Would you be will to kill an innocent person if it meant it would end world hunger?
818861
"If pigs had wings, could they fly?"  The problem with both questions is that the premise is false.  Killing an innocent person will not, in fact, end world hunger.  \n\nSort of like "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" (although that one at least had some theological discussion behind it).  \n\nPseudo-philosophical questions like these generally don't yield fruitful answers (in the sense of real insights), but they can be a fun parlor-game or way to pass the time and get acquainted with friends.
1090347
It's about the greater good and it could be applied to most things. Would it better to kill one person or let many more die? Would you then be responsible for their others death if you did nothing? And would you be able to live with the guilt thereafter if you did nothing? But if it came to a choice of killing one person of them killing my loved ones then i would certainly kill that one person. However, i could not hoestly answer if it was unknown people about to be killed. I would like to think i could but, in reality, would I and would anyone else?
242620
Yes.  Not for revenge and not for the purpose of being a deterrant, but simply because human life is so precious that there can be no other penalty to a murderer than to have their life taken from them.  Life for life.
218043
It depends what you mean by starving, and for how long.\n\nMany religions practice limited starving, or fasting, for the purpose of trying to increase ones mental or spiritual will.\n\nBut long term would be murder. lol
753662
Well if someone in my family had be killed, I would want the person responsible to pay. And if it met going to the gas chamber or lethal injection then so be it. It may not bring that love one back, but I would have the satisfaction of knowing it could never go and do it to anyone else, he would be off the streets for good.\n\nThanks for the 2 points.
38555
Define "Terrorist".  Then ask if it would be better to kill all terrorists then 1 innocent person.  I would say yes.  They can come up with an intelligent way to change things instead of violence.  If someone is potentially violent because of nothing but hatred that has been brainwashed into them are they safe for society?\n\nIf you could have killed Hitler and saved many millions of lives, would you?
385201
Because it's wrong to kill people?
12538
no.\n\npeace on earth\n\nThere will not be peace on earth until all humans are eliminated because good and evil are only concepts of humans.
596695
It is only to assuage our own guilt that they are given a last meal. In reality we are no better off than the killers themselves if we have to resort to dealing death in retribution. think about this, how is killing different for the legal system? What are the alternatives to the death penalty? Why are we not using and advertising their usage more?---It really makes you wonder about the cruelty and the overall lack of compassion in our societies judicial system.--"You kill someone in the state of Texas, We'll kill you back" Ron White--\n--Food for Thought--
681439
I don't know. But, if I had been in the British government's position, and some guy threatened to starve himself, I would have said, "Go ahead, starve yourself".\nI know, it sounds cold, but think about that for a moment.
1108416
i don't think so, so no. they will never die, but their hunger status will be like something that makes you think they are dieing.
367109
only if i killed someone
1066366
yes you can kill harmfull creatures of god, and so that to protect your self, and others, but it would be better if you could throw the small creature away and not to kill it.\nTHAT is if you can.
606290
I don't think I understand your question.  On the surface, of course not.  I suppose it depends on what you mean by "keeping someone from civilization."  Are you talking about kidnapping?  If they then starve to death, well, then yes, of course.  \n\nBut there are tribal societies that don't have much to do with the modern world.  In that case, *bringing* them to "civilization" would be tantamount to murder, as you would be destroying their way of life and quite possibility their mental and spiritual well-being as well.
878249
No.  You might kill something.
914807
Yes. Flooding the world to destroy the evils of humanity would infringe on free will. There is no true free will in Christianity. It is only a term they throw around to convince themselves that their choice is based on something other than fear of an unlikely punishment.\n\nEven if Noah and his family were good people, while every other person in the world was evil, if god gave humans free will, then they had the freedom to choose evil. If you give someone a choice, you need to be prepared for the possibility that they will not choose what you wanted them to. If you give someone a choice, knowing that they will not choose the "right" answer and having a punishment in store for them in just that case, then you have set them up and are denying them free will. It is the spiritual equivalent of entrapment.
97158
Maybe it depends on who you're killing and who you are saving. Ulitmatley though I would say yes it is worth it. As the post above mine said 2>1, but that is not always the case in humanity. If killing someone that had something to greatly contribute to society would save a few people who had nothing to contribute I would say it would probably be better to save the one, because there's always the posibility that saving that one person could save 10+ lives somewhere down the line. \nFor example (This is a horrible example and is not very realistic but oh well) say that someone had discovered a cure for cancer, but some terrorists said they'd release 100+ hostages if you would turn him/her over. In that case I would say sorry for those 100+ people because ultimatley the cure for cancer would save more lives.\nOther than that scenario or one similar though I'd say it is best to sacrifice one to save many.