camoboy_19 wrote...
Phil725 wrote...
camoboy_19 wrote...
MarineBorn wrote...
Looks like were getting into thinking that killing for the greater good is ok. But what it all boils down to is the person that has to make the desicion, if for any reason someone had to make a choice to save millions by killing a few hundred they would like to think they would do it. However when you are faced with a problem like that the stakes change and you don't jump to a decision nearly as fast. Either way its a costly transaction and many people would look to there own personal gain, or there own consience for the final answer.
I don't think killing for the Greater good is alright. In the end, if you kill those you try to defend to end the problem plaguing them, you have accomplished nothing
Again, not everthing is like a game, there is no magical hidden third option to save everyone in real life. If you kill a few you were trying to defend as the only resort to saving many more, then you definitely accomplished something.
If there are 10 people and one murderer, and you kill 8 of those people to get the murderer, that is no accomplushment, just the needless slaughter. Theres usually always a less leathal solution
I was more referring to the whole kill 100 to save a thousand situation, you've hit on another grey area. If you let the murderer go in your situation, and he kills 20 people before you get another chance to stop him, then it was worth it to kill those 8.
Tieing it in to Mass Effect. Compare it to Zaeed's loyalty mission, stop a merc leader and ruthless murderer, letting innocents die in the process, or save the innocents, and let Vido go. IMO, its better to kill Vido. He is all but guaranteed to kill a lot more people if you let him live. Unfortunately there is no way to know in some cases what the right decision is until its too late. This is a troublesome grey area, and a lot of times, your stuck choosing between two wrong answers.