{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/21/2017 10:13:18 PM
60
"Sometimes, one must be sacrificed for the good of many."
Quote is from the movie "9"
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Which situations would it be true and untrue for, or is it universally true? Perhaps there exists another option where no one must perish?
Post thoughts below
-
No innocent should be killed to save others.if one sacrifices themselves that's different.
-
I nominate trump for this 'position'
-
Edited by Jester: 1/24/2017 4:58:31 PMIt's basic logic. Math. It sucks but if someone's going to die then kill 1 rather than many. Of course it does depend on the situation to some extent. If it was a kindergarten teacher or a bunch of racists that would probably change some minds. Unless you hate kindergarten teachers.
-
Depends, the many could be a group of known pedophiles. Why would I help them?
-
6 RepliesHabilis wonders: who from that 87% is volunteering to be sacrificed?
-
3 RepliesEdited by Autolycus: 1/23/2017 6:18:27 AMWhat is the many but the one? The collective is an abstraction, the individual is a reality. When we adopt utilitarian ethics, or something similar, in our minds we tend to place the abstraction above the reality. This, combined with our flawed ability to analyze ethical situations and predict the outcomes of our actions, can lead to actions being taken based on a utilitarian justification, but lead to results that are undesirable under utilitarian analysis. So to speak, you end up chasing ghosts. There's certain ways in which putting the many above the one is a logically justifiable decision, but it's terrible as a universal.
-
Only if that person sacrifices themselves.
-
It's easy to say that when you or a loved one aren't the ones being sacrificed in all honesty
-
7 RepliesEdited by The Cellar Door: 1/22/2017 6:04:01 AMt. Unexpecting trolley memester [spoiler]Actual response: I would agree for the most part. Marie Curie granted us so much valuable information about radioactivity, and she died as a result of their work. She revolutionized atomic science and she opened pathways for women in academia. We understand atoms as well as we do today, because she died for her science. And I assure you, our world would look [i]very[/i] different if we didn't understand atoms as good as we do today. I understand that this isn't the exact context you may have foreseen in accordance with this quote, as Marie Curie's death wasn't caused by a third party, nor was she aware of the dangers of radioactivity, however I still think she is worth mentioning. Her sacrifice changed humanity for the better. I suppose it depends on who is doing the sacrificing, and their reasons for doing so. Marie Curie blindly stepped forward into a dangerous field in hopes of benefiting humanity. In the case of a dictator sacrificing a random person in hopes of setting a precedent of fear, there is no benefit. I think it should be considered case-by-case, rather than being black and white. [/spoiler]
-
"One sword drawn keeps another in its sheath"
-
If the "one" willingly sacrifices themselves then sure, why not... Key word though is WILLINGLY. [quote]“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” ~ Mr. Spock[/quote]
-
True, so long as it isn't me.
-
3 RepliesThat movie is garbage
-
I fckn loved that movie.
-
1 Reply9 was a gud movie
-
Jesus did to open the gates of Heaven, so even you unbelievers can redeem your lost and sad souls and be with God.
-
1 ReplyWhy would anyone want to sacrifice themselves?
-
2 RepliesNo penis poll=illegitimate poll
-
"Sometimes, the best way to save a life, is to take one." [spoiler]-Doc from Rainbow Six Siege [/spoiler]
-
Edited by AlexanderSolomon: 1/24/2017 4:59:34 PM[quote]You can never save everyone, because saving someone means not saving someone else.[/quote] -K Emyia
-
1 ReplyAlways depends on the reason.
-
14 RepliesEdited by LahDsai: 1/22/2017 11:53:57 AMI'm with Spock on this one. There is, however, often confusion between "needs" and "wants".
-
If someone is being a detriment it's time for them to go.
-
This is all fine a dandy until the majority mob starts violating others' free will to further this concept. Everyone is fine with this idea until they are the ones being sacrificed by force. As long as it's someone else, people seem to really like Marxian concepts...
-
Reminds of the movie Independence Day (spoilers for those of you who STILL may have NOT seen it) No one had any missiles left, and their only shot was for someone to fly their jet into the weapon of the mothership and blow it the -blam!- up.
-
Only if it's a self-sacrifice.
