I was watching Swordfish the other night; the movie starring Hugh Jackman, Hallie Barry, and John Travolta, about a massive scheme to steal money electronically from the government to fund a secret anti-terrorist organization, and Travolta's character asks a question that got me thinking. To paraphrase, he asked Jackmans' character if he could kill a child with the knowledge that that single act would cure all the worlds diseases. The question has been phrased many ways such as could you kill a single innocent person to save a thousands innocents but I believe the basic premise is do the ends always justify the means.
I laid in bed a couple nights thinking about the question and it seemed to breed other questions as I attempted to answer it for myself. I first realized that no matter my answer there is no way in good conscience I can judge another's response. It's definitely a question, that to me at least, has no right or wrong answer. While those types of questions aren't the norm in life, this proves that they do, in-fact, exist.
The next question that came to mind is do I know the single person I'd be responsible for killing or do I know any of the people that would be saved. It's human nature to protect and value the lives of those closest to us so no matter consequences so to believe it wouldn't play a part in the final decision is naive at best. This factor could also make the reverse true. The knowledge that a loved one or close friend could be saved could potentially cause a person to harm a number of innocents to save that single person. Basically it brings the reverse question of 'would you kill a thousand to save a single innocent'. For many if not most parents in the case of their own child I believe this to be a yes. For many if not most countries and governments I believe this to be true also. How many people not directly involved in conflicts have died in wars? Governments call this collateral damage but isn't it really the idea that they'd kill a thousand of yours to save a single one of theirs?
My next question concerned how the kill would take place. Are we talking you're pushing a button and dropping a bomb or would it have to be more personal. History and anecdotal evidence shows us that the act of pushing a button drastically reduces ones inability to commit the act of killing, or murder as it may be. The farther removed from the actual visualization of the death the easier it is to commit. But what about a scenario where you have a thousand people in a gas chamber and a child standing in front of you and all you have is your hands and a knife? Could you do it then? Would the circumstances alter your decision? History and human psychology say yes. How the idea of a loved one in the other room would change this decision, however, I do not know.
The above mentioned questions led me to the decision that I can't make a decision. There are entirely too many variables that come to play to say for sure. I know that if someone comes into my house uninvited with intent to do my family and myself harm I'll do what I can to insure they never do it again. The same goes for acts committed against others in public settings as protection of others falls within my moral guidelines. But when it comes down to the idea of killing an innocent person, even for the betterment of others those same guidelines are thrown out. While those in power, those who run countries and governments are granted the right to make that decision during the voting process, they are so far removed from the actual acts it allows them to make them on a moments notice. Those with boots on the ground I would have to believe have a much more difficult time when they have to see the faces and sleep with the memories of their decisions. While I have no idea what decision I'd make it a real life scenario, I do believe my days of restful, peaceful sleep would be over from that day forward.
