Is it wrong to kill to save a lives?

**Veliky Kaiser Theos** · February 06, 2011, 06:52 AM

If there was a fat man jammed in a cave entrance trapping 20 people, and the only way out would be to set him on fire to burn him away, would it be amoral to kill? Personally I think not because not doing so has the effect of killing 19 more people. What do you think? No smartarse comments like "oh I'll call 000 or 911" etc..

**Lordinquisitor** · February 06, 2011, 06:56 AM

I`m an utilitarian and therefore i say that setting him on fire is the right thing to do.

/Besides, i`m sure he`ll taste delicious.

**Helm** · February 06, 2011, 06:57 AM

It depends on the context, say you had 5 patients awaiting organ transplant who were about to die and someone with all the right healthy organs walked into the hospital at just that moment. It's probably not right to kill him and harvest his organs.

**~~removeduser_4536284751384~~** · February 06, 2011, 07:25 AM

it depends on your own personal morality and how important each person is to you.

**Vir Triumphalis** · February 06, 2011, 07:42 AM

Why should the fat man be condemned to death by burning? There's more options to saving the trapped people than burning the fat man.

**Col. Tartleton** · February 06, 2011, 09:11 AM

Listen to your heart.

**Cahoma** · February 06, 2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by JPHILP!

If there was a fat man jammed in a cave entrance trapping 20 people, and the only way out would be to set him on fire to burn him away, would it be amoral to kill? Personally I think not because not doing so has the effect of killing 19 more people. What do you think? No smartarse comments like "oh I'll call 000 or 911" etc..

Originally Posted by Helm

It depends on the context, say you had 5 patients awaiting organ transplant who were about to die and someone with all the right healthy organs walked into the hospital at just that moment. It's probably not right to kill him and harvest his organs.

The difference between those to scenarios is that in the first one, the fat man is the cause for the other peoples death. In the second one, the man with all the right healthy organs doesn't have anything to do with the 5 patients.

**Khassaki** · February 06, 2011, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by JPHILP!

If there was a fat man jammed in a cave entrance trapping 20 people, and the only way out would be to set him on fire to burn him away, would it be amoral to kill? Personally I think not because not doing so has the effect of killing 19 more people. What do you think? No smartarse comments like "oh I'll call 000 or 911" etc..

Cover him in olive oil and push him out of the way, then me and the other 19 people can make fun of him while the fat bastard goes on a diet until he will be able to get out as well.

Killing a terrorist to save 20 hostages is ok, killing a fat man blocking the way less so, killing the donor to same the 5 patients is unacceptable. For me the question is: does the terrorist, fat man, or potential donor deserve to die so the others can live?

**Odovacar** · February 06, 2011, 09:49 AM

The example doesn't seem to me valid.

**Clibby** · February 06, 2011, 10:15 AM

This one is easy. You don't have to kill him because without food he will shrink and everybody gets to live, including the fat man. You need a better example, but if I get what you are looking for then there is no right or wrong answer. It depends on you own morality. Some people will agree and others won't. I personally don't believe killing an innocent person, even to save 5, is the right thing to do. The fat man may even choose to take his life to save the others, but thats his choice to make not the 20 other people's.

However governments have to make utilitarian decisions: the greatest good for the greatest number. I wouldn't support their active murder of innocent people, but if through neglect they kill 100 to save 1000, then I believe it is their moral duty to do so.

War is tricky in the sense that we try not to kill civilians, so only combatants are targets. Civilian casualties are unfortunate, and sometimes irresponsible soldiers are to blame; others are unfortunate consequences of war. War is not inherently immoral, but should be avoided.

In the end, this is my opinion and some people will disagree with me. Your not going to find a perfect answer here.

**Himster** · February 06, 2011, 11:22 AM

It has to be the last ditch option. Also lighting a fire in an unventilated chamber would kill all 20 in a matter of mere minutes.

**Rolling Thunder** · February 06, 2011, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Himster

It has to be the last ditch option. Also lighting a fire in an unventilated chamber would kill all 20 in a matter of mere minutes.

Exactly how are they going to light him on fire any way?

**Himster** · February 06, 2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Exactly how are they going to light him on fire any way?

Most people these days are alcoholics, there's bound to be a few people with thigh flasks of whiskey or vodka, some woolen clothes and a lighter then combine to make an awesome fire.

**Helm** · February 06, 2011, 12:15 PM

Couldn't you just amputate some of his fat with a knife?

**Surgeon** · February 06, 2011, 12:22 PM

Just pass knives and forks to the other 20 people so they can eat the fat one from the other side over a few days. That way, when they're done, they'll both be in good health and free.

**Cahoma** · February 06, 2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by JPHILP!

No smartarse comments like "oh I'll call 000 or 911" etc..

**Helm** · February 06, 2011, 03:02 PM

You would have a hard time setting someone on fire with whiskey. I think the TC just has a fantasy for setting a fat person on fire, but wants to imagine doing it in a way that doesn't seem untoward.

**Khassaki** · February 06, 2011, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Helm

You would have a hard time setting someone on fire with whiskey. I think the TC just has a fantasy for setting a fat person on fire, but wants to imagine doing it in a way that doesn't seem untoward.

The only real question is, would their be crackling on the body.

**hellheaven1987** · February 06, 2011, 07:08 PM

There are always moments when a decision is immoral, but necessary.

**Elfdude** · February 06, 2011, 06:00 PM

To examine the spirit of the question I would say no it's not explicitly wrong to kill someone. It might be justified. There's a very long distance between justified and ideal however and I think that rather than attempting to be satisfied with justification we should only be satisfied when we reach our ideal, i.e. no one has to die. Anything less isn't morally good, it's just reasonably justified and just about anything can be justified.