Okay, I'll answer your question then. I don't know. Depends on the situation.

Frankly, if I could ensure world peace by killing 63 people, I probably would. Sometimes one individual has to make a serious personal sacrifice for the good of those he cares about. I don't care, per se, about humanity, but there are humans that I do individually care about that could be saved. I would gladly lay down my sanity and happiness to commit such an atrocity that truly fulfilled that promise.



Uhm... that's why this is Tilted Philosophy...


Why couldn't you just be the 63rd person then? Suicide is, technically, murder.


Mmmm... beer (and not just any beer, damnit!)

in the context of the question i think it ment killing 63 other people but it didn't say if you would feel guild in a perfect world

Just a thought: for 63 deaths to bring about world peace, those 63 people would probably have to be high-ranking politicians or really evil people (Bin Laden, for example). If it were a random group of 63 hicks, the whole thing becomes absurd (why would killing them bring about world peace???).

Now, if the deaths of 63 people (important or not) brings about world peace, I wouldn't have that big a problem with it. Thousands of people die every day, and 63 people on the grand total of 5 billion humans is nothing. You may kill 63, but you save millions - I'd say that's some pretty positive results. Now, if my statement about the nature of the people involved is true (i.e. they're not very people nice anyway), I would go for it. In a few years, nobody will remember what happened, and the rest of humanity can finally move on, damnit!

eh, just take 62 volunteers and yourself. Then everybody wins. Well, except for the 62 volunteers, and yourself. ;(

62 bad people, 63rd would be you since you killed all thoes people :P

The question isn't "would killing 63 people bring world peace" it's "If you were assured of world peace by killing 63 people, would you do it." Obviously the whole notion is implausible to begin with, but that isn't the point. I think the main question here is whether you subsribe to Utalitarianism or Kant's categorical imperatives.

Someone like J.S. Mill would say that the long term benefit to society/humanity of such an action would outweigh the short-term detriments, therefore making it an acceptable deed. The action doesn't matter so much as the end result.

Motive --> Action --> Consequence

Now if you were to look at it from Kant's perspective, he would say that the deed would be morally wrong and unacceptable because you are using the 63 people as means and not ends...a big no-no accoding to him. The consequences/results would not matter because the deed in itself is wrong.

Motive --> Action --> Consequence

As for me personally, I still haven't decided whether I would do it or not. :D

I'm thinking along the lines of this, would it really be a good idea?

Ummm...how about the military? How do you think soldiers justify their killing? Police, the death penalty - don't all of these have a fundemental "because its for the benefit of many" rationale for killing? Whether 1, 62, or thousands, even millions - the *real* question here is: Is killing a justifiable means to an (any) end?

I'm sure that I could almost always construct a situation or argument where nearly everyone would say "Yes". The real argument comes from trying and determine the frame of reference or judge who provides the ultimate point of view. For example: If I construct a situation whereby a man is holding your infant child at knifepoint who has told you that you have 10 seconds to either kill him or watch your child be gutted alive - you'd probably kill him. To YOU it was the right thing to do...its YOUR child. Does that make it right? Sure - to your child and you.

That's a good point, tiberry. However, the soldier or the parent in your example kills as a practical matter. Killing to achieve an immediate end is one thing. Killing to achieve an abstract idea such as "world peace" is quite another. I would say, as you seem to say, that while in certain circumstances killing can be justified, the premise laid out originally in the thread does not warrant mass murder.

Peace will never be achieved, accept it, killing 63 people will only result in at least 63 other people (asuming that the first 63 killed had only one person who gives a shit for each of them) wanting to kill you or kill others who think or look like you. I believe that we MUST try to achieve peace, but peace, as PERFECTION, can only be sought but never achieved. (i asume you are talking about WORLD PEACE, like in no wars, no violence, etc...)

Assuming that World peace is actually peaceful and not 130 countries agreeing not to bomb each other while they go on with their own opressiveness. If people ARE peaceful, and not Forced to be peaceful. If everyone was equally wealthy, healthy and free then Yes, I could remove 63 people from this world but the peace would have to be peace that I cannot possibly explain.

I disagree with the whole concept, say Hitlers view of a uniform society would have eventually lead to a world of equality and peace, while millions died in the process, was it really worth it? What number is acceptable? And what utopia would you be willing to settle for, 1984 could be considered quite the peaceful society, but at the cost of humanity itself?

I disagree with the whole concept, say Hitlers view of a uniform society would have eventually lead to a world of equality and peace, while millions died in the process, was it really worth it? What number is acceptable? And what utopia would you be willing to settle for, 1984 could be considered quite the peaceful society, but at the cost of humanity itself?

I disagree with the whole concept, say Hitlers view of a uniform society would have eventually lead to a world of equality and peace, while millions died in the process, was it really worth it? What number is acceptable? And what utopia would you be willing to settle for, 1984 could be considered quite the peaceful society, but at the cost of humanity itself?

