Gnostic Priest

A. If you choose choice A less people will die then in choice B but more people will be killed by your own hands then in choice B.

B. If you choose choice B more will die then in choice A but less people will be killed by your own hands.

Which would you choose.

I would choose A as I care more about other people then I do about my self and some moral title.

You don't have to state your reasons for which one you choose if you don't want to however it makes for a better topic if at least some people do.

Kingreaper

You could at least use a good hypothetical, like: you're aware of a group planning on wiping out all human life in the northern hemisphere in order to make room for the people of south africa

There is no way they can be stopped except by killing all the south africans, in which case they'd be the only ones left, and would have plenty of room

You have in your hands a copy of their unstoppable superweapon, targetted on south africa

do you push the "start" button?

Personally I'd say it'd be morally right to do so, but I suspect I'd freeze, and afterwards kill myself in guilt for the death of the northern hemisphere

airhead

That's kinda silly. You are still making the choice as to how many will die. If you chose B, then you are still killing those people by your choice, which might as well be called "by your own hands".
Anyway, I'd choose whichever option killed the most people. Because then I would be cutting down on the competion, ...more resources for ME! Isn't that how you social Darwinians out there would choose?

Gnostic Priest

Yes I agree with you but sadly not everyone sees this so I made the topic seem a bit more clearer to the non-believers as is the point of most topics.

However even know many of you will agree with my idea you may still not be willing to take this idea to the level I do. For e.g if a murderer who fall onto the ground leaving him at your mercy however you hear his allies come to save him and you know that you can not beat them nor can the cops get there in time to get the murderer and his allies so you are left with two choices.

A. Kill him then run away. Meaning that no more lives will be destroyed by him.

B. Run away without killing him leaving him to murder more people in the future.

Again it is A for.

airhead

The anwer to that question would involve how I knew he was a murderer, and what that meant to me. If I'd just seen him murder my husband? -Shoot him!
If I'd heard on the news that he was a killer? -Run away!

IsItJustMe

I'd agree with Gnostic priest if the hypothetical were real, but:

Before blowing up South Africa I'd want to make pretty damned sure there wasn't another way, and in the real world that would almost never happen. I mean, you have to take into account certainty and uncertainty.