Debate Save others at the cost of a life?

Not really since I'm asking about sacrifising a lesser amount of people for the greater good.

Actually, I do see one. I forget the specific city name, but it was basically allowed to be bombed so the Nazis wouldn't realise the Allies had broken their code, allowing the Allies to prepare better and get more information.

 

Really, since Hitler was talking about sacrificing a lesser amount of people for (in his mind) the greater good.

Dresdin?

 

No, Hitler didn't even view the Russians as people. They were the same as animals to him. They were the same as lab rats to him. Show me where I make any sort of claim that the good peole are nothing more than animals who deserve to be killed. And if you ask me, saying "we'll let a million people die because this lesser amount of people are superior" is more like what Hitler did. (HAY GUYZ I CAN INVOKE GODWINS LAW TOO AM I RITE GUYZ)

No. Dresdin was bombed by the Allies. I'll look it up at a later point in time.

 

Congratulations! We've now arrived at the same conclusion!

 

Oh, so you agree that letting the majority suffer is a cruel mentality? Concession accepted.

 

wow...what an insane thread :dizzy2: lol here i go!

i dont think its fair to say that neph is proposing to do what hitler and stalin did. neph said in his first post where the line would be drawn....hitler and stalin did not... they didnt even acknowledge what they were doing...did neph ever propose inslaving people and torturing them against their will too? i believe what hitler did was way far and beyond comparison to what the question in this thread is about...

anyway i think that sacrificing people for something like a cure for a disease would be reasonable ONLY if the number of people sacrificed isnt too great. i mean think of it...sure you have lost lives in the process but you get a cure for a disease that would affect generations upon generations....i also think it would only be acceptable if the people sacrificed went into it willingly...

 

Regardless, what you propose and what he did are similar. Not the same, mind you, but similar.

Look at your own quote. Yeah. You were referring to a city bombed by the allies, if I'm not mistaken:

Not exactly what they did. Anyway, yes, what Hitler did was far beyond anything reasonable or sane, but we all know that already.

What number of people is too great? That's the question in this thread, after all. And, I believe Neph already said that the people are in fact, not willing.

At any rate, while I don't want to make decisions for other people, especially not ones that may end their lives, I would gladly give my own life up, if it would save those you refer to.

 

I don't see how sacrificing a few to save the lives of many is the same as killing many to... satisfy a racist whim.

You're horribly, horribly mistaken. The nazis bombed the city in question. Dresden, however, was bombed by allies. (though I am curious how you got the idea that nazis would let allies bomb their cities so the allies could keep the nazi code decryption a secret.)

I said no such thing. There was never a specific "they will or will not need to be taken by force" comment.

Even though not making those sacrifices would end lives. In essence, you would have made a decision that would end lives by refusing to sacrifice.

 

Sacrificing a few German lives for the good of the German nation? I'm sure that's what he had in mind.

Then you made a mistake, because your post was referring to a city bombed by the Allies. That's why I suggested Dresdin.

Oh no?

Seems pretty close to me. At the least, it's what I was referring to when I said that. Anyway if they're willing to give their lives then they could join me in trying to save the rest.

 

Uh, no. He was pretty fanatical about killing the Jews (et all). Go read some of Mein Kampf.

GAH! No it wasn't! Why would Nazis let someone bomb their city, get MORE information from them, and let them prepare better?

Anyway, the city was Coventry (a British city). I will concede that it is debatable whether he knew or not (many sources say yes, many say no).

I was referring to suicide.

[berry] response to deleted flame causing more flaming deleted... [/berry]

 

Lebensraum? Killing Jews isn't the only thing he wanted to do.

Sorry, my mistake. I misread it. Then I reread it carefully and noticed I was wrong. Apologies.

So, a person who won't give up their life willingly to save numerous others, is a person who may give their life up willingly to save numerous others? That's how I'm reading this. What did you mean when you said that?

 

Except he'd also be screwing over the people who used to live there. Y'know, I'm pretty sure if Hitler could get what he wanted without spending German lives, I'm sure he would. Furthermore, Germany killed more than three times the civilians they lost (source: Wikipedia).

Furthermore, Lebensraum is an aggressive action (kill them so we have more room instead of building new housing solutions. Look at how modern Japan houses a huge population and tell me that Lebensraum was really necessary). I would define this scenario as a defensive one (sacrifice willing people to save a greater amount).

They'd sacrifice themselves, but they couldn't do it themselves. They'd have to be assisted for reasons mostly moral (for them) and also because there'd have to be someone "harvesting" as they went. Basically - suicide fails to fulfill the Op. There's no half-hearted skirting the issue here; you either are or you aren't going to do it.

 

His justification, his reasons. What people? They're only animals to him, right? Lebensraum was his excuse for invading the USSR. Though, his real reasons were to destroy Communism, which, in his mind, was for the good of Germany anyway. Could Hitler have destroyed Communism without losing lives? (Not that he did, anyway)

Ahh, I see. This is something that should have been mentioned. I didn't know. Anyway, if I had very clear proof that they were willing, then I would be able to, so long as it was painless. What can I say, I hate seeing people suffer. (And yes, I realize that many more people will suffer if I don't end said lives)

 

Yes, and I'm not claiming anyone is an animal. Chalk up another difference.

Yeah, but he also utterly despised Jews and would gladly target them just because they were Jews.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml

Hitler was pretty much willing to get rid of everyone non-Aryan.

Crushing them economically is a good start. (One big reason the USSR fell was because they kept spending insane amounts of money trying to keep their military top of the line to compete with the US. It didn't quite work.)

 

we all know that hitler believed he was doing a great thing....i can see how you're trying to draw parallelisms between his actions and what neph is proposing in this thread but in retrospect this is not a good refrence. i think this has gone out of bounds... try looking at it this way (which is how i see the situation). if you KNEW that taking lives of innocent people could provide a cure for a disease would you? and by knowing i mean having concrete evidence that your research can provide a cure...Being able to back it up to everyone. having that in mind i believe the question can be answered without going off topic

 

No. I'd just spend more time looking for a cure that does not necessitate taking lives. Even if it is harder, takes more money, etc. Like Yoda says, "If you choose the quick and easy path, you will become an agent of evil."

 

Ok, I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but the ONLY way to cure this disease is with sacrifice. There's no skirting the issue, no trying to dodge the bullet. It's one or the other, not "well if I do THIS..."

 

Just let the infidels be destroyed.. mwahaha.

lol.. that Yoda quote is a slippery slope fallacy anyways.

If those innocent people are willing to give their life, then fine. As long as they aren't brainwashed into it through media and so on - it's so hard to have a choice of your own these days.

 

lol a quote answering a quote.... ^_^ less typing for me