would you kill 63 people for world peace - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tophat665 · 10-31-2004, 08:04 PM

Come on, folks. Spock said it: "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few."

Before we get on about minority rights here, let me just point out that Spock was 1) a Vulcan, not given to bad choices of words, possibly incapable of not saying what he meant to, and 2) needs are not wants - specifically convenience is most definitely a want.

Spock's a childhood hero of mine, and it hits me hard that some of his best lines were spoken while I was in high school and college. That's one of them.

Garrineese · 10-31-2004, 08:07 PM

Absolutely, if world peace was a guaranteed.

Kalibah · 11-02-2004, 01:29 AM

Do we get to pick the 63 people or are they randomly chosen from Earths Population?

Seer666 · 11-04-2004, 06:15 AM

Not really. But I would kill them for my peace of mind if they had been pissing me off bad enough.

joeshoe · 11-12-2004, 11:50 PM

No, I wouldn't. My decision stops at the prospect of murduring innocent people. But why 63?

fnaqzna · 11-14-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lost22coast

i personally am a pacifist. but i was wondering what i would do if i had the choice to personally murder 63 people or ensure world peace for genarations to come. and i have come to the conclustion that i would murder 63 to ensure world peace. but that does not make sense to me. it goes against every morale bone in my body. but can you imagine the countless lives saved. but then what if all the saved lives led to overpopulation and more death and more death. then the original act of good faith would have backfired. i'm glad i'm not god or something like that. but ultimate powers would be cool.

It depends. Are these 63 people republicans?

Rdr4evr · 11-14-2004, 09:42 PM

^

Zeraph · 11-14-2004, 09:48 PM

Oh, we are considering republicans human now?

Rdr4evr · 11-14-2004, 09:53 PM

^Even more

wolfpack0102 · 11-14-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lost22coast

i personally am a pacifist. but i was wondering what i would do if i had the choice to personally murder 63 people or ensure world peace for genarations to come. and i have come to the conclustion that i would murder 63 to ensure world peace. but that does not make sense to me. it goes against every morale bone in my body. but can you imagine the countless lives saved. but then what if all the saved lives led to overpopulation and more death and more death. then the original act of good faith would have backfired. i'm glad i'm not god or something like that. but ultimate powers would be cool.

no i wouldnt

BlitzkriegKommt · 11-17-2004, 06:47 PM

I am personally ready kill reasonable number of people (under 100,000) if majority of people in world live in a Utopia, which is basically impratical. I think I have to add that I would actually be ready to kill myself in the process too, if it means further progress of society.
Just my two cents.

ratiocination · 11-18-2004, 03:12 AM

I think that such a situation would have to be tackled with utmost delicacy. After all, we are talking about world peace; all 6.5 billion people on the planet will be able to benefit from the peace and stability on Earth. Societies all around the world will be united in their desire to pursue knowledge and improve living conditions all over the world. But how far does this peace extend ? Does it extend even to the point where all crime would stop? THAT is peace. Would it extend to the point where there is no racial discrimination? If that is the case, then it is indeed logical that 63 people should be killed to bring about all this. But would it be an ethical act? No. Rather, the people could be persuaded to do the treacherous act by themselves. Then it would not be unethical would it ? If god (any god) presented such an ultimatum to mankind, we would take years, decades, perhaps even generations to ponder over the topic before we made up our minds.

FngKestrel · 11-19-2004, 03:03 AM

For those people that said yes, what about killing 64? 65? At what number would you no longer be willing to kill to achieve world peace?

jwoody · 11-19-2004, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FngKestrel

For those people that said yes, what about killing 64? 65? At what number would you no longer be willing to kill to achieve world peace?

6,401,226,714.

It's a big price to pay but the reward would be more than worth it.

welshbyte · 11-19-2004, 06:05 AM

Hmm, would i kill 63 people for world peace? Lets see...

If the 63 people were already on death row, or living in constant agonising pain on a ventilator, or about to kill me if i dont kill them first... yeah i probably would

tropple · 11-19-2004, 06:08 PM

Once you're dead inside, the count loses its relevance and doesn't matter anymore.

MuadDib · 11-19-2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

"Imagine that you are creating a
fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the
end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and
inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby
beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that
edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the
architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
The Brothers Karamazov

This is one of my favorite quotations of all time and is particularly applicible to this discussion. I could never do such a thing because I am a man who does not believe in justifying a means through its ends. Killing 63 people for world peace would forever put a taint on that peace and undermine the moral value of the world bought by it. To that end numbers are arbitrary at the point that you say yes. What about 65? 75? 100? 100,000? 1,000,000,000? At what point does it become wrong to murder for the sake of others? I could never and would never consent to those terms nor could I look upon anyone who honestly would as human.

tropple · 11-20-2004, 02:48 PM

A tainted peace with undermined morals? Please.

If the world suddenly became peaceful, do you think that the populace of the world would choose to return to violence and suffering because they felt bad that 63 people paid for it?

Would you be willing to stake your life on it? If _everyone_ in the world would be willing to prove you right, then why isn't world peace already here?

