Yes; especially if it's yourself. Of course, to the Catholic Church it is the desire to cause the knowledge to continue for the purpose of Life to preserve one's lineage. in Man that also counts.
I disagree. It depends on whose choice it is and what the circumstances are. I won't end my child's life to help that of 2 strangers, cause morally, my son means way more to me than those strangers, and I don't think it's a selfish mentality to have.
Morality and ethics all depend on the culture and person. For me though, I'd have to say it does depend on the circumstances. If we are talking complete strangers for both sets then I'd say no. The one stranger doesn't deserve to have their life ended for others.
There was some question involving a train full of people and a guy standing on the tracks or something that posed this exact same question. I honestly don't know what I would do.
It may depend on who the people are as well. Ethically, I would say you aren't to be held accountable, ultimately, as there is too little information present. Maybe the circumstances are that you kill one man who would later discover the cure for a disease to save millions to save two, f'rinstance.
i agree that ethics are relative depending on the situation, culture, etc. what's most important to me is that no matter your choice of action, your motive must be pure - you're the one you'll have to face when all is said and done
I don't think the question can be properly answered as it is stated because the circumstances are too important. For instance if a hostage taker says that he will kill two people if you do not kill a particular person then there is a dilemma. But, can you actually say one or the other would be more ethical because you were not really the one calling the shots? My opinion is that it is wrong to intentionally kill a third party to keep two others from dying. Note: I am making a distinction here betweenmerely dying and being killed. What if the hostage taker was threatening the life of two people and you killed the hostage taker? Then I think it would definitely be more ethical. But, there are so many possibilities I think each would have to be weighed by itself.
If the good done by acting outweighs the good done by not acting, it is ethical. And vice versa. By good I mean good done to oneself, either directly or indirectly.
It depends entirely on the situation. Who has better survival chances, who is a "better person", etc. -Matt
For the purpose of the discussion we should consider them completely equal in all regards. I don't believe that anyone has the moral obligation to DO anything unless they place that obligation on themselves. If you're a utilitarian then you will kill the one person to save the two, however if you hold no ethical beliefs that would make you obligated to do the most good for the most people then neither choice is more ethical than the other. That being said we can only be expected to do what we think is best for us. If we adhere to the utilitarian ideal then what's best for the rest of the world is what's best for us and in that case we would kill the one to save the two, but if we have found utilitarian to be false then both actions are equally meaningless to us and the decision would be arbitrary, so I predict that in that case one would most likely not act, not that that would be more or less ethical than the alternative in such a case.
When you reach the point of killing, it's already beyond ethics. Question then asked is what is more practically expedient? If you are head of state or defense, you don't ask if it's ethical to fire bullet at your enemy to save your troops and citizenry, you ask what it takes to obliterate your enemy and then you order it to be executed.
in my opinion ethically it would be to do what is best for the greater good and kill the 1 to save 2 all other factors being equal...this reminds me of my international politics professor on like the 2nd day of class handed one kid the roster and asked him choose 1 of 3 options. 1) choose 10 names and those 10 people lose 10 points 2) choose no names and everyone loses 10 points 3) choose another person in the class t make the decision but that person must choose either 1 or 2 interesting experiment...he really did take off the points too...he gave us an equally interesting way to get them back but thats a different story i this case we ended up arguing logistical differences between what is just and what is fair...and also if there is a difference if he said instead of 10 points if the 10 people would have been killed or everyone would have been killed would it be different
