Morals -- do you have any?

[Sharky]

Please provide two answers to this question, one after the bold section, and then another right at the end.

Here's a question for you all: You're in the middle of an enemy territory, unnoticed. You see some of the enemy, but they don't see you. You know from your 100% accurate intel that these are the same people part of a terrorist cell presently active operating in the region. You are armed with a silenced weapon, there's very little chance of being detected where you are. Unfortunately, your location also means that accuracy is impaired, and there's a high chance of injuring innocent civilians whose only crime is being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong people.

With the information I've given you at the moment, would/could you try your luck and try to pick off the terrorists?

In addition to the scenario for question 2... you know that these people are scheduled to attack a major institution in your location, would you be able to honestly say you're able to pull the trigger, knowing that there's at least an 80% chance of innocents being injured/killed?

 

[kinley3]

I wouldn't do it, not if I wasn't sure how accurate I could be with civilians in close proximity.

At least an 80% chance of civilians being injured? Good lord. I'd find another way. A closer hiding spot, a different plan, etc.

Also depends on the risk-reward factor. How many people will their "planned attack" kill, as opposed to how many civilians I could I kill if I tried to take them out at the moment?

 

[fractalfeline]

Tough question.

So I'm stealthed? What prevents me from walking up behind them and aiming right at their heads? Tracking them to a base and then opening fire? Following a few until they're in an alley and then opening fire? Or am I only stealthed if I don't move?

If the weapon has some sort of homing device in which it magically kills civilians 80% of the time, regardless of aiming point blank at a terrorist's head, then why not resort to martial arts?

Unless we're talking about some sort of sniper-position bazooka weapon.

 

[John Klyne]

I will reply here, and I will also reply in the forum post...

But to answer the questions...

I would try my luck and pick off the terrorists. It is, to my belief that a couple of innocents have to die, in order to save hundreds of other innocents.

80% chance of innocents dieing...I would pull the trigger if I knew there was a 100% chance of 10 innocents dieing, if the damage the terrorists could cause is more.

It's a good question, I would honestly think of the future...and in the future, I would rather not having hundreds and but have had 10 die in the past so hundreds don't die...

Here is a question for you...
Use the information I give you to answer...

We know about aids/HIV, and we know everyone with aids/HIV right now is 42 million people. New HIV infections per year is 5 million and AIDS related deaths per year is 3.1 million.

The question is, would you kill all those people with aids, in order to save 50 million people in 10 years, or to save 100 million people in 20 years...would you kill everyone with aids, to save 1 billion people in 100 years.

Want to know my answer..."Tell me who has aids/HIV, and I'll save 1 billion people of the future right now."

Just my views... I know many many people oppose, but I think of the overall picture. : ) (like a smiley face will shed some light).

 

[ramsankar]

hmmm...