I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And dead. But that warm fuzzy feeling would hold you in good stead as you passed on ;-)

MuadDib · 11-20-2004, 05:41 PM

Not necessarily saying that they would turn to violence (that goes against the hypothetical), but it just goes along with the concept of peace at any cost. Its ridiculous and hypocritical, beyond that when you ask if everyone were willing to prove me wrong then there would be absolutely no reason to have to murder in the first place. But this is again going outside the hypothetical. The point still remains that its morally abhorent and no peace created in such a way could ever last because its based upon violence. Along the same lines, you can't really expect world peace to ever be able to be achieved through murder/violence. Honestly, if there was world peace that world's inhabitants would shun the killing of any number of people and since we are hold that world up to the ideal perhaps we should strive for that type of morality.

joeshoe · 11-21-2004, 12:27 AM

To relate this topic to a cliche of similar matter: If you were sent back in time to the early twentieth century, would you kill Hitler as a baby?

I probably wouldn't, because as we all learned from C&C: Red Alert, Stalin would take his place and things could be much worse.
But really, I don't know.

tropple · 11-21-2004, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib

Not necessarily saying that they would turn to violence (that goes against the hypothetical), but it just goes along with the concept of peace at any cost. Its ridiculous and hypocritical, beyond that when you ask if everyone were willing to prove me wrong then there would be absolutely no reason to have to murder in the first place. But this is again going outside the hypothetical. The point still remains that its morally abhorent and no peace created in such a way could ever last because its based upon violence. Along the same lines, you can't really expect world peace to ever be able to be achieved through murder/violence. Honestly, if there was world peace that world's inhabitants would shun the killing of any number of people and since we are hold that world up to the ideal perhaps we should strive for that type of morality.

Sorry, a slight misunderstanding. If I were to kill the 63 people and bring about global peace, and if you were to ask all the people of the world if they'd rather have those 63 return to life or keep the peace, IMHO, the world would undoubtedly stay at peace.

You can't use "M" to name morality, except for your personal morality. For the world as a whole, "Morality" as such, doesn't exist.

justjt · 11-26-2004, 09:10 PM

As long as there is a constant fight for power between mankind then the fantasy of world peace is just that a fantasy.
But to answer the question....Yes.
But how would you pick the 63?
Would the 63 be chosen by the level of hate we have for them, the lifestyle they chosen to live, the mistakes they have made, if they were sick, the color of their skin or their religion?
Because if we used those facts as the determination wouldn't that be supporting what keeps world peace a fantasy?
Possibly the 63 could be made up of volunteers of the human race who would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a possible future of world peace...but that sacrifice is made everyday by men and women in our armed forces around the world.
Would I have the strength to be the one to take their lives?
Yes.....but the spot of #63 would be mine...to honor the sacrifice of the 62 before me.

bendsley · 11-26-2004, 09:40 PM

World Peace? nah. Peace of Mind, hell yeah.

I think I could easily do what John Cusack does in Grosse Pointe Blank.

Greazy · 12-02-2004, 06:22 AM

I think part of this paradox is that world peace just wouldn't be peaceful, or at least, not pleasant.

World peace with this many people on the planet, would assume that all these billions stay alive. That places a huge burden on the natural world. Just sustaining our current population would eventually bring the extinction of millions of other oraganisms.

So, to make this world peace happen, it would require, at the very least, that people change their paradigms as far as consumption, making babies, etc. Well, while someone from northern California or Holland might be okay with having one kid or less, someone from India or Africa might be depressed at the prospect of only having one kid. Likewise, the quality of life that most Americans are used to would definately have to change for the worse in order to stop our war on the environment. These changes might be so drastic, and against our respective cultures, that the outcome could indeed be a living hell to the people in this peaceful world.

Peace is not possible.

10-31-2004, 08:04 PM	#81 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Come on, folks. Spock said it: "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few." Before we get on about minority rights here, let me just point out that Spock was 1) a Vulcan, not given to bad choices of words, possibly incapable of not saying what he meant to, and 2) needs are not wants - specifically convenience is most definitely a want. Spock's a childhood hero of mine, and it hits me hard that some of his best lines were spoken while I was in high school and college. That's one of them. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

10-31-2004, 08:07 PM	#82 (permalink)
Garrineese Upright Location: Your Basement	Absolutely, if world peace was a guaranteed. __________________ You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste the afterlife?

11-04-2004, 06:15 AM	#84 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	Not really. But I would kill them for my peace of mind if they had been pissing me off bad enough. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

11-19-2004, 06:05 AM	#95 (permalink)
welshbyte Insane Location: Wales, UK, Europe, Earth, Milky Way, Universe	Hmm, would i kill 63 people for world peace? Lets see... If the 63 people were already on death row, or living in constant agonising pain on a ventilator, or about to kill me if i dont kill them first... yeah i probably would __________________ There are only two industries that refer to their customers as "users". - Edward Tufte

11-19-2004, 06:08 PM	#96 (permalink)
tropple Junkie	Once you're dead inside, the count loses its relevance and doesn't matter anymore. __________________ +++++++++++Boom!