I have got to go with the "Only if I get to pick 'em" side of this.

I'd give Ustwo and O'Reilly a head start.

(Kidding! Wouldn't kill Ustwo or any TFPer, and there is no way O'reilly gets a head start.)

Seriously, though, 63 people (my picks or no) plus my sanity is a fair price for world peace, not that I am even into self sacrifice, but this is way over the top in the whole cost/benefit analysis.

From a religous viewpoint(not nessicarily mine), isn't this what God did with the flood? and if God is perfect, then it must be right to take life for peace...

Just a thought...

Philosophically, the numbers are right for such an act. Personally, no way, that's just too much blood to live with. Especially not if there were women and children. Even if they were volunteers- sacrifices who knew that their deaths would mean life for thousands more, I couldn't do it. Who could slay such noble people?

Your kind always has a love for the camps ;)

Would I kill 63 people to ensure the rest of the world lives in peace? Sure, why not.
Would I kill the rest of the world to ensure 63 people lives in peace? Sure, why not.

If there is real peace that will last for enternity, any price is feasible.

But that is not the reality is it? Instead we have people who are telling us that killing 63 people will ensure world peace when it will not. Anyways, let's all keep on killing.

Kill all but 63, place them on 63 different islands across the globe.

Disco.

Find 63 people I don't like and I'll kill them for free.

welcome to the SUBJECT OF PHILOSOPHY

It's not a great question, because "world peace" is one of those fuzzy phrases. As somebody else said, does that mean that all wars stop but the authoritarian and abusive regimes that are currently in power, would stay in power?

But the real question, as I see it, is, would you kill several dozen people who meant you no personal harm if doing so saved humanity, or the part of it you care about, from some unspeakable evil? Hmmmm.... I'm a cautious sort, so I'll take the fifth on that one...

I think it would have to mean everyone gets lobotomised and has a shot of morphine with each meal.

I would not kill anyone. I would go to my death and hope that at least 62 others would follow me for this noble cause.

If we had world peace, why would we need goverment to protect the people?

Because peace comes in many different forms, you could have happy go lucky hippie harmony peace, or their could be government run 1984 style peace.

No....I think world peace prehapes isnt as great a *blessing* as it might seem.
I might add just for starters that if there was world peace and there was no violent act committed in the world today that this world would be majorly over populated at this point. And the human race would instead break out of world peace by millions being killed out of starvation, plague, theft.....

"World Peace" is a completely ambiguous term, rendering the initial postulation nonsense.

I definitely would. If the peace for the world was what I have imagined. It would be well worth it.

World peace is something you promote to 10 year old kids at school because everyone else realises it is not viable. A world where you wouldn't be able to express anger, hatred or envy?
I wouldn't want to live there.

for a better than 40% chance at lasting world peace??? I'd do it without hesitation or regret. It's purely an equation of exchanging values for values.

I would do it... but what do you mean by world peace. Not matter what you do there will always be conflicts... and what about the police? You won't need them anymore, therefore u make millions lose their jobs. Hard Choice.

I can not justify killing in any circumstance but two, for self defense(and that is when you kill the person that is trying to kill you not a random third party to save yourself) and if the survival of the human specie depended on certain people dying.
So to your question no, and to explain my reasoning, firstly when someone tries to kill you they loose their right to live because if people were always killing each other and no consequences came of it the world could not function ( I mean this because some people are insane and there are too many efficient ways to kill people, thanks to science madmen could wipe out the world), secondly I have morals and morals no matter how innate I may think they are, are subjective, I’m not prepared to sacrifice humanity for what I believe.

another question to ponder is, if you killed those 63, would you be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? i mean hey..ure a murderer, but you achieved world peace..sounds hypocritical to me..but then again if Dubya can get a Nobel Peace Prize Nomination, i guess its possible!

LOL! Best answer ever.
I suppose it depends. Logically, I'd like to do it, but if you put 63 babies in front of me and said "massacre them to ensure world peace", that'd be almost impossible to do. Also, method of killing would have a huge impact. The worst would be with your bare hands or a knife, execution style with a gun would be next, middle ground would be a full auto (just spray and don't pay too much attention to people dying), and explosives would make it almost bearable.

edit: Well dlish, history looks back pretty favourably on Truman, who nuked two Japanese towns, so I think it's safe to say you'd have a good chance at that prize. I realise this little sitenote has begun to wander into the realm of that thread by Halx. :hmm:

I'd kill 63 to prevent world peace.

I would not. Because I can not think of any justifible reason in the universe why 63 people could change the outcome of the world. So it just doesn't make any sense to me. And thus, no.

hey, you'd still be ahead by the numbers.

Well the way I see it (and any intelligent person :P) is would I kill for the greater good?

Yes.

And most people would as well. We are a race of killers.