- Messages
- 1,077
In a lot of fiction, a recurring character is the villain dictator that want to kill millions of people in order to rule the world. But wait, he has good motives! He wants there to be an end to war, forever. His reasoning is that, if all the earth were united or subjugated under one iron fist, there would be opposing factions fighting over oil or whatever. If everyone is under a single flag, then there would be no more reason for war.
Sounds reasonable, right?
While the good guys might like the idea of an end to war, they disagree with how the villain is going about it, so they stop him.
So, what are the "good guys" doing to end war? Huh? At the least the other guy had a plan. Where will the good guys be when the next proxy war breaks out in the middle east, or when the next genocide happens in Africa?
It's either
1) millions are killed in the wars that the "good guys" want to preserve, or
2) millions are killed upfront, and then never again.
Which is more desirable?
We already have a similar precedent that comes to mind: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to stop a war. Many people defend that as a good thing because it worked, and because the benefits outweighed the costs, or so they claim.
You could argue that nothing ever ends, and the dictator's plans have no guarantee of success. There might be civil wars, new countries might establish themselves and fight for independence, there might beterrorists freedom fighters, and humans will continue to be human. There might not be. We don't know. Hiroshima seemed to work. If it didn't, it probably would have been seen in hindsight as a war crime second only to the holocaust.
In terms of a trolley problem it is this:
Duke Dastardly wants to move the trolley to the upper path. The trolley will kill 5 people who are tied to the tracks, and then the trolley will hopefully stop.
If the trolley continues on its path, it will kill an undefined number of people in the future, and it's unknown if the trolley will ever be able to be stopped.
Do you stop him?
How many people is it worth sacrificing to end all war, forever?
Sounds reasonable, right?
While the good guys might like the idea of an end to war, they disagree with how the villain is going about it, so they stop him.
So, what are the "good guys" doing to end war? Huh? At the least the other guy had a plan. Where will the good guys be when the next proxy war breaks out in the middle east, or when the next genocide happens in Africa?
It's either
1) millions are killed in the wars that the "good guys" want to preserve, or
2) millions are killed upfront, and then never again.
Which is more desirable?
We already have a similar precedent that comes to mind: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to stop a war. Many people defend that as a good thing because it worked, and because the benefits outweighed the costs, or so they claim.
You could argue that nothing ever ends, and the dictator's plans have no guarantee of success. There might be civil wars, new countries might establish themselves and fight for independence, there might be
In terms of a trolley problem it is this:
Duke Dastardly wants to move the trolley to the upper path. The trolley will kill 5 people who are tied to the tracks, and then the trolley will hopefully stop.
If the trolley continues on its path, it will kill an undefined number of people in the future, and it's unknown if the trolley will ever be able to be stopped.
Do you stop him?
How many people is it worth sacrificing to end all war, forever?