Most people believe it would be morally right and justified to kill someone to save yourself or someone else because it’s basic self defense whether the person you’re killing did anything or not.
What about the moral permissibility of killing multiple people to save yourself or your loved ones?
Would it be moral to kill two or more people to save yourself even though their lives outnumber yours?
At what point would it be morally better to sacrifice yourself or your loved ones because the alternative is costlier in human lives?
If forced in such a situation at what number of lives would you prefer to die or prefer your loved ones to die than take?
How do different moral philosophies respond to an issue like this?
Do most people believe that’s morally right , to kill someone who did nothing wrong to save yourself ? I think at the very least it depends on the specifics, as it’s entirely possible that someone thinks it moral to switch the train to the other track , killing one person while saving five while simultaneously believing it’s immoral to throw a fat person off a bridge to save the same five lives. Are we talking about killing one person because I can save my life with his liver or is someone threatening to kill you if you don’t kill an innocent third person? I think those details matter.
As far as what I think about the morality? I don’t think it’s moral to kill an innocent person to save myself or my loved one. Does that mean I’m certain I wouldn’t do it ? - no, not even close.
I don’t agree that
because who are you defending yourself against if the person did nothing? “Defense” implies an attack.
I certainly don’t. For example, if I, or someone I loved, needed an organ transplant to live, I do not think it morally right to kill some other healthy person to obtain the organ.
I think there are a variety of hypoethicals* about this one:
The organ donor situation
The rock-climbing situation (you’re tethered to someone, and they’re hanging free, and if you don’t cut them loose you might both fall to your deaths)
The lifeboat situation
I don’t know of any one of these hypoethicals where the general consensus is, “Sure, kill the innocent person if you need to in order to survive.” That’s not what our intuition tells us.
What do you mean “whether the person you’re killing did anything or not”? If it’s self defense, it’s because they intend to do you harm. If I was surrounded by a thousand ninjas that wanted to kill me for no good reason, I would be fully justified in defending myself against each and every one of them. If they didn’t mean me (or some other innocent) harm, I’m not justified in killing any of them. I don’t think people would call some sort of convoluted situation where you have to kill an innocent person to survive “self defense”, I think that implies malice.
If you’re asking about random innocent people, then we’re not talking about self defense, and 2:1 is too high a ratio to make sense. If we’re talking about people who have chosen to try to inflict harm on you for nefarious reasons, then they’ve thrown away any moral right to their safety and killing a billion of them is justified.
You can certainly trademark it. But then I’d have to kill you for the royalties. ;
Back to the OP:
The very fact the OP can’t formulate the question without using admitttedly the wrong words shows how vague and woolly the question is.
If I am being assaulted by a gang of hostile bad guys intent on killing me I’m morally justified in killing all of them to save me, much less me and somebody else. Whether they bring 1, 10, or 10 million doesn’t change matters. When they decided to start it, they jointly and severally forfeited 100% of any rights to moral consideration they may have had previously. Their lives are forfeit.
I’d really like a liver transplant for me or some family member and nobody is forthcoming with a spare liver? Sucks to be me or my loved one; I/they are screwed.
IOW …
The relative headcount is not what matters. It’s who owes how much duty to who for what reason that controls the morality. Everyone owes everyone the duty not to attack them. Nobody owes anybody the duty to deliver their liver. The intermediate cases are the fun ones.
True story. The Heart of the Sea is an account of the events that inspired the book Moby Dick. In one of the lifeboats lots were drawn and the loser shot himself so the other could eat him. They ultimately survived. Great tale of survival, by the way.
How far does it go? It stops at “self defense.” Weirdly, for some writers it doesn’t even go that far. I was really puzzled with the season finale of Invincible when Mark agonizes over killing Angstrom Levy. The character stated outright his plan to torture and kill Mark, and was threatening his mom and baby brother. I could have killed the guy and gone out for pizza and bowling that day.
Something similar happens in the last Jumper book. The MC is kidnapped and drugged, the bad guys are planning to torture and kill her and her boyfriend, and the chief henchwoman dies while trying to cut off her ear. She wonders if she needs to turn herself in for murdering someone. Big “what” moment for me (in part because she was unconcerned about the half dozen bad guys in the area that also died who hadn’t laid a hand on her).
I haven’t read the story so this may be out of line. I also don’t know whether the setting is realistic or more fantasy comic book hero like.
There is a difference between feeling morally responsible for the death of her assailant(s), and being concerned that the police will investigate the deaths and come looking for you.
e.g. Anyone with any imagination has considered being the victim of an attempted mugging where your magic ninja / MMA / Colt in your back pocket skillz kill the bad guy and you nonchalantly walk away unscathed.
As a fantasy that ends right there it’s both morally and logistically clear and clean.
In the real world the morals might be equally clear and clean but the logistics don’t end right there.
Somebody is going to notice the body, or the perp’s friends will wonder where he went. The cops will get involved. They’ll investigate the body for DNA or bullets, try to find surveillance video, etc. You can’t know how hard they’ll try nor how much success they’ll have. But you’ll have an uncomfortable few hours, days, or weeks waiting for that other shoe to maybe drop. And if it does, your life just got way more complicated than the fantasy.
There is a famous 1884 case always covered in law school about how far necessity goes as a defense to a charge of murder. R v Dudley and Stephens
Lost at sea scenario where two members of a small lifeboat decide to kill the third (cabin boy) in order to survive. He was already seriously ill at the time from drinking seawater.
Spoilers. Saving your own life is not a defense to murder.
Patience is a virtue even in extremis. Had they but waited a bit (assuming they could have survived) their meal would have become available without resistance.
Self-defense, or even defending someone else, may be legal, but you can’t murder an innocent person to save your own life, though if you were under duress (gun to your head) some states may knock it down to manslaughter.
It’s more the former than the latter - the CIA and FBI had been chasing the same criminals, knew she’d been kidnapped (again) and basically told her father (the MC from the first book/film) that they’d prefer to leave her out altogether as it would just complicate things. The cover story of a gas leak at the secret base was already in place.
