would you kill 63 people for world peace
 

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.

Probably not. But 62, maybe...

That makes 64 of us.

Only if they were filty, dirty, hippies.

Bit of a pointless question really, when would you ever have to make that sort of decision

Yes.....I would. But, it would be 64 as I doubt I could live with myself after commiting such an act. Still, the benefits, both economic and humanitarian would far outweigh the murders.

I'd have to ditto this thought as well.

Of course this begs the question, is world peace a good thing?

What about the people are currently oppressed, would they stay oppressed?

A world wide police state would qualify as world peace but would you want to live there?

Warfare is as much a part of human nature as sex. It has shaped our species and our evolution. Without it we may well have never evolved beyond a hunter gatherer society. Would we be limiting what we can become if all conflict were removed?

most of our progress as a species has been done through war, world peace is by our nature unobtainable because you can't have world peace and free will

^^^^
It's like the film Equilbrium, except there was alot of killing in that film.
I don't think I could do it though, as most've you have already said, is World Peace totally a good thing?

It depends on who the 63 people would be. I personally do not believe in murder and it would be extremely difficult to have to make that decision, but if the 63 were some sick people (i.e rapist, killers, child molesters), I might have an easier time doing it.

Only if I, personally, get to choose the 63.

Question; why 63? I mean, where did that number come from? Is it just an arbitrary number, or does it hold some significance? Why not 50...or, an even 100?

Shit, some days I'd kill 63 people for a pint of Guinness.

I might do it but only if I was allowed to be one of those 63. It would, IMO, be wrong to choose other people do lose their life and get to live on yourself in this perfect world. A sacrafice made by those who choose to die for the sake of others would be a great honor. If I had to make the decision I would be one of the 63, otherwise it would be seflish and cowardly. I do not consider myself a selish or cowardly person. I am a pacifist as well.

No.

There are somethings more important than world peace, and the state of my soul is one of them, as well as the 63 others.

What if they were 63 murdering, Satan worshiping, dirty hippies :)

ah.....do the ends justify the means?

ultimately, i say no. after all, if i were to say yes, than i would also be saying yes to such concepts as human testing, human farming, and a host of other abominations that could be said to benefit many at the cost to only a few.

remember, once you devalue a life, especially when the action adds value to another, you have lost sight of what is right.

No, not in this case. There are some cases where I would kill someone to save the lives of others, but those are rare, and usually consist of very contorted philosophical thought experiments. Take the case of Jim and the Indians (with apologies for un-PC language). Jim is an explorer in colonial Brazil who happens across a small village of Indians. Because of a recent plot to overthrow the colonial government, a Colonel happens to be there and is going to execute 30 of the Indians (who had nothing to do with the plot). However, in honor of Jim, the Colonel will allow him to kill one of the Indians. If he does so, the others will be allowed to go free. If he does not, all 30 will die. Assume for the sake of the thought experiment that Jim knows he cannot convince the Colonel otherwise and cannot do anything to help the Indians. Here are the questions:
If you were Jim, would you kill one of the Indians?
Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim has to kill is one of the thirty assigned to die?
Does it make a difference if Jim would die if he doesn't kill the Indian?
Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim would kill is willing to die for the sake of the other 29?

For me, the answer is that, if the Indian is one of the thirty who would die anyway, it is right to kill the Indian. The other questions don't make a difference. But many people whose moral judgement I generally respect disagree with me on this. But this is for me a borderline case! Killing 63 (or any other number) for the sake of something as nebulous as world peace, when they may or may not themselves die as a consequence of there not being world peace is something which I could not endorse.

My brain hurts!
I think I would probably agonise over the choice for so long that my time limit would expire and I'd lose the case, so I would say no, I couldn't kill the 63. I also agree world peace isa fallacy that will never come true for any significant period of time.

As for Jim, I would agree to shoot the indian, take the rifle, and shoot the colonel!

i would almost have to have the knowledge of 3000 years in advance to see if the act was worth it. if you killed the 63 people as humanely as you could and you knew that countless upon countless people would not suffer for 3000 years to come than it would be worth it. this is also saying that people would live in harmony w/ each other. but as someone else said that would be taking away free will and i don't know if i could handle that. i just wish the human heart wasn't so cruel and selfish in some people where war and murder is justified. we do behave like the animal kingdom in that we kill for territory, authority over others, and commodities like food or oil. but you would think w/ our logic and knowledge we could overcome that. if we grew up in a loving society where strong values were given to being good to your fellow man and there were core beliefs that looked down upon murder and such, then it would be a lot easier to have world peace. it's all about the children and how they are raised. the problem is breaking the cycle of violence. w/ nuclear weapons becoming easier and easier to come by, we better become a more peaceful world or some idiot is going to finally start a nuclear war. then those 63 are going to become millions or billions.

in reply to #12
it was just an arbitrary number. i get tired of round numbers taking all the glory

Ustwo....out of curiosity, how would YOU define a Hippie?