11-02-2004, 01:29 AM	#83 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Do we get to pick the 63 people or are they randomly chosen from Earths Population?

11-12-2004, 11:50 PM	#85 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	No, I wouldn't. My decision stops at the prospect of murduring innocent people. But why 63?

11-14-2004, 09:48 PM	#88 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Oh, we are considering republicans human now?

11-14-2004, 09:53 PM	#89 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	^Even more

11-17-2004, 06:47 PM	#91 (permalink)
BlitzkriegKommt Upright Location: Houston	I am personally ready kill reasonable number of people (under 100,000) if majority of people in world live in a Utopia, which is basically impratical. I think I have to add that I would actually be ready to kill myself in the process too, if it means further progress of society. Just my two cents.

11-18-2004, 03:12 AM	#92 (permalink)
ratiocination Tilted	I think that such a situation would have to be tackled with utmost delicacy. After all, we are talking about world peace; all 6.5 billion people on the planet will be able to benefit from the peace and stability on Earth. Societies all around the world will be united in their desire to pursue knowledge and improve living conditions all over the world. But how far does this peace extend ? Does it extend even to the point where all crime would stop? THAT is peace. Would it extend to the point where there is no racial discrimination? If that is the case, then it is indeed logical that 63 people should be killed to bring about all this. But would it be an ethical act? No. Rather, the people could be persuaded to do the treacherous act by themselves. Then it would not be unethical would it ? If god (any god) presented such an ultimatum to mankind, we would take years, decades, perhaps even generations to ponder over the topic before we made up our minds.

11-19-2004, 03:03 AM	#93 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	For those people that said yes, what about killing 64? 65? At what number would you no longer be willing to kill to achieve world peace?

11-20-2004, 02:48 PM	#98 (permalink)
tropple Junkie	A tainted peace with undermined morals? Please. If the world suddenly became peaceful, do you think that the populace of the world would choose to return to violence and suffering because they felt bad that 63 people paid for it? Would you be willing to stake your life on it? If _everyone_ in the world would be willing to prove you right, then why isn't world peace already here? I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And dead. But that warm fuzzy feeling would hold you in good stead as you passed on ;-) __________________ +++++++++++Boom! Last edited by tropple; 11-20-2004 at 02:49 PM.. Reason: tired.

11-20-2004, 05:41 PM	#99 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Not necessarily saying that they would turn to violence (that goes against the hypothetical), but it just goes along with the concept of peace at any cost. Its ridiculous and hypocritical, beyond that when you ask if everyone were willing to prove me wrong then there would be absolutely no reason to have to murder in the first place. But this is again going outside the hypothetical. The point still remains that its morally abhorent and no peace created in such a way could ever last because its based upon violence. Along the same lines, you can't really expect world peace to ever be able to be achieved through murder/violence. Honestly, if there was world peace that world's inhabitants would shun the killing of any number of people and since we are hold that world up to the ideal perhaps we should strive for that type of morality. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-21-2004, 12:27 AM	#100 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	To relate this topic to a cliche of similar matter: If you were sent back in time to the early twentieth century, would you kill Hitler as a baby? I probably wouldn't, because as we all learned from C&C: Red Alert, Stalin would take his place and things could be much worse. But really, I don't know.

11-26-2004, 09:40 PM	#103 (permalink)
bendsley Professional Loafer Location: texas	World Peace? nah. Peace of Mind, hell yeah. I think I could easily do what John Cusack does in Grosse Pointe Blank. __________________ "You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

11-26-2004, 09:10 PM	#102 (permalink)
justjt Tilted Location: O.C. California	As long as there is a constant fight for power between mankind then the fantasy of world peace is just that a fantasy. But to answer the question....Yes. But how would you pick the 63? Would the 63 be chosen by the level of hate we have for them, the lifestyle they chosen to live, the mistakes they have made, if they were sick, the color of their skin or their religion? Because if we used those facts as the determination wouldn't that be supporting what keeps world peace a fantasy? Possibly the 63 could be made up of volunteers of the human race who would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a possible future of world peace...but that sacrifice is made everyday by men and women in our armed forces around the world. Would I have the strength to be the one to take their lives? Yes.....but the spot of #63 would be mine...to honor the sacrifice of the 62 before me.

12-02-2004, 06:22 AM	#104 (permalink)
Greazy Upright	I think part of this paradox is that world peace just wouldn't be peaceful, or at least, not pleasant. World peace with this many people on the planet, would assume that all these billions stay alive. That places a huge burden on the natural world. Just sustaining our current population would eventually bring the extinction of millions of other oraganisms. So, to make this world peace happen, it would require, at the very least, that people change their paradigms as far as consumption, making babies, etc. Well, while someone from northern California or Holland might be okay with having one kid or less, someone from India or Africa might be depressed at the prospect of only having one kid. Likewise, the quality of life that most Americans are used to would definately have to change for the worse in order to stop our war on the environment. These changes might be so drastic, and against our respective cultures, that the outcome could indeed be a living hell to the people in this peaceful world. Peace is not possible.