ecchigaijin wrote...
kickiluxxx wrote...
If you kill the 10 you commit genocide but save a hundred lives.
What? If you kill 10 instead of 100, you save 90 lives, not 100.
I think you misunderstood, so I'll break it down a little.
Group A has 10 people, the 10 last of the A tribe/ethnicity/race/species. Group B has 100, 1000, or any large number of the B tribe/ethnicity/race/species, but it's still just a fraction of the total number of B's there exist in the world.
The choice lies between killing off either group A or B. One must live, one must die sort of thing I guess. The poll is basically asking, if you had no other choice, would you choose genocide (killing 100% of the A's, though few in numbers) or mass murder (killing a small percent of B's, though many in numbers).
In that way, you save 100 random lives by killing 10 other, completely different and distinct lives.
OT: I suppose if I had no choice, I'd go for mass murder. Killing off a whole tribe/ethnicity/race/species seems just that much morally worse, considering I had the choice to rob them of their entire existence and right to exist further in the future.