PDA

View Full Version : Would You Pull The Trigger?


Fallen Angel_Messiah Of Black Roses
October 18th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Lets say that you have the chance to kill a person that you know in the future will kill Five hundred thousand people, lets also say that this person will find the cure for three types of cancer.

1. Lung cancer
2. Heart cancer
3. Brain cancer

Would you pull the trigger knowing that these three cures would not be found for another seventy years otherwise?

Waffle-San
October 18th, 2007, 07:21 PM
I yes..no...um AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I could never really bring myself to fire a gun So I think I'd jsut follow him around until the cancer thing.
Wait if I knew he was going to cure cancer than couldn't I know the cure.

I'M SO CONFUSED. It's probabley NO though because I detest guns and am not a fan of violence.

Allstories
October 18th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Something like 7 million people die from cancer every year. In killing 500,000 people, you save nearly a billion.

Sammi
October 18th, 2007, 08:25 PM
Don't kill him, of course. Go for what will save more lives in the long run. His contributions to society will far outnumber the deaths he causes. Besides, screwing with time isn't a good thing, and I'd rather not kill people.

Did he kill all those people looking for the cure? If so, then it's an even easier decision to make, because it's not like those deaths were that bad compared to if he just decided to kill 500,000 people one day because he was bored. Cures have to be tested; they just happened to die. Chances are the subjects knew what they were going into.

I had a similar thing come up in my writing: stop fighting to save three people or continue to fight to possibly save thousands? Of course, it does have its differences, mainly personal sacrifice and a big "if" -- there was a large chance the person could die in the process and everyone loses. But that's what I first though of when I saw this. I'm a geek. :B

Gummy
October 18th, 2007, 08:28 PM
Hmm... it really depends what you mean by the question. Are you saying that by killing all those people, he was able to find the cure? Or are both completely unrelated?

For the first, I would pull the trigger. I really don't know why, but I guess you can compare it to why people don't like Stem Cell research. Although in the long run it will benefit mankind, it's just too inhumane at the moment. For the second one, I wouldn't pull the trigger for the same reason Allstories won't.

Something like 7 million people die from cancer every year. In killing 500,000 people, you save nearly a billion.

Romance Hero
October 18th, 2007, 08:33 PM
I'd pull the trigger. cures for cancer could possibly, POSSIBLY come earlier than 70 years.

Oh wait. There is a cure for cancer already. Doctors just say they don't so they can continue to leech money off you. It's not really their fault, its the FDA.

Voltagenic
October 18th, 2007, 08:34 PM
I wouldn't just pull the trigger.

I'd freaking SLAM that damned trigger.

sims796
October 18th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Something like 7 million people die from cancer every year. In killing 500,000 people, you save nearly a billion.

It doesn't matter. We as humans don't have the RIGHT to decide if those 500,000 lives are more valueable then those 7 million. They aren't toys.

Humans are not good enough to decide matters of life. At least not so easily. Only God can. If you don't beieve in God, it still stands that we as humans are not good enough to say "his life is worth more than hers".

Romance Hero
October 18th, 2007, 09:02 PM
show me where god has taken any responsiblity other than causing wars among his people. Not only god, but the god of all other religions. It's been since medieval history that religion is the cause of major conflict throughout history. Science is really all that can explain. So don't move the subject from science to religion, seeing as how it is doubtful that Gods have the cure to anything but temporary faith.

Gummy
October 18th, 2007, 09:07 PM
show me where god has taken any responsiblity other than causing wars among "his" people. It's been since medieval history that religion is the cause of major conflict throughout history. Science is really all that can explain. So don't move the subject from science to religion, seeing as how it is doubtful that God has the cure to anything but temporary faith.

It seems the only one changing the subject is you. That was completely unnecessary and disrespectful to religious people (like me). Could you please edit that post to make it a little nicer or on topic?

sims796
October 18th, 2007, 09:08 PM
For crap's sake, don't start. As I said, if you don't believe in God, you must still agree that regular people, ordinary humans has no place in deciding the value of life. Do not dare to try and stomp on my beliefs, as I did not stomp on yours. Read my whole post.

