The problem with your argument is that you assume those are the only two options: kill one person or save the rest of the world. However, you can never know beforehand whether those are the only two possible outcomes, and certainly not in this case.
Clark seems to believe there is always another way and even though that may seem very unlikely in some situations, who can say? In my oppinion that is a valid objection to killing that single person.
The conventional issue about killing is that we do not get to decide who lives and who dies. In that respect you are right that it shouldn't matter whether someone is innocent or not, but that doesn't seem to be the point you're making.
You seem to be saying that the end justifies the means, whatever the means are (killing innocent or guilty doesn't matter). That may be a valid opinion, but I think it's generally accepted it is not a moral stance. To be clear, one immoral choice doens't make you and immoral person. As I said earlier, the moral stance may not always be the right one.
I guess the point I'm making is that the choice is never a simple one and there are shades of grey to be considered. I don't believe the end necessarily justifies the means and you have to carefully consider both the end (protecting millions of innocents is worth much, but you never know how many people are really in danger) and the means (killing a monster that is actually killing people is different from killing a man that is also trying to prevent that monster from killing people - they happen to be the same in this case, but it does complicate matters).
This may be a somewhat arrogant stance. You still have to decide who gets to live and die and why. But I think we can agree you can't hide away from such a choice when millions are at stake. However that doesn't mean you can rush such a choice either and I can certainly understand why someone would only kill as a last resort.
Clark seems to believe there is always another way and even though that may seem very unlikely in some situations, who can say? In my oppinion that is a valid objection to killing that single person.
The conventional issue about killing is that we do not get to decide who lives and who dies. In that respect you are right that it shouldn't matter whether someone is innocent or not, but that doesn't seem to be the point you're making.
You seem to be saying that the end justifies the means, whatever the means are (killing innocent or guilty doesn't matter). That may be a valid opinion, but I think it's generally accepted it is not a moral stance. To be clear, one immoral choice doens't make you and immoral person. As I said earlier, the moral stance may not always be the right one.
I guess the point I'm making is that the choice is never a simple one and there are shades of grey to be considered. I don't believe the end necessarily justifies the means and you have to carefully consider both the end (protecting millions of innocents is worth much, but you never know how many people are really in danger) and the means (killing a monster that is actually killing people is different from killing a man that is also trying to prevent that monster from killing people - they happen to be the same in this case, but it does complicate matters).
This may be a somewhat arrogant stance. You still have to decide who gets to live and die and why. But I think we can agree you can't hide away from such a choice when millions are at stake. However that doesn't mean you can rush such a choice either and I can certainly understand why someone would only kill as a last resort.
Comment