The Situation I Am Thinking About
There is a deranged scientist who has been building a weapon of mass destruction. He has engineered a weapon so powerful that it is able to erase the whole of the United States of America. This lunatic has hidden the encryption key to his lab on the person of an individual who lives in a hundred story building. There could be thousands of people occupying this apartment building, and only one of them is the person you are looking for.
Be that as it may, the scientist has somehow made a way for the weapon not to destroy the hundred story building, so all the inhabitants will remain alive, even if the weapon goes off.
It seems like you have two options:
- Murder and eviscerate everybody living in the apartment block until you find the encryption key and save the whole of the USA.
- Let the residents of the building live, but the entire US will be wiped out.
What I Think About The Scenario
I and many others would argue that you should kill everybody in the hundred story building until you find your encryption key. This seems very similar to the trolley problem in which I believe you should kill less to save more. I see killing thousands of lives fine when you are able to save hundreds of millions of lives.
However, you could argue that killing thousands of lives is unacceptable. Even if you are killing for the greater good, killing thousands of innocent lives is not the way to resolve the situation.
The side I argue for is utilitarianism or the greater good. However, is it acceptable to massacre thousands of people just to stop one mad man's plans? You may be saving the whole of the US, but is having thousands of people's blood on your hands worth all the hassle?
What Would Immanuel Kant Say?
For this situation, Immanuel Kant would universalise this. We are recognising the free will and dignity of each individual person we decide to slaughter. Our activity is motivated by regard to the poise of every last individual.
The inspiration for murder lies correctly in the carelessness for the dignity of murdering the casualties in the apartment and for us to slaughter, we would need to undermine other individuals' significance and put ourselves and every other person above.
With everything taken into account, morality is subjective, and I question whether or not all behaviours, good or bad, could be justified in that sense. Let me know what you think of the situation? Do you agree with me, or with Immanuel Kant?