91 réponses à ce sujet

[Bluko]

I would sacrifice up to 9000 people to save a million. However no matter what the scenario sacrificing more then 9000 people is always a mistake in my book.

Anderson:"My god... just how many people are you going to send to their graves to defeat the Reapers?!"

Renegade Shepard:"Over 9000!!!"



(You'll have to forgive my paint skills.)

As for seriously answering this moral dilemma I can not say. It depends on who is being sacrificed and who is being saved. For example would you sacrifice your Shepard to save a million people? Now that's a bit of a tough choice. Especially if this was a situation in ME3 where you don't get to see your Shepard make it to the "happy ending".

Modifié par Bluko, 07 juillet 2010 - 01:20 .

[Thajocoth]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Thajocoth wrote...

There
is no such thing as an lose-lose scenario. It's simply a matter of
finding the truly clever solution that's hiding in the specifics.

Assuming
that one cannot find the clever solution, the cleaver solution is the
next best... However, I would have someone else commit the act.
Someone who would be far better at it than I.

Here's an example
of a similar situation... You perform an experiment on yourself and
make yourself immune to death. You regenerate, don't age, can breathe
air, can't get sick, diamond bones, ect... However, you're mind is
slowly fading. If it fades completely you'll die and your body will run
entirely on instinct. You've gained a new instinct you can easily
ignore, to kill people. You can delay the loss of your mind by killing
1/1000th of the people you'd kill if running on instinct. What do you
do? You have to re-make the decision every time, in this scenario,
making things more difficult.

Correct answer: Build a rocket.
Aim for a black hole.

There's always an alternative.

Rockets
are expensive, just dig a pit too deep for instinct-you to figure a way
out of.



Or, better idea, don't do retarded
surgeries on yourself in the first place.

See?  Two more
clever solutions.

Bluko wrote...

(You'll have to forgive my paint skills.)

NEVER!

Modifié par Thajocoth, 07 juillet 2010 - 01:17 .

[Sharn01]

Of course I would sacrafice a thousand lives to save a million, I think most sane people would, but reality does not deal in absolutes such as this.



Most of the time when people ask questions like these they are alluding to situations where they are really asking, would you sacrafice a thousand lives for the possible chance of making it easier to save a million lives, and for that the answer is no.

[Nightwriter]

Bluko wrote...

I would sacrifice up to 9000 people to save a million. However no matter what the scenario sacrificing more then 9000 people is always a mistake in my book.

Anderson:"My god... just how many people are you going to send to their graves to defeat the Reapers?!"

Renegade Shepard:"Over 9000!!!"



(You'll have to forgive my paint skills.)

As for seriously answering this moral dilemma I can not say. It depends on who is being sacrificed and who is being saved. For example would you sacrifice your Shepard to save a million people? Now that's a bit of a tough choice. Especially if this was a situation in ME3 where you don't get to see your Shepard make it to the "happy ending".

Hey! Is that that guy - what's his name - Vegeta? Or something. (Thank Nikelodeon Nicktoons for playing Dragon Ball Z stuff all the sudden, anime is so weird and campy).

Paint skills are better than mine btw!

And I would always, in most scenarios, find it easier to sacrifice myself for the better good than to sacrifice someone else. I mean on the one hand I have to live with my decision, and on the other I... don't. Heh.

[jamesraylor]

In the case of Zaeed's mission I would have saved the workers and told joker to track that shuttle and blast it out of the sky completing both objectives. You Kind of get to do this choice when you chose to save the residential area or the industrial area, save the people or the resources, I chose the people. As for the op's question, I'd save the million not sure about the child. Not sure about the repercussions of not sickness and the surge in population that would surely follow

[didymos1120]

AdamNW wrote...

Yes.

Really, who the hell would think you are a bad person for sacrificing a child in exchange for the lives of billions?

Probably the child, were it not dead.  Parents might not be too thrilled either.

