Turn on thread page Beta

Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10? watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Of course. Accidents are accidents and are unavoidable........to a certain degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    Morally, making a mistake twice is wrong too since most people that have a moralistic attitude believe mistakes aren't necessarily a bad thing only if you would learn from it. If you 'accidentally' killed somebody, than it should really make you think twice before you make such a mistake again. Killing someone accidentally the second time is purely irresponsible after the carelessness of the first time. But for killing ten people accidentally is no justification existent. Being so incredibly careless and irresponsible makes you believe such a person doesn't hold a human's life dear. So morally, the person is about equally incorrect and the acts of it is morally worse since the person destroyed more lifes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actions not intentions! What my mother always said...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, what moron would kill 10 people accidentally? This kind of human is wrong by nature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She/He cound have dropped a cigarette that set up a fire that killed 10 people...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Deliberatly killing 1 or accidently killing ten...
    well i think it is wrong yes butbut if it is unavoidable for example if you are on a train crossing... and there are two ways to go... would you steer the train to the left and kill one or let it go the way it is and kill unknown others?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    when it comes to morality, it's all about intentions.
    Killing is morally wrong (although there are exceptional circumstances) but "accidently" killing 10 people is not morally wrong- even killing 100 people by accident is not morally wrong although the possibility of killing 100 people *accidently* is quite unlikely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Shouldn't actions not intentions matter when it's murder? Either way its someone's life that has been taken
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merna)
    Shouldn't actions not intentions matter when it's murder? Either way its someone's life that has been taken
    no, the question is whether it is MORALLY worse not whether it is circumstantially worse.
    Say you had 10 friends: of course if I killed only 1 of them it would be "better" than if I killed 10 of them. but if it was only an "accident" that I killed 10 of them, then I hadn't actually been morally wrong, because it wasn't intentional. This is just like me ACCIDENTALLY hitting your face with a ball in a basketball game- you wouldn't call me morally wrong if I did that.ANY action minus intention would become meaningless in relation to morality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ah yes in terms of morality yes, in terms of the world, no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merna)
    Ah yes in terms of morality yes, in terms of the world, no
    I agree with candystrippa because the question is:

    "Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10?"

    nothing about whether it is better "in terms of the world"

    Miranda:suith:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on the circumstances.

    If in both cases, there is malice or neglect involved, then the single person dying is marginaly worse because the explicit intent was to end a life for unjustifiable and selfish reasons.

    But if it is a case of a sniper killing an enemy vs a drunk coach driver who crashes, the 'accident' is worse because someone abused their position and that resulted in death.

    I don't believe anything is morally absolute. There will always been grey areas or mitigating circumstances.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toonarmy)
    If some1 possed a threat to your life and you killed them, would that be morally wrong? It wouldnt be an accident, as u meant to do it. There is, in my eyes not such thing as accidental death.

    If you kill someone by drink driving, then u were drunk. Not an accident cos it has a reason. Same thing if u knock some over in the road. either u didnt see them , hence not playing attention, or they werent.

    I dnt see any death an accidental.
    I would completly disagree. The fact you were drunk is no accident, but the fact the people were killed was an unforeseen and unintentional consequence.

    What heppens if someone is cycling and their brakes fail and they swerve into a car. Is the driver responsible for their death? There was no way he could have forseen it, no way he could have predicted what was happening for the cyclist and possibly he would not even have been aware of the problem. It is entirely unjustified to claim he has any responsibility. Is the bike maker responsible? The cyclist for not maintaining their bike? If a death cannot be predicted and if death is a highly unlikely consequence of a legal activity, then any deaths that resulted (and were not caused by negligence or were not manslaughter) are probably an accident. Like a climbers ropes breaking, or the rock crumbling.

    To say it cannot be an accident means someone is to blame. That is really unfair. No-one should have to live with the burden of responsibility over something that was not their fault.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is a question surely that can only be answered by the person who did the act. Having done the 'act' (1 on purpose or 10 by mistake) it would be difficult if not impossible to answer rationally. On a poll, if speaking from the point of view of an observer I would say, on balance, yes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    there's an ethics question that got asked in the most recent round of oxford med school interviews:

    you are a passenger on a train, which is going to crash, killing 10 passengers (not yourself) in the process. if you murder one person, the tracks will change, and you will have saved the lives of the ten people who would otherwise have perished. would you do it?

    if you said yes, the followup question was:
    apply this situation to that of organ donation. if you could save ten people with congenital organ failure in various body systems by taking the organs from an 11th healthy person, killing them in the process, would you do it?

