Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
The implication being: that if murder isn't morally justified by the inequity of wealth, then neither would less drastic measures by the masses be so justified?
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?
Reason for asking was to spark debate on the value of a human life. Lotta great replies. A similar conundrum comes from World War 2 when having broken the German's Enigma encryption system, Prime Minister Churchill learned of an impending attack on the city of Coventry, England. PM Churchill knew that he evacuated the city before the attack the Germans would piece together their encryption system had been broken and alter their codes for future operations. Do nothing and thousands of British men, women, and children would die. So how much is a human life worth compared to the possible outcome of the war? As it happened, PM Churchill didn't evacuate and many died. But the Allies went on to win the war the Germans never learning Enigma had been cracked.
So clearly, for a greater good like winning a war, some may need to be sacrificed. If the deaths of thousands or millions can be prevented giving them ample food by causing the deaths of just 85 is that not ethical?
Killing very few to save many seems logical. Is it not? And if it is in fact logical, should logic be our guide for choosing what to do on issues? If not, why not?
If 85 individuals control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the whole planet's population, would murdering those 85 and seizing their assets then distributing it among the ~3.5 billion poorest be ethically justifiable?