63 réponses à ce sujet

[Naughty Bear]

You are burdened with the ability to see or read events that will occur in the near future. 3 months max.

One event involves an innocents dying, however to prevent this, you need to kill those who will be responsible to prevent the event from happening.

A. You're aware of what's going to happen but killing is wrong, so you let the event take place and let life take it's course. But you will alter the future.

B. you decide to kill these certain individuals to save the innocents. However, these individuals now, are also innocent men and women, it's just later in life they will be responsible for the deaths. The future will change and another group of individuals will become a threat in the near future, so your kill count will keep climbing, eventually out numbering the lives you have saved.

Just curious, I'm not interested about what will happen in the future, but about now. Personally, inaction seems the most morally wrong.

[DeathScepter]

what if those deaths occur are supposed to happen to prevent a even darker future?

[Inquisitor Recon]

I've always followed a simple rule.

 

- I am always morally right.

- They are always morally wrong.

 

Without knowing any more details I'd say action B is the right choice. Of course knowing the specific details can easily change that.

[bmwcrazy]

I'll use my ability to invest in stocks and live a comfortable life.

[Naughty Bear]

what if those deaths occur are supposed to happen to prevent a even darker future?

There will always be a threat no matter what, it's just a matter of: is it worth trying to save lives like this or just let the events happen naturally. Despite being aware.

These "individuals" are not just criminals. One person can simply be patient zero who has a virus that becomes a global pandemic for example. Another could end up making a chemical agent which can be weaponised. Think of an ak-47, how many deaths have been caused by this piece of engineering? Sure the engineer didn't personally kill with it, but his creation is now being obviously used to kill many. You can prevent it from happening but eventually, another weapon will pop up, just as technology continues.

There is no "dark future" like someone taking over the world or anything, there is no threat to life. The only biggest threat would be a world was, but most events would be limited to the Black Plague in size numbers of deaths. It's just life, there will always be some threat to life.

The aircraft pilot falls asleep and crashes a Boeing, a man didn't correct a maintenance problem and instead caused an explosion at a nuclear plant. Mistakes, errors, creating something, wrong place wrong time etc. innocent people who through their actions by accident or just bad luck cost significant lives and you can stop it by killing them.

[RobRam10]

I am always right and you are always wrong.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Wow *wink*

aka I'm not God and who is really innocent anyway?

 

If I was burdened with the ability to see into the future, I'd know that supernaturalism exists for certain and rather than becoming a hero or anti-hero...I'd simply shout the following...

 

 

Besides, who said you'd even be able to kill the people who are going to go out and murder? Who's to say that you'll get away with it? Aren't you effectively fighting against destiny and fate? Perhaps the murders will lead to consequences that lead to something really good preventing future deaths or leading to some guy to rise up and become a hero, saving more lives than those that were taken.

 

For me this is more of a philosophical question rather than moral one. It's the classic "would you kill Hitler if you could time travel?" question. Playing with the future or past (if it were possible) would altar time-lines, possibly causing entire family lines to become non-existent so I wouldn't do anything. Perhaps those murders would bring some people together who go on to have a family, a family that eventually produces a scientist that cures some dreaded disease like cancer or something. You prevent those murders and that guy never comes to exist and cancer continues to exist for several more decades before someone discovers an ultimate cure that is always effective but by then, thousands would have died from cancer.

 

So the right thing to do is to do nothing but sit back, relax and have some beers and simply watch.

[mybudgee]

C. Kill myself, thereby avoiding any responsibilty & choosing the method/ timing of my demise. Bonus, I leave a super dramatic note behind

[TheClonesLegacy]

I'll use my ability to invest in stocks and live a comfortable life.

[Naughty Bear]

Wow *wink*
aka I'm not God and who is really innocent anyway?
 
If I was burdened with the ability to see into the future, I'd know that supernaturalism exists for certain and rather than becoming a hero or anti-hero...I'd simply shout the following...
 

 
Besides, who said you'd even be able to kill the people who are going to go out and murder? Who's to say that you'll get away with it? Aren't you effectively fighting against destiny and fate? Perhaps the murders will lead to consequences that lead to something really good preventing future deaths or leading to some guy to rise up and become a hero, saving more lives than those that were taken.
 
For me this is more of a philosophical question rather than moral one. It's the classic "would you kill Hitler if you could time travel?" question. Playing with the future or past (if it were possible) would altar time-lines, possibly causing entire family lines to become non-existent so I wouldn't do anything. Perhaps those murders would bring some people together who go on to have a family, a family that eventually produces a scientist that cures some dreaded disease like cancer or something. You prevent those murders and that guy never comes to exist and cancer continues to exist for several more decades before someone discovers an ultimate cure that is always effective but by then, thousands would have died from cancer.

Wow *wink*
aka I'm not God and who is really innocent anyway?
 
If I was burdened with the ability to see into the future, I'd know that supernaturalism exists for certain and rather than becoming a hero or anti-hero...I'd simply shout the following...
 

 
Besides, who said you'd even be able to kill the people who are going to go out and murder? Who's to say that you'll get away with it? Aren't you effectively fighting against destiny and fate? Perhaps the murders will lead to consequences that lead to something really good preventing future deaths or leading to some guy to rise up and become a hero, saving more lives than those that were taken.
 