EDIT:To Romance Hero. Sorry, late post.

Voltagenic
October 18th, 2007, 09:10 PM
Honestly, the value of human lives are all equal. Each human means something.

No one should have the right to exterminate people based on one choice.

Romance Hero
October 18th, 2007, 09:14 PM
No apology required, but still... nvm i wont bring it up again. I have much to say on this issue, but it has to be said elsewhere.

And I'm not kidding when i say science will prevail. killing the would-be killer and then confronting the FDA with enough power would rat out that they, in actuality know how to cure cancer. All these "donate to research" is bogus, and the doctors who only became doctors to help, obviously do not know either.

sims796
October 18th, 2007, 09:18 PM
Honestly, the value of human lives are all equal. Each human means something.

No one should have the right to exterminate people based on one choice.

Ah, at least he (and Glajummy) understood my post.

But this is the scary thing. As I said, as humans, we cannot decide one life over another. But by sparing 500,000, we lose 7 million. That is a very tough decision.

Also, Romance Hero, if you are not religious, you don't have to be. No one ever said so. But why react so strongly? I never understood that. I believe one thing, you believe another. Thats fine.

Azonic
October 19th, 2007, 04:01 PM
I wanna pull da trigger >3

Romance Hero
October 19th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Ah, at least he (and Glajummy) understood my post.

But this is the scary thing. As I said, as humans, we cannot decide one life over another. But by sparing 500,000, we lose 7 million. That is a very tough decision.

Also, Romance Hero, if you are not religious, you don't have to be. No one ever said so. But why react so strongly? I never understood that. I believe one thing, you believe another. Thats fine.

You're right, I came too strongly. I practice law, it's a habit of mine to welcome verbal combat. ^^

♥~*Abby*~♥
October 19th, 2007, 04:53 PM
UMMMMM, IDK!

such a HARD desciosion.

id probably tell those 500,000 pple 2 flee cauz there gonna get killed and let the guy cure cancer.

but here's a question. YTF would a guy who cured cancer kill 500,000 people?

Romance Hero
October 19th, 2007, 04:55 PM
UMMMMM, IDK!

such a HARD desciosion.

id probably tell those 500,000 pple 2 flee cauz there gonna get killed and let the guy cure cancer.

but here's a question. YTF would a guy who cured cancer kill 500,000 people?

the most ULTIMATE form of guilt, and possibly remorse. :D

Xairmo
October 19th, 2007, 04:57 PM
i guess i would shoot him....not 100% sure tho

Rebellious Treecko
October 19th, 2007, 05:22 PM
Aw man, my brain hurts. X(

500,000 people killed, that wouldn't be worth it for the cure for cancer.
Some scientist would probably find the cure before then anyway.

But I would feel bad shooting somebody, even if he's "evil".

Tr@ce
October 19th, 2007, 05:44 PM
No, definitly no.

In the long run, it would save more lives. It might depend on the people he killed, though.

Let's say, perhaps, he killed a person that also discovered all those cures, and maybe even more? Than that would alter my decision and I might pull the trigger.

diamondpearl876
October 19th, 2007, 06:12 PM
No... not only for the fact that I'd never be able to live with myself, but I'd be saving more lives in the long run.

Warheart
October 19th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Um..no. I wouldn't kill anyone *Before* they committed a crime in any case xD

You know who claimed to have killed people before they "comitted crimes?" Charles Manson. You don't want to be like Charles Manson now, do you? >_>

xD Plus so many more people die of cancer that after a while, that cure would have saved more lives than the 500,000 lost for it =/

~Dai-kun~
October 19th, 2007, 06:24 PM
I'm not a kind of person who would live my life knowing I killed someone...I'd beat the living tar out of the guy and force him to give me the cures! Or else I will find someone with the courage to kill!

Manaphy1128
October 19th, 2007, 06:25 PM
I'll put the gun to his head and tell him to write the fricking cure, then when he does, shoot him anyway and claim fame.

