Would you kill a child to save the life of 100 people?

[herbalicious]

I could never take the life of another human being.

Unless it was them or me.

[Ferryman]

Sure, why not.

But we're talking about theortical situations here. Can we also assume there are no possible repercussions such as prison time etc....?

[MilkyPirate]

Short of killing everyone anyway, I need more info. Why would this child cause the death of 100 people?

Actually, killing them all is a better option.

its strapped to a nuke

[say_whut]

what the fuck are you going on about bm

Anyway, I was asked this exact question by my aunties boyfriend a few weeks ago (we always get into deep shit). The scenario is that there is a runaway train with 100 people on it, the controls (changing the tracks) are at your hands. There is a child on one track and the other is broken off which would lead to a crash killing them all. I opted to kill the kid, it would still weigh on your conscious but killing 100 people I reckon would have a far bigger impact on you.

[Laszlo]

To all the people who said they would kill the child: Do you agree that dropping 'The' bombs on Japan was the right thing to do?

[apmje]

Short of killing everyone anyway, I need more info. Why would this child cause the death of 100 people?

Actually, killing them all is a better option.

its strapped to a nuke

Jack Bauer will definitely be involved now.

[kay]

what the fuck are you going on about bm

Anyway, I was asked this exact question by my aunties boyfriend a few weeks ago (we always get into deep shit). The scenario is that there is a runaway train with 100 people on it, the controls (changing the tracks) are at your hands. There is a child on one track and the other is broken off which would lead to a crash killing them all. I opted to kill the kid, it would still weigh on your conscious but killing 100 people I reckon would have a far bigger impact on you.

If the child kept still and between the tracks, the train would probably just pass over it harmlessly.

what if the child was wearing this little number

Child might deserve a chance to live. The parents on the other hand require death.

[unwind]

To all the people who said they would kill the child: Do you agree that dropping 'The' bombs on Japan was the right thing to do?

It's not about right or wrong - it's about necessity. It wasn't 'right', as in the correct thing to do, however it can be deemed necessary to have dropped 'The' bombs on Japan in order to end the war.

Just like it could be necessary to end the life of one child in order to save the lives of a hundred adults who may well go on to produce 1 or more children each.

There is no right or wrong in theoretical situations like these.

Say one of the 100 people was a friend of yours?

Say the child was your mum's best friend's daughter? Or your cousin?

It's not about whether the decision is right or wrong - it's about the greater good.

It's one of those situations that define human nature - if you knew none of the people involved in the situation, and you were not within sight of any of them, I'm sure it would be relatively easy in comparison to the same situation but being in front of or within the line of sight of either the child or the 100 people (or both).

There are soooooooooo many factors you would have to take into account.

[Laszlo]

Yeah, I meant 'correct course of action'. 'Right' was not being used in moral terms.
Poor choice of words I suppose.

I'm not sure the op was asking for loads of factors to be taken into account, just answer the question at face value. But once the question has been answered, then we can add more factors to see where people will draw the line.

As for 'The' bombs, imo, it wasn't right, correct OR a necessity. Maybe continue that in another thread though.

For the record, I voted to kill the child.

[meanmrcustard]

You'd need more detail here really to be able to answer the question properly. But I'm gonna assume you would literally have to kill a child yourself otherwise 100 people would die (somehow).

First off, don't think the fact it's a child matters.

Then you're onto the issue of the greater good. Obviously saving 100 people would be the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (assuming everything is equal and that say, it isn't a 100 seriously sick terminally ill people on their way to Dignitas).

That said, some things are just never morally acceptable, and killing an innocent person is never right. Whatever the consequences.

Personally, I would say the 'best' thing to do would be to kill 1 to save 100. Would *I* be able to kill that 1 person? Probably not. Unless it was a seriously sick terminally ill child on their way to Dignitas.

[Laszlo]

killing an innocent person is never right. Whatever the consequences.

A madman with a rc trigger for a dirty bomb is escaping with a hostage as a shield. You are the only person in a position to do anything and you are armed with a sniper rifle that fires amour piercing rounds. The only shot you have will surely kill them both.
Wrong to cap?

[meanmrcustard]

killing an innocent person is never right. Whatever the consequences.

A madman with a rc trigger for a dirty bomb is escaping with a hostage as a shield. You are the only person in a position to do anything and you are armed with a sniper rifle that fires amour piercing rounds. The only shot you have will surely kill them both.
Wrong to cap?

You could argue it's justifiable, but you'd struggle to convince me that it's ever 'right'. It's a subtle, but in my mind significant distinction to make.

[Laszlo]

Of course i'm not saying one way is right and the other is wrong (of course of course, but this being an internet forum sometimes we have to spell it out for other people), BUT if said sniper was crying about killing an innocent person after it was all over, wouldn't the rest of the world say he'd/she'd done the 'right' thing?

[tuckerlinen]

I would do it

overpopulation is a big problem

and afterwards I would make sure the kid knew that I chose his/her life over the life of 100 others
that kid would do some great things

[kentnz]

What is the method of killing? Do you have to use bare hands?

[Lystric]

not sure if I could kill a kid, need to pull some sort of Batman shit....

"you can't save them both Batman, you'll have to choose one or the other"

then saves them both.

[ILOVEDUBSTEP88]

Depends on who the child was...

[Soiree]

I'd stomp a baby.

[NilsFG]

Kill the kid obviously. If you don't, you don't need to live with the shame of killing a kid, but you need to live with the shame of letting 100 people die because you didn't want to kill 1 little human.

To all the people who said they would kill the child: Do you agree that dropping 'The' bombs on Japan was the right thing to do?

Wasn't right & wasn't necessary.

[NilsFG]

Also wub, if you're making threads like this you should be more specific in the OP imo.
For instance: "You can choose between killing one normal, middle class kid from a loving family or letting 100 people, randomly chosen out of the UK population, die."