There is a thing I can't put my finger on.....

[Denny Crane!]

There are a number of people and the UK has a lot of them who would say that it is okay to persecute a population for victimless crimes because of the possibility it might save one life.

I'm thinking of a number of things like I was questioning the validity of speed cameras in comparison to education and the idea of giving drivers responsibilty might change our culture and might lead to safer driving because at the minute the culture of irresponsibility is prevalent and it would be nice to address root causes and not just treat the symptoms of a negative culture. Also speed cameras will prosecute someone and fine them for behaviour which might well include responsible driving but was 3mph over the limit but not catch god knows how many who drive like idiots. Without opening that debate up they said any solution like this is acceptable if it has the potential to save one life.

I was quite unsure... its okay to infringe upon the happiness of many and add to the burden of peoples lives perhaps as many as 20 million if it is worth saving just one life. Seemed to great a price.

I'm tired from work which is a broad running theme so I can't really phrase a very good topic but just how much value do you place on one life and what lengths would you go to protect it? How do you define the balance, and this is just as good for atheists or religious which makes a refreshing change for the ethos I daresay.

[Helm]

I think you can get away being anything under 5mph over, but if they're put in the right locations, say a near a school I have no objections with them.

[Denny Crane!]

I think you can get away being anything under 5mph over, but if they're put in the right locations, say a near a school I have no objections with them.

To be honest speed cameras was just a theme, the pertinent question is in the last paragraph.

[Who]

I think you should watch 24

[Denny Crane!]

I think you should watch 24

What relevance should a pretty bad fiction have on my question? 24 along with most of its ethical dilemas are fiction unrealistic and made with fictional parameters and plot ideas that have no place in reality.

[Who]

What relevance should a pretty bad fiction have on my question? 24 along with most of its ethical dilemas are fiction unrealistic and made with fictional parameters and plot ideas that have no place in reality.

First, what consitutes as "bad fiction," and second, it was a joke as every season deals with what characters would go through to save the life of 1+ people. And my mind was kinda on people risking their lives for others from the "Soldiers as bullies" thread

[Denny Crane!]

I'd say it's better to have a lot of people very slightly unhappy than a few people really extremely unhappy/dead.

So would you make 60 million people unhappy to save 1 life? Unhappy for their entire lives to save that life?

First, what consitutes as "bad fiction," and second, it was a joke as every season deals with what characters would go through to save the life of 1+ people. And my mind was kinda on people risking their lives for others from the "Soldiers as bullies" thread

They do so based on fiction though, things like torture will work etc etc.

[Who]

So would you make 60 million people unhappy to save 1 life? Unhappy for their entire lives to save that life?

For me yes...It all boils down to, "what if you were that one person?" I think it's a question of how empathetic you are.

[Helm]

So would you make 60 million people unhappy to save 1 life? Unhappy for their entire lives to save that life?

Depends on the extent to which they were being made unhappy I guess. I wouldn't to see alcohol banned for instance despite the fact that doing so would save a few lives in the process.

[Playfishpaste]

So would you make 60 million people unhappy to save 1 life? Unhappy for their entire lives to save that life?

Speed limits make you unhappy for your entire life?

I would do away with speed limits here in the states in general, as they've been shown not to really prevent any accidents. Either way, I'd say with the current safety regulations anyone's pretty comfortable. Everyone in the UK is forced to not drive drunk right? That's only a minor annoyance to some people and no annoyance to others, and saves several hundred lives.

[Helm]

I'd say it's better to have a lot of people very slightly unhappy than a few people really extremely unhappy/dead.

[Biggreenfellow]

It boils down to this: Do you want to do the right thing, or the best thing?

Would it be right to let someone die when you can save him? No. Would it be the best thing to do to safe that person if it means bringing suffering to 2 other persons? Maybe not..

[Denny Crane!]

It boils down to this: Do you want to do the right thing, or the best thing?

Would it be right to let someone die when you can save him? No. Would it be the best thing to do to safe that person if it means bringing suffering to 2 other persons? Maybe not..

That surely places the rights of that one person over everyone elses. If a person has rights surely liberty is one of them, and impinging on the rights of others to protect the rights of one seems wrong.

[Biggreenfellow]

That surely places the rights of that one person over everyone elses. If a person has rights surely liberty is one of them, and impinging on the rights of others to protect the rights of one seems wrong.

Why? Who are you to decide whether someone's life is less valuable then someone else's?

[Denny Crane!]

Why? Who are you to decide whether someone's life is less valuable then someone else's?

I didn't say I was anyone deciding anything. I was questioning how you define what is right and wrong. Why is saving the life of one person worth more than the freedoms of others. How far would you impinge upon freedoms to save that life? Is there any line you wouldn't cross in eliminating risk from peoples lives?

[Biggreenfellow]

I didn't say I was anyone deciding anything. I was questioning how you define what is right and wrong. Why is saving the life of one person worth more than the freedoms of others. How far would you impinge upon freedoms to save that life? Is there any line you wouldn't cross in eliminating risk from peoples lives?

For me, the line is drawn at irreparably damaging the value of another person's life.

[Helm]

Life may be valuable but freedom is also valuable as well.

[The Count(er)]

Nearly damaging to an irreparable level before you stop, that's way too far for me, I find freedom very important, and surely worth a little risk, no sense in being repressed into absolute safety and leaving you with no real life to keep safe, obviously this is not what anyone's suggesting, but I still think more freedom than safety is good, while obviously complete freedom isn't so good.

I guess I would say something along the lines of: If someone's freedom and/or safety is brought to a level where is starts to cause problems to others freedom/safety then there is a problem, so essentially that would mean things like, say no killing, stealing from each other, obvious stuff really, as these go both against freedom and safety of others, and I would do without things like cameras on street corners to catch speeders, because although this does increase safety it unfortunately also harms freedom. There may be some exceptions, but basically this is where I would stand...I think.

[Hippolord]

IDK

I don't belive in a right or wrong, let people do as they see fit.

As for that one guy vs. the 59,999,999 people thing, let the manority win in my opinon, makes more people happy in the end....

[Khannis]

I think I am by no means the rule, an exception maybe, but I tend only to place value in the lives of humans I know and care for.