No, I wouldn't shoot him. Mostly becasue I very much loathe guns and I want to blow them up or something. Guns--I would never use one unless I would die otherwise.
(I know it's a little selfcih to think that way, vbut everyone has at least one selfich thought)

Marthmaster
October 19th, 2007, 07:31 PM
I agree with the fact that i'd kill somebody even if he is evil. The only person i'd kill without a doubt is Osama Bin Laden.

Anyway:

You kill him, you save 500,000, and you run the risk of the cure for cancer not being found for 70 years. and since about 7million people die from cancer every year, that's 490 MILLION people you're condemning..........jeez. It's really hard to say to be honest.

All in all, personally i don't think it's a fair question, but it's just me.

Ullion
October 19th, 2007, 07:34 PM
It seems the only one changing the subject is you. That was completely unnecessary and disrespectful to religious people (like me). Could you please edit that post to make it a little nicer or on topic?

From what I read, he merely stated that beliefs in gods and difference in religion has caused years for a LONG time.
And that is a fact. I doubt he was bashing you in anyways, or at least on purpose. You merely looked at it the wrong way, so please think things through from different sides before ordering someone else who is YOUR EQUAL what to do (in reference when you told him to edit his post) as his was relevant and not needing of change. He stated his opinion and some facts to back it up, so don't go telling him what to do.

I am not saying I disagree with religion in this case, however, mentioning religion DID seem to me to change the subject because this was on the belief if you thinking 7 billion lives is better than 500 thousand lives. If you say "every human is equal" that is a lie, you and everyone else knows it for a fact. Everyone merely says it to act like a 'good person'. Look at the world around you, hey, you don't even have to do that: Look at what you yourself have done in the past; or your friends, or anyone you know in real life. Mainly things are discriminated, and it is nearly impossible to stop treating humans as unequals to other humans. Why? Because everyone has certain opinions, beliefs, morals and views on other people. If someone believes different things as you, has a lower IQ, isn't "nice looking", isn't strong etc, you think more lowly of them. Its human nature to do these thigns, and we ARE humans, so you or anyone else can't change that.

Another key inequality, with rising feminism occuring, the idea behind it is to make men and woman equal. Well thats failing, in both ways, IMO. In some cases, woman are treated higher than men, as from so many people's views, the men have to act nice to the woman, open doors first for them and let them walk through etc etc etc. I could really go on, but I don't feel like it. Then theres the otherside where men are treated higher than woman. For example, if you teenage girl goes around having sex with so many guys around the school, everyone labels her as a 'slut' and a 'whore' but if a guy goes around and has sex with many girls around the school, people call him "King" and "Stud" (yeah, oldie terms, ftw).
Oh, and sorry for the strong language and cheezy examples, but it is true and I had no current ideas on other ways to word it, mon apologies. D;



ON TO MY OPINION, I say let more people die. Mainly based off my personal beliefs. The way I see the world, humans are merely killing this place off with our ideals and consiouses. If less humans existed here, the more blissful this planet would be. Plus, I'm a sucker for violence. :3

However, I feel it necessary to go on to the view of "all humans are equal". if so.. then 1 human = 1 human. Simple math right there. Lets take it a step further:
What happens if there are two humans to one?
well if 1 = 1
Then doesn't 2 > 1? Seems quite simple and obvious to me?
Now, lets put it in terms of the numbers stated earlier in this thread.
500 000 people to 7 000 000 000 people.
Last time I checked, similar to how 2>1: 7 000 000 000> 500 000 and by quite a darn bit. So being equal, the 7 billion is a much better result than 500 000. Again, quite simple math.



And as a footnote (I guess? DX ), I am again sorry if I bashed anyone here (well, maybe I'm sorry, as I don't see why I should be x: ), however I am truely sorry about the language I used, I hope it is accepted, because I have no other idea how to reword those .. 'naughty' words. x:

The Infinite Devil Machine
October 19th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Something like 7 million people die from cancer every year. In killing 500,000 people, you save nearly a billion.

I share the same sentiment. Still, why would the 500,000 be killed? Experimentation?