    if not, then how is that situation different to the train dilemma?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sea tea)
    there's an ethics question that got asked in the most recent round of oxford med school interviews:

    you are a passenger on a train, which is going to crash, killing 10 passengers (not yourself) in the process. if you murder one person, the tracks will change, and you will have saved the lives of the ten people who would otherwise have perished. would you do it?

    if you said yes, the followup question was:
    apply this situation to that of organ donation. if you could save ten people with congenital organ failure in various body systems by taking the organs from an 11th healthy person, killing them in the process, would you do it?

    if not, then how is that situation different to the train dilemma?
    My own thoughts would tend towards there being no difference and the answer to the train question would probably be yes.
    I suppose the difference is that in the train case you are saving 10 presumably healthy lives and in the organ case you are prolonging 10 unhealthy lives. If basing a decision on ethics the organ case could be said to have been ordained by nature and perhaps in saving the 10 who need organ transplants you are interfering with it so perhaps that would lead one to allow the 10 to die rather than the healthy 1 but that gets me back to thinking I shouldn’t interfere at all. i.e. In the train case my answer would have to change to No
    (but it would still be yes if you don’t complicate it with your second question}
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee7)
    My own thoughts would tend towards there being no difference and the answer to the train question would probably be yes.
    I suppose the difference is that in the train case you are saving 10 presumably healthy lives and in the organ case you are prolonging 10 unhealthy lives. If basing a decision on ethics the organ case could be said to have been ordained by nature and perhaps in saving the 10 who need organ transplants you are interfering with it so perhaps that would lead one to allow the 10 to die rather than the healthy 1 but that gets me back to thinking I shouldn’t interfere at all. i.e. In the train case my answer would have to change to No
    (but it would still be yes if you don’t complicate it with your second question}

    agree with u there..

    but i also think there is another issue that comes into this ...
    On the train, you are presented with a scenario in which u must choose to either..
    a)act by killing the one person or,
    b) not act and so kill 10

    since all these people are put into the same situation..all are equal..and so its just a matter of number of deaths..and so we are led to say yes we would kill that one person.

    When it comes to the organ donations scenario, how do you choose which heathly person you will kill? the way i think about it is that this healthy person is not part of the equation...so i wont physically go and drag a perfectly healthy normal person into this to save the lives of 10 other people..am i making any sense here?!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rach1986)
    If you kill someone deliberately then you are most likely to be an evil person. You obviously have no morals, whereas if you kill ten people accidentally then (dependig on the circumstances) you might actually have morals.
    Remind me: what is it exactly that soldiers do, again?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marie05)
    agree with u there..

    but i also think there is another issue that comes into this ...
    On the train, you are presented with a scenario in which u must choose to either..
    a)act by killing the one person or,
    b) not act and so kill 10

    since all these people are put into the same situation..all are equal..and so its just a matter of number of deaths..and so we are led to say yes we would kill that one person.

    When it comes to the organ donations scenario, how do you choose which heathly person you will kill? the way i think about it is that this healthy person is not part of the equation...so i wont physically go and drag a perfectly healthy normal person into this to save the lives of 10 other people..am i making any sense here?!
    Yes perfect sense & I agree. There is one aspect I can't settle in my own mind. I tend towards a view that when it comes to death it is a matter to which relative values are perhaps not appropriate, despite a natural tendency to think of many deaths to be 'worse' than a single death. I am saying that perhaps in, for example, a train crash the death of many people is no worse than the death of one person. I expect that is counter-intuitive to most of us? Actually I think I think that absolute values ought to govern the whole of our society and relayive values dismissed?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee7)
    Yes perfect sense & I agree. There is one aspect I can't settle in my own mind. I tend towards a view that when it comes to death it is a matter to which relative values are perhaps not appropriate, despite a natural tendency to think of many deaths to be 'worse' than a single death. I am saying that perhaps in, for example, a train crash the death of many people is no worse than the death of one person. I expect that is counter-intuitive to most of us? Actually I think that absolute values ought to govern the whole of our society and relative values dismissed?
    It is an interesting point to consider, in terms of absolute values, you are correct in saying that death of one or one thousand is the same in the sense that it has the same outcome, but in terms of perception built from our social understanding of the world, rather than what we perceive to be "the absolute truth outside of human perception", would not accept this, since the death of thousands would affect more families, is the ending of a greater amount of life, etc. While absolute morals can be technically correct, I don't see how human nature can change enough to accept them.

    This can be similarly applied to the train/organ donor problem - both are identical situations in different guises, which results in a different human perception of the problem, and absolute morals would state that the decision would have to be the same in both cases, yet a human (or relative) perception may not make the same decision. Relative perception will also take into account, such as deedee7 mentions - perhaps you are only prolonging 10 unhealthy lives as opposed to saving 10 healthy lives, which results in a change of our moral perceptions of the dilemma.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.