91 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamerOfMakeBelieve]

This option came up when speaking to Anderson about Saren. I have to say it makes a good point....if you have to sacrifice a thousand to save a million. Would you?

Or another example is from a movie I saw. The mafia leader asked "if you found out that in order to cure all the diseases there is you had to kill a child, would you kill that child? Saving billions of lives in the process(From future diseases and present ones).

For both scenario's I would. I wouldn't be able to live with myself but i would.

For both scenarios. What would you do?

Modifié par DreamerOfMakeBelieve, 07 juillet 2010 - 03:38 .

[Pacifien]

Not always. I'm not a very consistent person, I suppose. Would probably weaken any debate I had around here, but I think it is incredibly unrealistic to assume consistency from anyone. I wouldn't believe anyone if they claimed they could.

For instance, sacrifice 10,000 people on the Destiny Ascension to concentrate on Sovereign? Yes.
Sacrifice refinery workers to go after Vido? No.
Sacrifice the hostages on the X57 asteroid to go after Balak? Yes.
Leave David with Cerberus? No.

Modifié par Pacifien, 06 juillet 2010 - 04:02 .

[aDuck]

Yes. I think the harder question would be:

"Would you sacrifice all of your friends, family, and anyone else you cared about for a million people you havent met". Much harder, and would depend on the circumstance. Probably too chicken to do it though.

Also i think you phrased the second sentence wrong (sacrifice a THOUSAND to save a MILLION)

[CroGamer002]

Nobody could take those choices easy,

[DreamerOfMakeBelieve]

@aDuck thanks for pointing that out, yes I did mean that

[SnakeHelah]

Would you eat gummy bears if they were 10 years old?

[pitlord_special]

I believe that if you're at the point where people need to be
sacrificed, regardless of what is done, then you (or someone else
involved in the situation) has already made an avoidable mistake at some point.

So, I guess
my decision would have to be based on the willingness of whoever is up
for sacrifice. A division of soldiers knew what they were getting into
when they signed up for the job, but a ship full of passengers just
wants to get to their destination. I don't think anyone can really say for sure what they would do until they're faced with the situation at hand, which is rarely such a clear cut choice. Even in the case of killing a child to cure all disease, then what becomes of the planet? We don't have a sustainable existence here and ending disease might just mean dooming even more people to death by war or famine.

[Massadonious1]

This thread has Shandepard written all over it.

[frylock23]

I think it depends on far more than the simple question. If someone came to you saying that they could develop a cure for a fatal disease but in order to do so, they would have to do unethical experiments on other human beings, would you do it? How about if the human beings were all condemned prisoners? What about if their experiments required using unborn human beings and involved invasive and damaging procedures done in utero?



How about the flip side -

Your are in a submarine that is flooding. You can see your buddies fighting desparately to get to the waterproof hatch, but if you wait, you won't be able to close it against the water. Do you seal your buddies off? There is an impending plague about to strike. You have a limited number of vaccine doses. Do you save those doses for health care workers whose care could save many more or distribute them on a first come; first served basis? The list of possibilities goes on.

[Schneidend]

Sacrifice a thousand lives to save a million? Sure. But kill a child to cure all disease? No. Not because that baby's life is in any way "sacred." It isn't. I just feel that things like war and disease exist to keep the population under control. Don't allow lives to be lost if you can do something about it, but don't completely abolish natural occurrences (war, aging, disease, etc.) that end lives, either; that's my philosophy.

[JaegerBane]

Schneidend wrote...

Sacrifice a thousand lives to save a million? Sure. But kill a child to cure all disease? No. Not because that baby's life is in any way "sacred." It isn't. I just feel that things like war and disease exist to keep the population under control. Don't allow lives to be lost if you can do something about it, but don't completely abolish natural occurrences (war, aging, disease, etc.) that end lives, either; that's my philosophy.

War exists because of humanity's natural compulsion to compete against each other. Disease exists due to evolution. Neither of these exist to somehow 'curb' humanity's population.

This type of question doesn't carry with it a 'right' answer. It depends purely on the situation. What happens if that thousand are doctors, and the million are child molesters? A person's worth is defined by who they are, not if they happen to be in the larger group.

Whew, getting philosophical in here

[BlackyBlack]

In both cases, yes

People should watch Unthinkable, it deals with this kind of issue great IMO

Modifié par BlackyBlack, 06 juillet 2010 - 05:10 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

"The death of one is a tragedy while the death of a Million is a statistic" -Stalin



In both cases I would not.

[ran22147]

no and no

[Mercedes-Benz]

Depends, if they were stupid pot-heads or something of the like, I would sacrifice them, but if those thousands were people like Tesla or Newton, then no, I wouldn't sacrifice them. It depends of course on who the million are as well.

[Sigma Tauri]

Ha! As if I'm going to be facing a situation like this.



I won't answer.

[BlackyBlack]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Ha! As if I'm going to be facing a situation like this.

This is where BioWare always fails ...

[Onyx Jaguar]

Alpha Protocol does this yet I didnt' feel very compelled with it

[Lemonwizard]

JaegerBane wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Sacrifice a thousand lives to save a million? Sure. But kill a child to cure all disease? No. Not because that baby's life is in any way "sacred." It isn't. I just feel that things like war and disease exist to keep the population under control. Don't allow lives to be lost if you can do something about it, but don't completely abolish natural occurrences (war, aging, disease, etc.) that end lives, either; that's my philosophy.

War exists because of humanity's natural compulsion to compete against each other. Disease exists due to evolution. Neither of these exist to somehow 'curb' humanity's population.

This type of question doesn't carry with it a 'right' answer. It depends purely on the situation. What happens if that thousand are doctors, and the million are child molesters? A person's worth is defined by who they are, not if they happen to be in the larger group.

Whew, getting philosophical in here

However, the ecological niche of diseases in every environment is to reduce the population size of animals, preventing overpopulation that would deplete the ecosystem's natural resources.




Regarding the original question, it depends on the circumstances. In what way would I be killing the thousand? What are the million going to die as a result of? Who are these people? Anybody who can just answer yes or no with only the information given is being unwise.

[BlackyBlack]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Alpha Protocol does this yet I didnt' feel very compelled with it

AP has bad directors in both gameplay and story

[Onyx Jaguar]

Yeah, but it has its good moments to, even if the storyline was barely there

[megatron999]

in the case of Zaeeds mission you could argue by going after Vido and leaving the slaves to burn you were doing the right thing in order to stop a viscous killer from causing any more grief and it was your mission priority.

[Kronner]

Depends on what people/species. I'd rather save 1000 elite scientists/athletes/artists/etc. than one million common people.

[Cyanios]

if the total value of group one does not equal or is greather than two, then yes, i will send them into the afterlife.

[JaegerBane]

Lemonwizard wrote...
However, the ecological niche of diseases in every environment is to reduce the population size of animals, preventing overpopulation that would deplete the ecosystem's natural resources.

Unless you're one of those Gaia tree-hugger nutters, no disease on earth exists for the purposes of holding populations in check. They have that effect, yes, but that's not why they're there. They're there because they evolved in an environment favourable to them.

Ultimately, there is no built-in trigger that ensures the Earth's carrying capacity is never exceeded. A sobering thought...