I was on another Forum I belong to recently, one with a much larger population of Christians (and particularly fundamentalist Chrsitians). During the course of a controversial discussion on abortion, the ethical question arose as to whether making abortion illegal and pushing abortions into back alleys where women would be under greater risk of death or becoming sterile, was worth it in comparison to keeping it legal and allowing women to kill more unborn babies with both the woman and the foetus being physically free from pain and risk. For the purpose of this discussion, being that it is on a Christian board, the status of a foetus is assumed to be a living human being, so there is no argument about its legal status.

So this begs the ethical question, and I thought I'd ask it in this sense over on this Forum. If you had to choose (and for the purpose of this question, considering it is hypothetical, I would like to say that you cannot choose "Other", though you can discuss the possible ramifications of this), would you:

1 - Prefer 1000 randomly chosen people to be killed painlessly and without ever fearing death. Or,

2 - Prefer 20 randomly chosen people to be tortured, cut open, sewn up, allowed to be infected by disease, before eventually dying alone and terrified in a dark warehouse

Naturally, neither option is particularly pleasant, but thinking of it in terms of an ethical dilemma, where does your religious (or non-religious) convinctions put you in this position - Kill more, but painless. Kill less, but go through torture.

Any and all thoughts and comments appreciated

I'm going to have to think a lot before I cast my vote. Good question PA

How about choice: C. None of the above

Sorta defeats the purpose of an ethical dilemma if you could do that. I can certainly understand wanting to think long and hard about it. I have thought quite a bit about it, and still don't know if I've come to any kind of answer, though I think I am slowly workign towards a workable response.

Well obviously in the optimum situation no one dies... but if thats the case WWF, then we don't have an ethical dilemma.

I choose the random 1000 painless because in my view death is better than torture. Death is an end to pain while torture is an intensification of it.

I myself would happily volunteer also to be one of the 1000 in a sense that death to me isnt the end but merely a spiritual change from one dimension to another.

I myself would much rather die painlessly then undergo torture. Think of the morbid disturbing torture tactics often used by the military or serial killers. A bullet to the head compared to being boiled alive or being starved to death etc.

Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot. ---Sophocles

Why have an ethical dilemma then?

I'm sticking with choice C.

Going with option one because it involves less suffering.

Though realistically this does not and cannot define the choice society can make when it comes to abortion. If the choice is between allowing abortions to be available for people out of a matter of convenience when the life or health of the mother is not in danger which might lead to some still opting for an illegal abortion to convenience them and they suffered a terrible back alley death as a result -or- choosing to allow abortions to be available as they are now in many states where just out of a matter of convenience a mother can choose to murder her child...then I would vote for the first option. One, because the decision and risk of dying in a back alley all alone, knowing the risks of it possibly happening, are totally on the mother for wanting to terminate the life of her child as a matter of convenience, and if she happens to end up dying herself in the process a terrible death, well those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Her life of convenience would have only been possible because she had chosen to administer the sword, or surgical knife, or coat hanger, to her unborn child, and thus died in the process. Of course this is only a perfect scenario in my eyes and takes for granted that abortions would be accessible to mothers whose life or health are in danger if she were to carry her unborn child full term. Without doing such as a matter of self-defense even now those who opt for abortion as a matter of convenience are murderers...

Such contrived dilemmas are "silly" They simply don't represent a real life scenario and thus are not useful. They cant even really show what a persons true moral values are

. For example I would refuse to choose. (the scenario says i must choose, but the one option i always possess is not to choose.)

iI will not take/ accept responsibility for any deaths. Quite obviously the ethical dilemma is not mine , and it cannot be forced on me. I am in no way responsible for any of the deaths.
Thus the absoliute worst scenario for which i can be held responsible ( if this some how took place in real life) is my own death, and torture, for refusing to cooperate.

Even that is not my responsibility but anothers. And i have made a centrally important and correct ethical decision in refusing to take any part in the death or torture of another.