[Onyx Jaguar]

InvaderErl wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

I hate in movies and books where they won't kill the little child to save millions of others. It's just stupid not to, there will be children that will die now, because of no cure that you could have, but don't, because you won't kill one child.

You should watch Battlestar Galactica.

Thajocoth wrote...

There is no such thing as an lose-lose
scenario. It's simply a matter of finding the truly clever solution
that's hiding in the specifics.

You could almost say you don't believe in the No-Win scenario.

Damnit Evil Kirk!  Your not the old meatbag I once knew!  Kirk would find a way to get the job done!  Unless it involves a time Paradox!  SNAKE

[Nightwriter]

didymos1120 wrote...

AdamNW wrote...

Yes.

Really, who the hell would think you are a bad person for sacrificing a child in exchange for the lives of billions?

Probably the child, were it not dead.  Parents might not be too thrilled either.

Trying to pit emotional values against statistics is tough.

Killing a total innocent has huge emotional significance to us. Whereas "billions" is just a number.

It would be better if we got to know some of the billions of lives we were saving. And if they included a bunch of children who were just as innocent.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

yes, I would sacrifice a thousand to save a million.

So long as: your success rate is guaranteed!!! (take note TIM you dimwit!)

The issue in ME2 is that you can't be sure it's going to be worth it cos TIM:

1. NEVER tells you all the variables to ensure success.

2. Has a habit of messing things up if Shep ain't around.

[Alexein]

The really cynical and selfish approach i would take:



Whichever group of people would treat me like a bigger hero i would save. So if say I had to press a button that nuked the millions, and then the billions would treat me like a war criminal, I would NOT make the choice to save those douchebags.



I'm not in it for the sense of pride that i saved people's lives. I want my big fat reward! and i don't care who gives it as long as it's the biggest one!



If they both treat me like sh*t, I'll let the billion die and then runaway hoping the fewer million will have a harder time trying to find me.

[Chuvvy]

aDuck wrote...

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)

Most of my family is dead or dying. So yeah I'd do it. Might kill myself later but I'd do it.

[snfonseka]

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

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 million to save a thousand. 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?

If you don't have any other option... any other way at all, well... you have to do it. Don't you?

BTW regarding your second para... it is not a marfia leader (not mafia at all), he is more likely an antihero according to my understanding...

[Landline]

In a second provided that one of said thousand wasn't someone I cared about.



I'm rather selfish in that manner.

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

"A million deaths is a statistic, A single death is a tragedy." - Stalin



Yeah... I'll kill the thousand to the save the rest.



The real kicker is to twist the situation -



Would you intentionally kill (IE - murder) a thousand innocents to save a million? I wouldn't.

[Dark Penitant]

Andrew_Waltfeld wrote...

"A million deaths is a statistic, A single death is a tragedy." - Stalin

Yeah... I'll kill the thousand to the save the rest.

The real kicker is to twist the situation -

Would you intentionally kill (IE - murder) a thousand innocents to save a million? I wouldn't.

Why? they are just as dead arent they? yes it is more emotionally scarring, but i would shoot every single one of them so as sucess was gaurenteed. The problem with that, is from a purely practicle point of view, there is no difference. From an emotional POV, well, there's the kicker... Could you do it? there is a real emotional deal there. whether you can accept the sin (a word i am loath to use for all of those annoying religious implications, but it is perfect here) onto yourself, and see the faces of those thousand every day. Then again, if a thousand was bad, try a million

However the other problem is that people are specifying. The whole point is whether you can make the abstract choice. if you can, then look forward to the knowledge that you have saved countless amounts people, and that you will never sleep well again. if not, than look foward to the knowledge that you killed countless amounts of people and that, again, you will never sleep well again.

In conclusion, i think that irrespective of the quality of those million or thousand, i would pick the million, simply because i couldnt live with myself otherwise

[adam_grif]

"Would you choose the lesser evil?"

Duh.

