|
|
 Originally Posted by eugmac
For all those who said they would donate the money to do enough good to make up for the one guaranteed lost life - what's to say that the owner of the $40 million wouldn't have done the same should you not accept the money? The chances that he will do good for society (maybe because his faith in it is restored by you saying no) with the $40 mill is non-zero, and nobody needs to be purposely killed.
Originally Posted by d0zer
Not to mention that throwing money at problems often doesn't turn out as intended.
Pretty much this. Dozer's got a good point about throwing money at problems, particularly in the area of say poor / developing nations. There are some interesting econ models out there that show that lump sum transfers of money to developing nations have no effect in the long run.
As for what eug said - I agree completely, and this is why I hate the other thread "Box Two", because it implies that not killing the person and taking the money is tantamount to killing twenty people. Logic fail, obv.
I think what it boils down to is this:
Is it morally justifiable for someone to take the life of another under the uncertain pretense of being able to save the lives of others?
It'd be hard to imagine any case where I'd say 'yes' to that question.
|
Reply With Quote