Fallen Angel_Messiah Of Black Roses
October 19th, 2007, 08:36 PM
No, The 500,000 was just him killing for sick pleasure

Vindog223
October 20th, 2007, 07:10 AM
Id kill him after he makes the cure.After he makes the cure ill take an M4 and fire away

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
October 21st, 2007, 07:16 AM
I won't kill him because those cancers are the leading causes of death in america



:t354:TG

Romance Hero
October 21st, 2007, 07:53 AM
but by the times 70 years pass, mankind, as we are, would probably find something to compensate and find an alternative to dying to disease. How stupid is it that we are the most advanced species on the planet and we are still susceptible to sickness? Before the end of the first half of the next century, we would most probably find a cure, so kill this clown now. It's not like you stop him and he finds the materials for experimenting the cure in jail or even find a job in medical science after having a criminal record. I say he dies the instant I see him.

sims796
October 21st, 2007, 07:58 AM
but by the times 70 years pass, mankind, as we are, would probably find something to compensate and find an alternative to dying to disease. How stupid is it that we are the most advanced species on the planet and we are still susceptible to sickness? Before the end of the first half of the next century, we would most probably find a cure, so kill this clown now. It's not like you stop him and he finds the materials for experimenting the cure in jail or even find a job in medical science after having a criminal record. I say he dies the instant I see him.

Its not stupid-just tremendously ironic.

Đ a r κ
October 21st, 2007, 08:07 AM
Most people would choose an answer that would save the most people, but shooting someone doesn't always mean that they die on the spot (Unless it's to the heart >> ) I'd most likely shoot him, but in the arms or some place where he wouldn't be able to cause any more harm. Then again, without arms how do you do research o.o;; Um, well I guess the only thing to do would be to inform the police and get him sent to jail, then once he's learned his lesson ( If he did) he can start his research. Sure it'd add a few years but it's better than killing so many people.

Alter Ego
October 21st, 2007, 08:13 AM
I wouldn't pull the trigger, obviously. Why? Because if I allow this kind of 'preemptive strike' policy (I.e. dealing out the punishment before the crime has been committed) I'd be sticking my nose into some seriously shady ethics. If we want to maintain any kind of sanity in the justice system then crimes must be committed before anyone can be punished for them. O= I'm opposed to the number justification since that opens up another can of worms (Such as the classic transplant case, but that should really be a poll of its own so I won't get into detail about it here).

Romance Hero
October 21st, 2007, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't pull the trigger, obviously. Why? Because if I allow this kind of 'preemptive strike' policy (I.e. dealing out the punishment before the crime has been committed) I'd be sticking my nose into some seriously shady ethics. If we want to maintain any kind of sanity in the justice system then crimes must be committed before anyone can be punished for them. O=

the justice system... in some countries, are anything but squeaky clean. lol.

Alter Ego
October 21st, 2007, 08:20 AM
the justice system... in some countries, are anything but squeaky clean. lol.

And where precisely did I say that they were 'squeaky clean' as you put it? Kindly refrain from sticking words into my mouth. <.< Allowing this kind of practice would result in a 'Wonderland court' (That is, one where it's 'off with your head' before you've even done anything wrong.); at least with the current system they have to build up a case (fictive or otherwise) based on things that have already happened in order for a verdict to be passed in an even halfway functioning court. Besides, this is a hypothetical question so whether or not real world courts live up to their claimed goals is completely irrelevant. =P

TwilightBlade
October 21st, 2007, 08:28 AM
I wouldn't shoot because I don't have the guts to.. o.o But I guess I'd rather keep the guy alive to find the cure for cancer. I'll just slap him a few times since he shouldn't be killing people. Mad scientist or what? :<

Amoeba
October 21st, 2007, 08:41 AM
Well, first of all, I'd want to find out if he definately will kill people. My being there in the past could cause a chain reaction of events leading to him NOT killing 500,000 people. But if it seems like he's going to do it, if I'm sure, which would probably for me have to be so sure that he's seconds away from doing it, then I'd shoot him.

A cure for 3 cancers of a high mortality rate would lead to overpopulation.

Cancer is not pretty, but neither is global poverty.

