Would you push a button to receive one million dollars but one random person in the world would die?

1) No. 2) No. 3) No.4) No.5) No amount would be enough.

This question was asked in an Ethics|ethics class I took in 10th grade. At the time I didn't know how I would act if I was actually confronted with this choice. Over the years my mind has wandered back to this question and I'm pretty certain I would never do it.

The awfulness of my actions would always haunt me, and, even if there was an added bonus option to wipe your memory of what you did to get the money, I just don't see how I could push that button. An interesting collateral question: would you push a button to get where you're going five minutes faster at the increased risk of causing a random person to die? It's a button many people push every day.

1) No. 2) No. 3) No.4) No.5) No amount would be enough.

This question was asked in an Ethics|ethics class I took in 10th grade. At the time I didn't know how I would act if I was actually confronted with this choice. Over the years my mind has wandered back to this question and I'm pretty certain I would never do it.

The awfulness of my actions would always haunt me, and, even if there was an added bonus option to wipe your memory of what you did to get the money, I just don't see how I could push that button. An interesting collateral question: would you push a button to get where you're going five minutes faster at the increased risk of causing a random person to die? It's a button many people push every day ...

1. Possibly. 2.

Person I knew - No3. Family member - No4. Someone important - No5.

How much? Yes, if the amount was in excess of 10 million. That may seem heartless, so allow me to explain.

If used properly, that money could save enough lives to make it worth the one death--even if that death was of someone I loved. According to GiveWell, It costs PSI $650-$1000 to prevent a case of HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus|HIV/AIDS - Acquired Immune Defiency Syndrome|AIDS and $500-$2500 to prevent a death from malaria; across the organization, we estimate that it costs PSI about $650-$1000 to save a life. So, for 100 million, I could save 10,000 lives.

Which is more important one life or 10,000 lives? To me, it's 10,000. It may seem like a strange justification, but you have to admit it is logical.

I say possible for 1 million because that would save 1,000 lives but that seems like such a small amount to condemn someone to die for.

1. No. 2.No.3.No.4.No amount could ever be enough.

I've also seen this question before. VERY briefly, it sounds tempting. But I could never do it.

The money would make me sick very shortly after receiving it, and everything I bought with it or used it for would become tainted to me. You know the 5 Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon? It's really true, and you could put almost anyone's name in that slot.

It's even amazing if you do it just to 3 degrees. I could never do it, for any amount, to anyone.

Most people, myself included, will answer 'no' to the 4 questions and state that no amount of money would induce us to change our minds. And probably no amount of money would be the motivator to do what the question asks. However, put the question in the context of society where the random killing would be a patriotic deed, perhaps saving democracy in the United States from the hands of 'evil' extremists, and the answers would probably be decidedly different.

But who are the authorities that are determining there are 'evil' extremists ready to wrest democracy from its very roots and should they be believed?

Nope. Never ever, because by definition of the question you're killing an innocent person (barring the neglible possibility that you happen to take out someone who was himself a murderer). But can I spin the question?

What if you got to pick the person? Could you go into a nursing home and find someone who wanted to be put out of their misery? Then would you do it?

No. The enjoyment of the money would be temporary. The Guilt from being responsible for a death would be permanent.

Under no condition would I exchange the life of anyone for money: No for all 4 permutations of the question. Money doesn't have that kind of attraction for me, so the "known" in this scenario (how much money I would receieve/what it would do for my life) has little leverage against the "unknown" (who would die? How would that person contribute to the world?

Might I be killing more than one person by removing a family's only support? ) If I had less - for instance, if I was one of the newly desperate homeless people in this country, trying to support my family - I might see this as more of a "It's going to be me and mine or someone else" issue. As Alfred P.

Doolittle said "No, I can't afford morals, Governor. Neithercould you if you was as poor as me.

To be honest, I would honestly give 1 million if I could save one random person even if I only had 1 miilion.

Yes. If random person I knew (or family member) then no. Someone important then not sure, there are lots of important ppl that should die.

1. No 2. No 3.No 4.

No No amount of money would be enough.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.