I answered similarly in an online ethical poll and the computer interpreted it as saying that i thought numbers do count, but in fact it is the personal action which counts. Numbers are irrelevant.

To be responsible for one other innocent persons death or suffering is unacceptable. If by acting i saved one person i would act. If acting meant i killed one innocent person i would refuse to act..

Thus if i saved one person but that meant someone killed one hundred people i would save the one. I am responsible for saving that life. The person who takes the other lives is responsible for that action.

I hadnt read the bit about abortion til i finished my comments, just the scenario. But my ethics still fit I would always save the child, unless that action contributed to the death of the mother(or the likelihood of her death)

Saving the child is the only ethical choice i can make. If other people, from the mother to backyard abortionists, to goverments elected by the people, make decisions leading to the death of the mother, then that is not my responsibility It is that of all those people who made a different choice or choices.

Then why bother taking part? It is like my old 'is the universe morally meaningless' thread. Whether in your opinion it is silly or not matters not because it is simply an intellectual/philosophical exploration. Socrates and Plato did it all the time.

It's a tricky question, If it is 1000 people than the odds are higher of it being one of my kids, or someone I care about. So on a compleatly selfish note, I would say 20. But I know death is not the end and and the torture you describe is terrible, so I would say 1000 just in case it ended up being someone I love, I would rather they go fast than suffer in any way.

But you say this question is hypothetical, and put the abortion paragraph at the beggining. It sounds to me like you are trying to trap someone into saying that they would rather 1000 fetus' be killed than 20 mothers who sought an illigal abortion, going through pain and possibly death because of it. That is an entirely diffrent question all together.

Touche! But were saying if your only choices were A or B, without any alternatives, what would you pick? I'm still not sure. Of course if there were the choice C like you have presented, everyone who wasn't a sadist would pick C.

There is always an option C, not choosing, in such scenarios. For me it was easy, the choice which insured less actual human suffering. Even when tallying up the suffering that the family members of the thousand will experience, some perhaps even harming others in their despair, or harming themselves my choice remains.

I would choose 20 to lose their lives over 1000. Many soldiers lose their lives under less than favorable conditions (grenades, mortars, bullets). I would rather see 20 lose their lives (fighting for what they believe in) rather than 1000 over something like a sickness or lesser form of dying (overseas epidemic).

Well WWF you make a good case but that is not one of the options or conditions within this particular ethical dilemma. Naturally though with more conditions available I would pick the 20 to die, let them die, for what they believe in, murdering unborn children so they can carry on their lives conveniently.

Hi guys, thanks for the responses so far. I just wanted to point out that the ethics of unborn children had nothing to do with this discussion. My question intentionally moved beyond unborn children and into human life in general to avoid just this type of comment. I was simply sharing with you where the original idea for this thread came from. One particular poster has made a claim that this was menitoned as a "trap" for abortion. My apolgies if this was the case, it was just background on how the idea came to my mind.

In fact, after thinking about it a great deal, I think I would take the 1000 option. I have thought over and over how Jesus would view it, and the overriding view is - Jesus would take the "Loving" option. And I think that would mean painless end.

Of course, that would be necessity exclude other factors inclduing whether the condemned were a relative or a friend, or whether the person chose this path as a result of abortion. But then, these questions are never perfect. We aren't privy to all the facts and figures within this hypothetical, and we don't know who these people are who would be chosen at random.

I certainly wasn't trying to make any point, and after all is said and done, I think more people dying painess deaths would be more loving than fewer people suffering greatly.

As I said right at the beginning, neither option is ideal, but considering the factors (not including personal bias, eg - my child/relative might be in the 1000), I think from my philosophical viewpoint, God would see 1000 painless deaths as more "Loving" than 20 deaths that lead to torturous, hurtful and ultimately grueseome ends.

