What is the morally right thing to do....

[dejavuagain3]

Ok guys...especially all you ethics lovers out there...here is the situation. Consider the following case

Comments

[noeltalking2u]

i say you have to kill the one person.. because atleast that gives those other 10 some extra amount of time... like do what helps the most amount of people

[anonymous]

Kill 1 person, the chief. It prevents future rituals like this from happening, and now you get to rule. Not bad for the first day with the tribe.

[dejavuagain3]

No I said you can't add other variables. You have to shoot or let die inoccent person(s).

[butitdidhappen_]

I would kill the one person without a second thought.

[hinode]

Unless of course it is a ritual of a tyrant, and the people do not approve of it whatsoever. Besides, I'd rather live in shame than die. ^_-

Re: the thing of it is

[dejavuagain3]

I like your thinking, Matthew. I didn't even think about the other 10 not feeling honored. And since this is just a hypothetical situation...who knows if the chief is a tyrant or not.

[anonymous]

I'd let the 10 people die. The ethical thing to do is to not kill anyone at all. If their culture wants to do it, that's good and dandy, but you shouldn't ever be coerced by someone else to break your moral code. Human life, especially innocent human life, isn't something that's defined by numbers, nor should it be. Nor are you capable of being a supreme moral judge. By not killing anyone, you've defended your personal view that all killing is wrong, which hopefully you believe.

It's that kind of thinking that makes it right to say that letting a handicapped person die as opposed to a healthy person is ethical because the former is less useful.

playing devils advocate...

[dejavuagain3]

The ethical thing to do is to not kill anyone at all. ..you shouldn't ever be coerced by someone else to break your moral code.

Some peoples moral code might be that killing a person is not morally wrong. Ex. Adolf Hitler, the Cannibals in Libya, etc. Also, if the ethical thing to do is to not kill anyone at all, then what about the death penalty. There is no person capable of being a supreme moral judge so who is to say who deserves death and who doesn't.

Thanks for your input though. I'm just playing devils advocate because there is no right or wrong answer.

Re: playing devils advocate...

[anonymous]

Ha. I know, I know. What I meant to say was that killing innocent people was wrong, when you have direct control over the situation. I too was playing a preemptive Devil's Advocate of sort, so it's all good.

Thanks for your input though. I'm just playing devils advocate because there is no right or wrong answer.

Depends on your moral philosophy. Certain schools of thought ie utilitarianism would tell you there is definitely a right and wrong answer.