(Due before we return from Fall Break.)
Referring to the book "Justice" answer the following:
There are times when the only way to prevent harm to a large number of people is to hurt a smaller number of people. Is it always permissible to harm a smaller number of people in order to prevent harm to a large number?
I believe that it is okay to harm a small number of people in order to prevent harm to a large number of people. I believe that, in this case, the pros outweigh the con's (going by the number of people), and I think that regardless of the fact that you might not like the outcome either way, it would end up benefiting more people than it would do harm unto. It's simple as that. Now that's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this rule, because there may be a time when certain circumstances make this view point unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteMuch like Josh just said, I think in some occasions, it is better to harm a small percentage to save the majority. One major example I can think of is finding a cure for cancer. You will lose some from different treatments just not working the way researchers hope, but in the end, finding a cure will save millions and millions of innocent lives each year. But in some cases, harming a smaller percentage isn't the right way to go because it will effect how others might view a case.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe harming a small number if people is okay, but if it's for the safety of a larger number of people, then it's acceptable. Like what Kaytlin said, finding a cure for a disease is an example of a time where it's okay if a treatment doesn't work because eventually you will find the right one and save a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteHowever sometimes it's difficult to save the side with the greatest amount of people. I'm not sure if it would be better to go ahead and save a small amount of people who you know for will live, or a large group of people who you don't know if you can save, but you could still try.
DeleteThis is a difficult question for me to answer because, as I can imagine most people feel, I don't want to hurt anyone for any reason. If I were put in this situation, I feel like I would have to assess everything before I made a choice. For instance, if there were ten very old people who would die if I chose to save one or two children, I would probably be ok with allowing the elderly to die instead of the children because they have lived their lives and are likely more ready for death than the children are. But in most situations, I feel like numbers would matter more. Saving one hundred lives instead of a couple could indirectly lead to saving many more, if they were to have children later on, and it would ultimately make many more people happy than sad. I know this is an awkwardly worded response, and I'm sorry about that- responding to this topic is kind of hard and awkward in itself.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe if is never an easy decision, on weather you should or shouldn't risk a couple peoples lives for several peoples lives. I do not think this is a situtation anyone would want to be in, because you know you have to hurt somebody, and I know that I would have a huge problem doing that. I also would have a problem, basically playing God, because I don't believe any one person should have that much power. Though when thinking about it deeply, I suppose if the situation helped more people than it hurt I would save the several people, and hurt the couple, though I probably would want to be apart of the group hurt, because then I would not have to live with the guilt, but this is honestly something that is so hard to think about, and something I pray is never a situation that I am in.
ReplyDeleteI always think of Batman: The Dark Knight when I'm confronted with a scenario like the one in this question. Batman had to choose to save one group or the other because the Joker made it impossible for him to save both. I think it's a great scenario to talk about because it forces a person's morals to come into question. Do you value numbers more? Or do you value all life, big or small? I don't think it's permissible to hurt anyone for any reason, but when you aren't left with the option of saving everyone, I tend to go the libertarian route and say that I shouldn't tamper with the option of who dies. In the scenario of the train and choosing whether one person or the other dies, I would walk away and let things occur as they would have. I know that may seem crazy, especially when peoples' lives are at steak, but I simply don't believe I have the right to decide who lives and who dies. A quote by Aristotle pretty much sums up what I believe about this whole ordeal, "The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival." It may seem cruel or unusual of me to believe, but I believe it nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is acceptable to cause harm to a smaller number of people to avoid harm to a larger number of people. I believe that while neither is a good alternative but I think that you need to create the most happiness to the most amount of people and causing harm to the smaller group fulfills this. I believe that this is a situation of number that makes something okay that normally would never be okay so you would have to save the greater number of people because it is a moral obligation. I believe that in this situation as a human you have an obligation to save the largest amount of people that you can especially in this situation. So because of this it is always permissible to hurt a smaller number of people to save a larger number of people from harm.
ReplyDeleteI do think it is acceptable to harm a small number of people to help out a larger number of people. Although, that larger group of people would have to be exponentially bigger in number otherwise it wouldn't be worth the risk. If you had the lever to a train to make it go in either direction, left or right, and there were people on each side tied down and can't move, what do you choose? Well I know I would look to see the size of the amount of people on each side. If one side had 10 people and the other side had 11 I would just let the train go on how it would if I wasn't there. Although if one side had 5 and another had 11 I would switch the train over so it heads towards the 5 people. This is how the amount of people change the aspect of a situation.
ReplyDeleteI think it ultimately depends on the situation. Like Jeb said in class, I don't believe that we have the authority to weigh the value of other people's lives, but in the moment, it seems wrong not to make some sort of judgement call. But for me, it's not necessarily about numbers, but utility or value. If our hypothetical train was hurtling towards a group of 100 convicts, and I could pull a lever to send it towards a group of 10 children, the obvious choice would be to save the children, even though a larger number of people will die. But that's getting into the business of judging the value of other human lives, which is a level of power that I don't believe any individual was meant to exercise.