That said, this "Loving" view doesn't consider the effect that these 1000 deaths would have on the families of those who died. Unfortunately, with hypotheticals such as this, we can only work within a specific framework. thanks to all responders at this stage. I am now casting my vote and think that if Jesus were asked to make that decision (he'd probaly choose "option C", but since that's not avialble), he'd consider the Loving nature of our humanity and take the 1000 lives who did not suffer nor ever were going to suffer.

~ PA

B ) 20 people.

Rather kill the 20, than to kill 920 MORE people. Painless or not, killing less people is less dramatic.

Hi Chokmah,

thanks for the response. I do totally see your point of view, and thank you for sharing. It was one of the views that plagued me as I tried to anwer from my point of view as well.

Though it is a hypothetical question, I'm sure it can't have been an easy decision to arrive at (it wasn't easy for me). All the best,

This is one of those questions that is easy to answer at first but the more you think about it the harder it becomes. Here is another ethical dilemma. There are two rooms and the person you love the most is placed in the other room and you in one. You cannot see them and you are both locked in. There is a red button in each room. Whoever presses it first will instantly kill the other person in the next room. If neither press it they both die. Would you press it so you could live or either wait for them to do so first or maybe they will not and both will die for nothing. Surely one death is better than two.

I'm sticking with choice C. Nobody dies.

What a shame you cannot intellectually explore different themes and scenario.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ---Aristotle

If it is a painless death I would be quite unhesitant in waiting. Also according to my spirituality life and death are no better or worse than each other. As Gandhi says:

"Birth and death are not two different states, but they are different aspects of the same state. There is as little reason to deplore the one as there is to be pleased over the other."

-- Mahatma Gandhi


I think also death doesnt exist in that a soul is immortal and therefore was never born nor will ever end. As Sufi poet mystic Jalal-uddin Rumi wrote:

Hey! You who are slowly decomposing in the garden of growth and decay, don't you know that your everlasting soul didnt sprout from anything- because it was never born?

Being a Star Trek fan for many years, this quote helped me make the choice. I choose option B.

I'm going to have to go with B too. Thats a thousand people who have lives, a lot of them probably have families they need to help support. Either way, I'd have a lot of grief either way, I just think 20 people is much less damage caused and maybe(ultimately) less pain caused overall.

If I could choose the people, then I would choose option B.

But since it's random, and innocent people might suffer, im going with A..



EDIT: I'm already second guessing my answer, I have regrets..

Good thread PA..

At least those 1000 families can rest easy knowing that their child or whoever didnt die an agonizing death. What if the 20 people were to be tortured via live lobotomies? Or be eaten alive in an aquarium of ants?

lol BNW any more gruesome scenarios to throw into the pot?

* Chooses not to choose *

What if you do not choose then both groups die but in reverse. The minority die painlessly and unknowingly but the majority die knowingly and horribly. And it is the fault of those who did not choose?

Then I'd choose to ponder. For a very long time - preferably until everyone died of old age and natural causes, at which point I'd make my decision.

If Death or Death are your only options - then you need to make more options.

If the ratio is different does it change anybody's mind? Choosing between 3 people painlessly or 2 people hideously tortured?

Does the cessation of life in quantity always outweigh the extreme torture of a few?

That's if they knew about it. And people do care more about their own families than people they haven't met. I didn't say it was an easy decision for me to make.

Woah, I can entertain things. However, people dying in large numbers or brutally isn't entertaining to me.

I think this an extremely disturbing question. It reminds me of the movie "Sophie's Choice" were she had to pick one of her children to be left at the concentration camps.

I'd have to go with the 1000 because I simply can't stand the thought of torture & suffering and the fact that we have to die at some point down the road.

I think people should die in peace or very quickly when they go.

I would rather lose all of my 20 children suddenly without terrible pain or torture -than 2 that would be terribly tortured and suffering.

But if I had the good fortune of believing in heaven after death-then of course it would be much easier for me. I still feel that the suffering that is caused by the loss of a loved one is very much increased for a non-believer. That is the negative side.