Alter Ego
October 21st, 2007, 08:59 AM
Actually, if you do kill him then he won't kill those people (Unless he comes back to haunt them from beyond the grave or something silly like that), which means that you've shot an innocent person who would have found a cure for cancer. Another reason for the 'don't do it' option, I guess. x3

~Shaymin~
October 21st, 2007, 12:41 PM
AAAAAAAAH YOUR GIVING ME A HEADACHE! O_o

IDK!!

Gary, the Magic Fairy
October 21st, 2007, 02:55 PM
You can shoot him without killing him. I'd shoot him in the knees a few times. Most likely wouldn't kill him, but... yeah.

Unless for some reason that could actually cause him to kill half a million people, then I probably would.

You could have said that he was a baby at the time also, just to throw another moral conflict in. xD

I'll put the gun to his head and tell him to write the fricking cure, then when he does, shoot him anyway and claim fame....Genius. xD

The Real AAA
October 21st, 2007, 06:07 PM
um no like one of the poll answers says "No, millions will be saved from cancer"

Klingon
October 22nd, 2007, 04:20 AM
Yeah, if they done damage to me or my family; or even my freinds.

Jaimes
October 22nd, 2007, 09:14 AM
Lets say that you have the chance to kill a person that you know in the future will kill Five hundred thousand people, lets also say that this person will find the cure for three types of cancer.

1. Lung cancer
2. Heart cancer
3. Brain cancer


Few things...
How on earth would you be able to go into the future, you're not Hiro.. XD
More importantly how would a someone who discovers a cure for cancer be a maniac mass muderer... If he was just a crazed muderer and did nothing positive for humanity, then yeah it would make sense to get rid of him.
There is a cure for almost all lung cancers... It's not to smoke. 90% of lung cancer cases comes from people who smoke. To some extent, it's their own fault, they damage theirselves and others around them.
Heart cancers are one of the rarest cancers possible, which if they do occur are usually harmless. The cure for brain tumours would be worthwhile, however.

Eitherway, if a maniac could find out the cure.. so could anyone. A cure for some types was found in the past 4 months, but nobody is paying much attention. I'd shoot him, then use my super time machine go into the future, get the cure and bring it back.. Easy.

Pikaship101
October 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
No way whatsoever!!!...It's too scary.

viridian doubletongue
October 23rd, 2007, 08:12 AM
I'd shoot myself. The person would be so traumatised that they'd never be able to kill someone. Ever.

Captain Arcane
October 24th, 2007, 04:32 AM
Yes, why have people killed that don't even have cancer, then while that guy tries to find the cure, more people would be dying from cancer are dying. The number of people killed and died from him and by cancer would be staggering. Plus, less people die from cancer every year.

So yes, I would pull that trigger.

Tangerine Fox
October 24th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Enh -- Capture, detain, and work with from a safe area to cure cancer. I could kill if I absolutely had to, but the situation here has other alternatives. If you can somehow tell he will do both things, change the set up to avoid the bad and still find the cure. No need to risk the group of people's lives if you can manage to get the same result elsewhere.

Avolition
October 27th, 2007, 10:15 PM
It doesn't matter. We as humans don't have the RIGHT to decide if those 500,000 lives are more valueable then those 7 million. They aren't toys.

Humans are not good enough to decide matters of life. At least not so easily. Only God can. If you don't beieve in God, it still stands that we as humans are not good enough to say "his life is worth more than hers".

Depends on who they are.. as for me, I probably wouldn't. I mean, if you shoot him, you go to jail, and millions more die. If you don't, you're fine, and less people die. You can't possibly say having 500,000 people die is worse than millions. And I'd probably rather be shot by someone than get cancer myself.

EDIT: And what if he only shoots, like, escaped convicts, or other people who are murderers or other bad people?

Crazy Weavile
October 27th, 2007, 10:26 PM
No- mathmatically, I'd guesstimate at least 20 million (probably far more, it's a rough guess) suffer from those cancers. 500,000 is a quarter of that. Ergo, it makes more logical sense not to pull the trigger.