100 v. 2 Billion

P

Prince_James

Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
A princely demon creates a virus with no human cure and with a 100 percent mortality rate. He unleashes it upon 2 billion people - the lowest 2 billion, that is to say, the poorest, the stupidest, the genetically weak. Humanity's wretched, in other words. The virus will not spread further, the demon won't allow it, but he will allow it to kill all the above and in a most horrible way.

Yet there is a way to stop this, the demon says. And only at the price of 100 human lives that you must kill personally, without aid of weapons or partners in crime, yet neither with any fear of retaliation from them or from the law. The catch is that these 100 people are humanity's best. Famous figures as well as virtual unknowns, and the demon promises that there is much in man's future in these 100 people, and only they can accomplish it. To kill them is to rob the world of its 100 best and all they can produce forevermore.

What do you do?
 
Last edited:
Why trust the demon? If he kills 2 billion people, that's his evil. Why should you stoop to the same level and kill 100?
 
Oniw17:

Do you know humanity's wretched? If so, yes. If not, no.

James R.:

Let's say the contract you can draw up with him is independently enforceable. Say an princely archangel has decided to undo everything if the demon doesn't live up to his side of the bargain.
 
This type of moral dilemma is not unknown, and is at the heart of the policy of not negotiating with terrorists or hostage takers.

The demand goes like this: If you don't do this evil, I will do this greater evil.

The usually accepted "most moral" approach is to act to mitigate or prevent the greater evil without performing the lesser evil. Eg smite the demon, find a cure, legalise euthanasia (to reduce the horrificness of any deaths), or all of the above.

In this case, of course, it is questionable whether the demon's act is a greater evil at all... it depends on one's moral outlook on the value of human life. Many would argue that the execution of two billion people (even people chosen at random) is a good thing.

Anyway, I tell the demon to screw himself, and team up with the archangel to:
1) Smite the demon to Heck,
2) Make a cure for the virus,
3) Euthanise all incurable infectees.
 
Let's assume the princely archangel will only interfere to enforce the contract. Moreover, let us assume that the virus is incurable - that the demon has essentially made it with his princely magics to be 100 percent deadly barring a violation of the contract.

Would you still choose to euthanize those infected?
 
In the event that I wouldn't know any of the infectess(2 billion is a lot), letting the 2 billion die is what's more fair. The 100 wouldn't have died without you, and there's always the chance that one of the great things that one of the 100 does, or even that all of them does could save even more lives in the future.
 
Prince_James said:
Let's assume the princely archangel will only interfere to enforce the contract.
Click to expand...
Not much of an archangel! I think it's in cahoots with the demon - I'm not going to trust either of them.

They can both go screw themselves, and I'll get started on manufacturing a couple of billion suicide kits.
 
Two billion humans lost, what for free? Happens all the time. The really smart people, the good leaders, they are priceless.
 
Spidergoat:

So you'd refuse to kill the 100 to save the 2 billion?

Pete:

Yes, God is rather getting annoyed with the archangel and the demon working so closely together. Alas, he won't do a thing.

So yes, you also refuse to kill the 100?

Oniw17:

What if you did know one of the 2 billion? Just one?
 
Prince_James said:
Oniw17:

What if you did know one of the 2 billion? Just one?
Click to expand...
If it was one of my ciblings, or someone who I specifically wanted alive, I would kill the 100 people, although it would be a decision where my thoughts would be self-conflicting. It might even depend on which cibling was within the 2 billion, I'd be willing to let a couple of them go for the sake of great people such as Stephen Hawking. Otherwise, I'd do nothing.
 
Oniw17:

Do you claim that such would be more moral? Or only something you'd emotionally feel obligated to do?
 
Prince_James said:
Oniw17:

Do you claim that such would be more moral? Or only something you'd emotionally feel obligated to do?
Click to expand...
Would saving a cibling be more moral than letting them die? Yes, because it would be out of loyalty to your cibling that you save their life. One of the 100 could find a cure to a disease which after your decision would cause you an early death. Would NOT killing 100 great people, who were in no danger to begin with, in exchange for a cibling's life(obviously not one of your favorites) who were deserving of death(by being in the situation in the first place) be more moral than it's opposite? Yes, but not much more moral, it's a hard situation from the start(for me anyway). In the case that a cibling is within the 2 billion people, I would be conflicted with a decision between loyalty and fairness.
 
Prince_James said:
Yes, God is rather getting annoyed with the archangel and the demon working so closely together. Alas, he won't do a thing.
Click to expand...
Maybe She's in on it, too. If God thinks it's OK for 2 billion people to die, then the Bitch will see it happen one way or another!

So yes, you also refuse to kill the 100?
Click to expand...
That's correct. I won't be a pawn in a stupid game.
 
Pete:

Do you find this the moral choice?

Oniw17:

So basically your loyalty to your siblings and your loyalty to not killing innocents would feel strained at this point?
 
Morality is subjective, but yes, I think it would be immoral to kill 100 people.

If a demon chooses to kill 2 billion people, then I'll do what I can to thwart it, but I won't play its games.
 
Here's a similar problem for you, James:

Two billion people (randomly selected) have been infected with a fatal disease.
You have discovered a cure involving Psychobabbological™ energy.
It requires the extraction of the living brains of 100 honourable and intelligent people.

As luck would have it, the Nobel awards are taking place next door. One push of a button, and your Remote Psychobabbological™ Energy Extractor (patent pending) device will kill one hundred laureates, and cure two billion people who would otherwise die within the month.

Do you push the button?
 
Prince_James said:
Oniw17:

So basically your loyalty to your siblings and your loyalty to not killing innocents would feel strained at this point?
Click to expand...
It's not really my loyalty to not killing. I'd kill someone in a minute for any number of things. There's so much to consider in this situation though. Those 100 people have a lot to offer, probably even to me individually. Plus, they weren't going to die without me there, so I'd have to go out of my way to go and kill each of them, for basically no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top