What about hell? Is that entertaining for you ? You are confronted by this every day because of your belief.

It's something your god feels is just --otherwise it would not exist.

If i didnt take part in the discussion no one would be aware of my opinion about such"dilemmas"

. Dilemmas which are real constitute good learning practice. Unreal ones (as in they could not actually be real because the parameters are artifically constructed in such a way as to prevent that happening) serve no purpose morally or logically. However, they can be fun, and fun is a legitimate motivational tool.
This scenario however was apparently set up with a purpose which it could not rationally fulfil because it did not reflect reality.

What were the purposes of socrate' sand plato's debates? Fun( which includes pure intellectual fulfilment) or an element of teaching and learning (not just about intelletual debate, but about the world)?

yet this is in a sense a real dilemma . did you vote for Bush in 04 ? how many has he killed ? did you not take a side then ?

what about like the subject matter of Shindlers list ? where he had to pick and choose ?

you may think these decisions are far removed from you , but really they are not.

if you found yourself in a situation where you could save one over another would you think this , which did not reflect reality , a learning tool ?

No i am only responsible for my action. My refusal to act means i am not responsible for anyones death. Also an earthquake/or an angel might come along and resolve the dilemma so both live.
. Now if i could push a button which killled myself, but ensured the long and healthy/painfree life of the person i loved most, as opposed to them dying in the room next door, i would push the button to do so without any great angst

In my ethical system, my life is the only one i am free to act on as i will, either positively or negatively. In the case of other people i must act to help them, which also entails grading the degree of help/ harm my actions cause. So saving a life comes first, even if it causes some lesser negative effects

No. It's the fault of the person who caused /initiated the deaths, or the person who constructed the whole bloody scenario.

I was reflecting on similar comments about me bnw. As a child, from the earliest age ican remember, an adolescent, and as a young man, i did this constantly.iI would walk the streets at night, doing nothing but this. My mates and i would stay up all night on a public lawn staring up at the stars, and doing exactly this. Id get told off in class because my mind was off doing exactly this. So you are absolutely correct in one respect.

Personally as ive got older, my mind has focussed more on the realities of life. I have been forced into many real similar scenarios, and had to choose. I no longer have the time to spare, or the energy to waste, thinking deeply about physical impossibilities.

Perhaps that is my loss, but the constantly diminishing time i have available, i want to put to practical use. (which does include debating scenarios of real/practical relevance to me and the world around me)
So for me its not that i cant, just that i dont see the point (other than for fun). I have a multitude of other sources of pleasure, and having had to deal with real effects of real human tragedies, reduces somewhat the pleasure I gain from analysing hypothetical death and torture.
Maybe i came across as disrespectful in both your thread and PA,s.
If i did , it was the disrespect which sometimes occurs when you voice an honest opinion at variance with anothers, but I apologise anyway.

Hi lt ripley. Voting is compulsory in australia. You can be fined and if you refuse to pay the fine jailed. I have never in my life voted because im a conscientious objector to compulsory voting.I think it is morally wrong to force people to make such iimportant decisions when many do not know the canditates, have never thought through their values and are totally ignornt of the political process.

So I never had the opportunity to vote for bush and as an australian it is not my place to comment on your president. However, if i did vote in australia I probably would have voted for john howard (who supported bush) for many reasons.

I now have great concerns of what the labour governments policies will mean to me and to many "older people" as i go into retirement, pension, and limited financial means. But i have to apply the bigger ethical standard first.


Shindlers list is not an easy one, and im not sure im fully aware of the actual scenario.But to apply my ethics. I would save every person i could. My own death would not concern me. However if, by misfortune i was in schindlers position i would do what ever my ethics advised me to do in that position.

It is again pointless speculating what it would really be like. For example I can save one in 10, if i a really careful and 3 in 10 if i take risks or i could save the first 10 then get caught and killed.

