people would have to die. In these situations there are a hell of a lot of variables, really, so it's difficult to come up with an answer that is both simple and rational, aside from self-peservation at all costs.
If you choose people you don't know to die, the reprocusions have a chance of destroying billions more, including yourself. But if you choose yourself, you WILL die.
So the imparative of self-preservation leaves a clear choice.

well...that is one thing

some people i know are innocent as well. maybe...
nah, not really, you see. i dont consider anyone innocent. well, maybe prenatal babies...but then again, i dont consider them people...so...

the way i read it either way one million people are gonna die, you just get to chose wether its you and people closest to you or not...

Seconded.

[size=10]First one seems relatively easy.
Let em die. By em, I mean the individuals on the other side of the world. When it comes down to it, I've grown somewhat heartless and perhaps selfish.

Second one wasn't really too hard.
I'd let the one hundred people die that I don't know of.

And finally:
I'd let millions I don't know die.

Why?
I guess when it comes down to it I really am a bit selfish. Perhaps it's because during my time here nobody's ever gave me much so I feel no need to give back to others.

As for the country, I'd pick at random, or maybe even pick the US but exclude my family. If more people were to die here, there would be more to go around.... most likely.

...a selfish post.[/h]

1)/2)/3) There are too many factors in this life or death equation, for on the spot thinking, yes I'd rather save my own skin and those of close people. However if I was capable of getting information on who those 'other' people were, what they were capable of and what the hell it had to do with me and people I knew.

However in another case I would do something along the lines of a screw you comment and face my death, or say to hell with it and wonder why there was a super powerful organization capable of killing people on whim then asking them who should die.

If such an organization would exist I'd rather have myself and the people I know killed before they get to face such a decision, granted I'd be making the decision for them and they apparently don't have any say but in this case that's that I would do if given time to think.

I can't make a rational decision on who lives or dies just by "You die or they die" even for a hypothetical situation things don't fall into place.

On another note - To live is to live by your choice, living under another rule is a death sentence in my personal opinion.

I don't think this is that difficult of a question, to be honest. Why in hells name would you sacrifice yourself and your friends instead of ten, a hundred, or a million people who you have never met, were never going to meet, and most likely do not care about?

It's like Firey said. Survival Instincts.

Besides, we have upwards of 5 billion people on the planet. What's one, ten, even a hundred million beside that figure?

For the sake of clarification - if the total number of people dead did not reach the right number, even if all people in a country or place died, then the wave of death would continue outside the country or place. The important thing is the number of people dead, and it is nonnegotiable.

I'm really liking the responses, but how about we add a little spice? For all the scenarios, what if you could live, but your family would die? Would you rather condemn the random people or your family, if your life was safe?

Hmm...

Well, to be honest, I hate my father and my relatives because they are all bigoted, mindless fuckers. [size=10](Quite unlike me, I assure you. I'm just heartless and constantly annoyed.)[/h] However, my little brother has yet to do anything wrong to the world, and I consider my dog as close to me if not closer then my little brother. Them, I would not condemn. If I could have their safety, as well as my own, guaranteed, then I would let my family rot at the drop of a hat.

Well, maybe I might try to catch the hat, for old times sake.

But, if we talk preference, then I'd rather people I did not know died. Not because of any empathy, but because it would cause quite a bit of bother for me if my relatives suddenly started dropping around me.

Random people would die over my relatives, I have no ties to them so what would I care? Simple.

if my life was safe i would still kill off the strangers, and for the matter of myself or my family is a tough one, for i have a 10 year younger sister and that wouldnt be really fair, now would it...
either way, how much is included in this whole family? core family, i.e. brothers and parents (what about half brothers?), or cousins and uncles as well? what about 2nd, and 3rd degree?