Kill one, save a million: the ultimate moral dilemna

Tonight’s episode of House (if you didn’t watch it, I wish I was your parent so that I could disown you) focused on a highly interesting and thought-provoking moral issue: is it sometimes right to kill another human being?

I’m not talking about certain scenarios in which the answer is an obvious “Yes!”, such as in extreme cases of last resorts and self-defense (being chased around the house by a crazy axeman or something). I’m talking about if the person-in-question, the one whom you either let live or not, is at your mercy and you have their life in your hands.

I won’t give any spoilers or revealing details for the sake of anyone who hasn’t yet seen the episode, but the general scenario is this: you are a doctor, and the patient you are in charge of is a brutal dictator who is already responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths through massacres and what is basically a genocide. The man is currently sick and dying, and you have the choice: either you save his life, or you let him die. However, you know, with a high level of certainty, that if he lives, he will return to his country and continue carrying out the genocide that will assuredly claim thousands and thousands more innocent civilian lives.

However, being a smart doctor who knows how to deceive others when necessary, you could, in theory, be able to make it so that the tyrant dies, yet the crime would likely not be linked to you – even if there is a risk.

And, of course, if you did the act and were caught, you would be charged with murder.

So … what would you do? Would you honor your obligations as a doctor to save whatever lives you can, or would you actually take the Hippocratic Oath with a twist and end this tyrant’s life to ensure the survival of the thousands, or even millions, who would definitely die should he live?

Personally, I would do it. I would end the man’s life – and frankly, I wouldn’t even care if I was caught or not. Is murder wrong? Yes, absolutely. But sometimes, there just isn’t any other choice. To be honest, I see this issue as little more than a math problem on steroids: either you’re responsible for the death of one man, a monster, or you are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, deaths that are directly attributed to your inaction when the time came for you to stop it from happening.

Killing one man would haunt me. But letting so many other lives be torn apart because I didn’t do anything would tear me apart.

But, that’s just me. Consider this an open thread: is it sometimes acceptable, even encouraged, to end a life, if it means preserving the lives of others?

Technorati tags: murder · ethics · House