In the first scenario i might save 100 ,in the second 50, in the third only the 10, but given that it is not my responsibility or actions which are causing the deaths; from outside looking in, i would save the first 10. Who knows, perhaps i could get away with another 10 or perhaps the allies wold bomb the camps or whatever. Morally if i could save the first 10, then that is what i would do

. This does not mean that i think schindler was wrong or made the wrong decision. I was not there in his shoes or in his mind. Thats why its ultimately pointless worrying about it.

So perhaps such discussions can be learning tools for those who have never developed any ethical system. Its something the young may need to do, but i still think the scenarios should present real, viable alternatives to be helpful.

(so outlining schindlers position as factually as possible, then asking a person to think about what they would do in that position, and why they would act in that manner is indeed a viable learning tool. ) Putting artificial parameters on it, however, in my opinion negates a lot of that viability/value.
I already have in place an ethical value system which i can apply immediately to any real life scenario, Thus it is not helpful to me personally.

Wow, what a hard choice to make. I voted for the 1,000 people to die painlessly because I cannot stand the thought of others being tortured. But if I went with the other choice, fewer would have to die; now I'm second-guessing myself. I probably would have to take some time to pray about it and go from there.

In didn't even have to think about it very hard... option 1, no problem.

No amount of pain and torture is ever ok... ever. So more die, but they do so knowing no fear or pain. Easy.

you chose not to choose , or you would choose to give your own life. but life isn't that neat and clean.

Actually it can be, if you choose it to be.

As to your other comments you are correct. I have to acept that in not voting I cant really complain about the govt which gets elected. I also acknowledge that in a democracy people get the govts they deserve and have no one but themselves to blame, if things go pear shaped.
What is up to me, is to maximise my possibilities within any framework an elected govt sets up.
It worries me that govts are elected by ignorance rather than knowledge, where people are forced to vote in ignorance. I argue and lobby for change where i can (but in Australia encouraging someone not to vote is also an offence, so i have to be careful). Political parties dont want a change because it is not certain which ones would benefit from voluntary voting and which would suffer at the polls.

Nope, for me it was the most logical and humane choice. To swap 20 deaths for a thousand, painless or unimaginable toture, is just. Well. Kinda postal

I'd rather 20 people - who I won't even know so their deaths won't really matter to me - die a terrible death. Than to choose an option where 1000 people die. Painless doesn't always mean morality. There's more to just them, think of Hiroshima after the atom bomb was dropped. You have families torn apart, people with deformities ect. More than a thousand died painlessly, more than a thousand suffered after.

Seems more fitting that only 20 people are tortured until their dieing breath, than have 1000 die painlessly - the option of 1000 dieing (Unlike the option for 20) gives no explanation for HOW they die, but it'd have to be big and fast. Like a bomb. With 20 people dieing, you know where you stand on it.

Not really.

Hell is a personal choice by an individual who decides to reject God. God does not force Hell on anyone.

Socrates maintained that he knew nothing and true wisdom resides in this ,also you prsesume on Socrates and Plato's behalf that nothing can be learnt from this created scenario which is only your opinion. I think both Socrates and Plato would disagree since socrates espeically believed in questioning everything. In my opinion I think Socrates and Plato would think it a decent topic tp discuss such a scenario because of how thought provoking it is. Also how are we to learn anything from these scenarios or know if there is anything we can learn if we dont try to explore them first? Also I think it is sad that you havnt the imagination enough to see how excercising the mind in intellectual activities, thought experiments and moral issues (whether real or not) can be practical to the opening of one's mind to enable it.

Entertaining a thought isnt the same as finding it entertaining itself. Entertaining a thought is merely looking at things from a different perspective and opening the mind.

In my religion I would not be permitted to make such a decision for others. I am sure I would be insane by the time I made my choice. I guess I would go with B, but the pain of the decision would be too much for me to live with. In the end I would have no guilt either way as it is an outside source forcing me to decide peoples lives.








Live long and prosper Jor-el.