For me this is more of a philosophical question rather than moral one. It's the classic "would you kill Hitler if you could time travel?" question. Playing with the future or past (if it were possible) would altar time-lines, possibly causing entire family lines to become non-existent so I wouldn't do anything. Perhaps those murders would bring some people together who go on to have a family, a family that eventually produces a scientist that cures some dreaded disease like cancer or something. You prevent those murders and that guy never comes to exist and cancer continues to exist for several more decades before someone discovers an ultimate cure that is always effective but by then, thousands would have died from cancer.

Philosophical wise you're right. But it's more of a "is it worth it?" We would always have accidents, people responsible by accident (patient zero) costing lives some in great numbers. I'm trying to not float onto changing the past or future, but more about now. Inaction or action? Take action and people will die either naturally or accident (trying to ignore murder", same goes for inaction, the exact same results but different people die instead. Is it right to just let people die knowing they will die or is it right to kill those who are unfortunate enough to be responsible for these deaths?

[TheClonesLegacy]

The aircraft pilot falls asleep and crashes a Boeing,

If only there was somebody present with the pilot at all times.

 

Like a...Co-Pilot. Or something.

But alas, that just sounds like Science Fiction.

[Naughty Bear]

Let's assume I don't know the future with these options. So I'm to save an innocent by killing another? I don't know their backgrounds nor do I know them personally right?
 
I have no other choice right?
 
I mean, I'm pretty limited here. But if killing them is the ONLY choice then I'll have to say 'I'd try.' But I can't say for sure because how hard it is to actually kill somebody else.

Yes you're limited. You just know who will die and who is responsible.

[Naughty Bear]

So you get 3 months notice but there's no other way to stop these people from killing than by killing them first, huh?

Let's not get to deep. Just inaction or action I'm curious about really.

[Naughty Bear]

Like I said. I'll try. But I wouldn't promise myself 'I'd do it.' I'm not a killer, not have I killed and hopefully will never have to kill. So I wouldn't know if I could kill unless the victim was somebody I knew...
 
Or a dog.
 
Don't **** with dogs or I'll murder your face.

Neither have I. I'm quite the pacifist. I fear one day I may have to aim a gun at someone, or even kill within two years if I pick the wrong ball or my country has a civil war.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Philosophical wise you're right. But it's more of a "is it worth it?" We would always have accidents, people responsible by accident (patient zero) costing lives some in great numbers. I'm trying to not float onto changing the past or future, but more about now. Inaction or action? Take action and people will die either naturally or accident (trying to ignore murder", same goes for inaction, the exact same results but different people die instead. Is it right to just let people die knowing they will die or is it right to kill those who are unfortunate enough to be responsible for these deaths?

 

Unless you can see all outcomes, you cannot say.

 

If you can see all outcomes then who is say you will not manipulate this ability for your own selfish desire?

 

Potentially, many different outcomes all have their own pros and cons, effectively there could be thousands of different outcomes for one event. So is there really a "right" or "wrong" here? Saving the innocents could actually be the "wrong" choice in that it can lead to more people dying in the future for whatever reason. If you kill the murderers before they've done their deed, it could lead to one of their siblings entering a downward spiral into drugs and eventually death, it could lead another guy entering a life of crime where he ends up killing some people.

 

Remember, you know these future guys are murderers in the future but no one else does. The world, their family and their friends will see them as innocents who were cut down by some psychopath and it could lead little Billy (the younger child sibling of Tom the Ganger, the first guy you killed) to become bitter at the world where he just lashes out and kills someone a few years later. If he were to see Tom as a murderer though, he might vow not to follow in the same footsteps and might grow up to be a youth worker or something who goes on to get numerous youth out of the life of crime etc etc...

 

With the powers of God, can you truly do right for doing wrong or vice versa?

[Naughty Bear]

Unless you can see all outcomes, you cannot say.
 
If you can see all outcomes then who is say you will not manipulate this ability for your own selfish desire?
 
Potentially, many different outcomes all have their own pros and cons, effectively there could be thousands of different outcomes for one event. So is there really a "right" or "wrong" here? Saving the innocents could actually be the "wrong" choice in that it can lead to more people dying in the future for whatever reason. If you kill the murderers before they've done their deed, it could lead to one of their siblings enter a downward spiral into drugs or something and eventually death, could lead to another one entering a life of crime where he kills people.
 
With the powers of God, can you truly do right for doing wrong or vice versa?

Both choices are right and wrong, depending on the person. You will never know the outcome, just that lives have been saved, nothi I stopping one of those you saved to be hit by a taxi the next day, you just know at the top of your brain that x amount of lives won't catch Ebola etc.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Both choices are right and wrong, depending on the person. You will never know the outcome, just that lives have been saved, nothi I stopping one of those you saved to be hit by a taxi the next day, you just know at the top of your brain that x amount of lives won't catch Ebola etc.

 

If you can't know the outcome then inaction is the best because you don't know what you're messing with.

 

Also, all murders have a motive, who is the say the "innocent" victim doesn't deserve it? If you can see into the future but not into the past then how can you decide who is innocent? Perhaps Paul the taxi driver is simply avenging his family for all you know...