ReplyDeleteWhy have so few of you responded?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this to an extant, I feel like in some cases it is the most reasonable thing to do, I'm not saying that it is right but it is a more of a value thing. But yes I do feel like I would save more people instead of the smaller group.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that you should always choose to harm a smaller group of people over a larger group of people. My reasoning is that saving more people might not always be the best option. To either save 70 serial killers or 5 priest, either save 15 terrorists or prime minister of Great Britain, either save 30 gangsters or the president. In all these scenarios I would choose to save the group of fewer people compared to the larger group which were undesirable. And when you say you would save more people because of a numbers game they always forget all other factors except how many people are there to save. They forget about contributions or usefulness. Lets say there is 3 banker CEO's you could save or 10 janitors would really save the 10 janitors. Lets take the aspect of getting rewarded for saving the bankers and you have the chose to save one group over the other and their is no personal benefit if you pick one or the other which would you choose. I would choose the bankers because they have more usefulness and more contributions that could make to society and if they died there would be a power vacuum.
ReplyDeleteI think that in some cases it is better to harm a smaller number in order to save more people's lives. For example, if you have no way of saving everyone and you have a way of taking a few lives in order to save many more, that is something you should morally do. The only time that this decision would be extremely tough would be if the smaller group of people in the scenario were people you're close to (family, friends, etc.) and the larger group of people was made up of random bystanders. I think in this case, even though the people your close to make up the smaller group, pretty much every person would choose to save them over the larger group of people that they don't know. I think this is because people sometimes base their morals on what they value more. Obviously, people value their loved ones more than a random group of people. Overall, I think that with random people, saving more lives is better because the value of, say, 10 lives is higher than the 5 lives you would take, but the value of 5 of your loved ones' lives are higher than 10 random people, even though the number is higher
ReplyDeleteI believe that if you have to harm a small group of people to save a larger group then it is okay because I believe that say 10 loves are more valuable than 3 and in the long run it is saving more people than if you had just saved the 3.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is difficult for us to harm anyone. It is just not in our human nature to decide who's lives are more valuable. The only time that I ever find it to be appropriate to harm a smaller group is when they consent to it. It is not our choice to determine when it is their time to die. However, if I was put in an instantaneous decision about who to kill I would probably make a split second decision to kill the smaller group, however, I would have just as much remorse and regret no matter the size of the group because it is still a loss of life.
ReplyDeleteEverything prior has been entered. YES, you may still post for a late grade!
ReplyDeleteDetermining whether or not it is right to kill a large number verses a smaller number is not our call. Yes, I would kill the 1 before the 5, but I would feel guilty because that 1 person still had a family and a life that I just stole from them. I believe that nature should just take its course and if 5 are going to die then 5 will die. A higher power determines who lives or dies. Not us.
ReplyDeleteI think the greater good needs to be spared so, I would kill a smaller amount of people before the larger amount.
ReplyDeleteI believe that killing or harming in any type of number of people is morally wrong, the smaller number or larger number of people still have the same value as humans. So I don't believe that killing the smaller number to save the larger number of people is right. The choice I would make is to let the event happen the way it was intended to, even though there would be a larger number of lives lost which is devastating, I believe it wouldn't be our choice to make on the matter
ReplyDeleteI think it is wrong for any innocent person to be killed, they have done nothing to put anybody else's life at risk and they should not have their life taken for no reason. I do not believe it is always right to harm a smaller group of innocent people to prevent harm to a larger group. If the small group was not involved in the problem they should not be brought into it to prevent harm to the larger group involved.
ReplyDeleteEntered everything prior...
ReplyDeleteNo matter how many people there are theres no reason why any innocent person should die. Whether its a smaller number it would still being taking lives. I believe that God has a time when people should die no matter what amount. Along with some other posts if the smaller group isnt involved in the sistuation they shouldnt be brought into to the larger involved group.
ReplyDeleteTo some people, yes, killing a smaller amount seems more permissible than killing a larger amount. Personally, I would choose the smaller amount because it seems not so devastating than a lot of people dying. Then if I were to take this philosophical event into reality, that one person probably had a family, and now, because of me, that family does not have a father/mother/guardian. I would feel awful knowing that I just put this family into a spiral of depressing emotions. Then again, I also did save five and/or more other families from falling into a spiraling train of emotions. In the end, I believe no matter what choice we make, somehow some way, it will impact someone's life.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is better to hurt a small amount of people than it is to hurt a larger amount of people. All of the examples that we had in class on the Utilitarian worksheet I agreed that the smaller amount of people should be hurt to save the larger amount. My main reason to say that it is permissible is that the smaller amount does not die in vein. Yes, they do lose their life, but they died knowing that they helped someone else live, which I think makes their death better. In conclusion, I believe it is always morally permissible to hurt a smaller amount of people for the good of a larger amount of people.
ReplyDeleteEntered...
ReplyDeleteDepending upon the situation the answer may differ. But in a general sense quantity is more important. The goal for all occupations that save and protect citizens is to save as many lives as possible right? Well, if you save more lives that is letting multiple people accomplish more things in the future. That's giving the opportunity for more babies to be made, which is more lives. Saving 5 lives over 1 life means less grief and more opportunities. There's more good than harm.
ReplyDelete