Not even :p

I have about 7 people, would you add them to the list of people you are choosing? I'd be forever grateful.... Really, I'd even bake you cookies to show my appreciation.

I couldn't do it, because I am too much of a cynic, I wouldn't believe that world peace would happen. Besides, there's never been world peace, what would happen to the world if it was peaceful? maybe that would set of a chain of events and doom us all...

Nope, but eliminating those 7 people would make my day...

http://www.magrathea.de/img/wallpape...ie_640x480.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~verylonga...l/ecartman.jpg
God damn hippies!

That sir....is a "picture" of a hippie, not a definition. I was curious as to how you would verbally define these people you would so happily kill, primarily because it is likely I would fit into your definition. While I do realize the level of sarcasm in both of your replys concerning head hippies, I have found that there is often a psycological undercurrent resting within such repetition.

At some point I think peoples sense of humor has been removed.

It was a joke, based a bit on south park. Lighten up, you will live longer, and maybe take a bath :D

Obviously a completely non-plausible question, but line the 63 up and I'd mow 'em down for "world peace for generations to come" - as long as that is defined as I see world peace to be, not some trick definition.

The idea that killing people will create peace is rather non-sensical to me. The state of humanity is going to include conflict as long as there is inequality in the distrubution of resources between nation-states and with-in them (and I doubt that will ever go away).

I think the ethical approach to killing people should be along the lines of "if I don't do this, then more people will die then if I don't" or, in this age of nation-states, "if I don't do this, then some of <i>our</i> people would die". Both of those situations are typically hard to gauge. I think some huge failures of acting appropriately to create people that would including the high probability of killing some people would have been in Rwanda and Somalia, and now in Darfur. Rwanda shows how slowing reacting to world events lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Somalia shows how undermanning an operation for peace can lead to more violence (by feeding warlords and their followers with food meant for humanitarian aid).

I don't have the will to make decisions that could fall in this domain, so I will refrain from pulling myself in that situation (which should hopefully be easy given that there are so many others out there vying for that kind of power).

The question creates a paradox. Just because people don't die, that doesn't bring them peace. What about the family members of those 63 people? Will life be peaceful for them? What about your own life? Could it be peaceful knowing that you killed 63 people?

Create world peace by helping people, not by killing them. Even if I got theoretical assurences like, "Yes, their familiy members would live a peaceful life," I still wouldnt' do it.

It all reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode, where a guy gets a box or something, and if he opens it he gets a ton of money. The catch is that the person who gave him the box will kill someone. "Don't worry," the box-giver says, "It will be someone you don't even know." So the guy takes the money, and the box-giver comes back to pick up the box and lets him know that he'll be taking to offer to someone else next. "Someone you don't even know."

I could envision that happening in this scenario. Enough people receive and accept this proposition that every human on Earth winds up getting killed. Hence, peace.

No, Gandhi had it right. Killing is no solution.

no. the means of death are not well weilded by those seeking life. intentions be damned...it will still be death...

fyi:its gandhi, not ghandi

i already have a little hitlist of the ppl this country could do without...now all I need are the means
noir:the one who carries the sins of humanity and in the darkness, guides them

the bargain is absurd.

who would guarantee it would be carried out?

I think the summary is violence breeds violence. Killing people is never going to acheive anything!
Peace through violence and death? An interesting idea...

That's a good question.

A more relevant version would be: How many of your countrymen would you be willing to send off to their deaths to increase your own percieved level of safety by an intangible margin?

But that's a different problem altogether, filtherton, not a different version of the same problem. A lot of mistakes are made in political theory when people start to think of the state as just a person writ large.

my question is the same as some previous posters. why would you want world piece? it is through competition and war that the human race improve ~_~

It's still a good question.

Personally, I think that killing 63 people in general is a good idea. That is, provided they are a detriment to society or just happen to rub you the wrong way.

Do they have to be random, innocent people? I'm sure I could find 63 terminally ill people who would agree the be euthanised -- does that count as killing them?

I would do it for the sake of humanity, yes its cold but its what I would rather have. If they were close to me there would be 64 deaths the last one my own for the lst atrocious act to stain the hands of man with blood; thus we get what you asked, its fulfilled and then there is a last act of my own chooseing.

But that would also open the question of defineing peace, what do you call peace? A utopia or would you settle for random genocides being ended and wars not happening? Disbanding of gands and other organized crime is that it? Perhaps implamantion of communism so were all equal? What do you want peace to be in this context?

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.

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.

Absolutely, if world peace was a guaranteed.

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

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

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

It depends. Are these 63 people republicans?
;)

^ :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Oh, we are considering republicans human now?

^Even more :D :D :D :D :D :D

no i wouldnt

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 ;-)

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.

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.