If you have a choice between 10,000 dying or 1,000,000 dying, that's not even a choice. You go the 10,000 killed. But situations are rarely so black and white with an obvious solution.

When we had the choice of sacrficing the DA to save the council, we had no idea there were thousands and thousands of civilians onboard. As far as I knew, there was a crew and a few politicians. BIG DEAL. But even knowing that, my decision stays the same. There is no way Shepard can know that he was guaranteed to succeed regardless of his choice, so the logical thing for him to have done is to minimize the risk. From his perspective, it is:

- The Ascension and the council
vs
- Every sentient species in the galaxy

That's not even a choice. "Save the council!" is only the 'right choice' from a metagaming perspective, knowing that everything will be fine both ways. Knowing that Sovereign won't succeed even if you do throw away reinforcements to save the council. I would go as far as to say that for this reason, saving the council is the wrong choice, even if you're a paragon Shepard. Saving the council is reckless, putting trillions at risk to save a few thousand people.

Modifié par adam_grif, 07 juillet 2010 - 08:21 .

[Massadonious1]

Shandepared wrote...

It depends on the specific circumstances.

[Fiery Phoenix]

As it has been said, I wouldn't sacrifice a thousand scientists over a million rednecks. So it depends on what kind of people we're talking about. If it's common/mixed people, then I would choose to sacrifice a thousand to save a million.

[Roninraver]

I don't know if I think differently than everyone else here, but I find it incredibly difficult to quantify the value of "X lives" vs. "Y lives."

I just cannot bend my mind in such a way that I can compress the sum total of a living sentient being's worth into a number, that may then be weighed and measured against other numbers comprised of the value of different living sentient beings.
What I mean to say is, that I can't think in terms of "1 < 1000" when the numbers are representative of the lives of persons.
To me, "1 < 1000" becomes "1 = 1000" when people are involved, because there isn't any way for me to make a judgment call that says definitively "This one person's life and all they have/might/will ever accomplish and all the good or bad they have/might/will ever do is less than what these 1000 others have/might/will ever do."

There just isn't any way to quantify the impact one person's life may have on the rest of us, for good or ill.  As there is no way to quantify the value of even ONE life, it becomes an exercise in futility to try and assign a value to the lives of a THOUSAND persons or more, and then arbitrarily weigh their worth against one another.  It's just silly.

Think of it this way.  What if, thirty some-odd years ago, a Reaper presented someone with this choice:  "Kill this one human child, burn his remains, and I will spare every other sentient life in the galaxy for thirty something years, at which point this contract goes up for renegotiation."

Seems a pretty sweet deal, yeah?  Even if it's only thirty years reprieve, gives us time to find a hero to save us all!  Except the guy given the choice killed and then burned BabyShep.  Now we're good and boned.


I believe these exercises are morbid and ridiculous, because of the above.  I feel the only reasonable course one may take if the goal is to do the most good one can (as I would assume it is, given the premise, misguided though it may be) and that is to constantly strive to save everyone, regardless of circumstance.

Shoot the guy playing at god and forcing the choice on you in the face.

Save the one.

Save the million.

Get the girl.

Because you're Commander ****ing Shepard.

[borelocin]

Would I sacrifice one puppy to save a million child molesters ?



Would I sacrifice one child molester to save a million puppies ?



The problem with questions like this is not the arithmetic.

[FrancisKitt]

Does depend on the circumstances. I mean, if said million was the government of the Batarian Hegemony and the thousand was a decidedly less insane group of people, I wouldn't.



Then again, a situation where this happens is highly unlikely. EIther way...

[Wonderllama4]

I would sacrifice an entire planet full of billions if it meant saving Kelly!

[FrancisKitt]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

I would sacrifice an entire planet full of billions if it meant saving Kelly!

Enjoy that scale itch, buddy.

[Wonderllama4]

FrancisKitt wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

I would sacrifice an entire planet full of billions if it meant saving Kelly!

Enjoy that scale itch, buddy.

that's Jack and you know it.