Genocide vs Mass Murder

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE VOTING

Apparently, this question is not suited for a serious discussion. I will still give a background since people are getting a little confused.

Most people would argue that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people. Especially, when it comes to saving lives.
In Ethical Philosophy, this is also known as Utilitarianism.
Provided every person one is saving in a certain situation are all strangers, most people would opt to save the greatest number.
Spock from Star Trek is often quoted for his perspective of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Sometimes, there is no easy choice to make. No matter what you do, something is going to go badly for someone and when it does, there's only one choice to make.

However, especially after World War II, a lot of people would also argue that genocide can never be justified.

With all of that in mind,
Let's say there are only 10 people of a certain ethnic group left.
An example would be... Ten Italians left in the planet, nothing more.
They still have chance to populate. You are one hundred percent sure, given time, they CAN and WILL reproduce.

However, you have to choose between this two options.
Kill all 10 Italians in the planet
Kill 100 Japanese
(Feel free to replace the examples with whatever ethnic group you don't belong to)

If you kill the 10 you commit genocide but save a hundred lives. If you kill the hundred, you save the last 10 but commit mass murder.
If you do not choose, they all die. All 110 will die.

Please don't go with I will not choose and it is not my fault argument etc.
It'll just go with me adding a few more technical details just so you end up with having to choose between the two options.
Trying to alter the parameters is useless. I want to know if people will actually go on a utilitarian route given the circumstances.

EDIT:
Also, out of curiosity, if we turn up the scales a bit, would you still stick with your decision?
An example would be if we change the hundred to 1000.

Didn't quite get why you have to kill anyone at all, am i getting this right in thinking that if i let 10 survive they will kill 100 later on? and how much later on?
so if you have 10 wolfs they will eat 100 sheep if they survive ? is that what you mean ?

I already choosing 100 before reading the description :facepalm
well, history said every mastermind behind genocide had lot of fans after all
example : führer, char aznable, etc

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.

I already edited the topic so further misunderstandings can be avoided.
I have to say though, thank you very much for clarifying it.

Although this is all hypothetical, I find it unbelievable how there could only be 10 of any race left in the world, considering there are so many people that are half or even a quarter of a different race (especially Caucasian people).

But for the sake of the question, I'd choose the 100. I'm assuming this is like the situation in The Dark Knight where someone put both hostage and one has to kill the other to survive.

Replace them with animals and it becomes a heckuva lot more believable.

for me, i will not kill any one too

I have this difficulty with answering this question. Killing the 10 Italians would count technically as genocide (if I understand the definition right), however, in the end, ethnicity is a meaningless distinction (or at the very least, is not as meaningful as our common humanity whatsoever). I think fundamentally, all 110 of them are equally valuable people. It's just that the Italians are a part of a group, and groups in this case can be seen as artificial human mental constructs OR as actual divisions (so they ARE different in culture or whatever). However, in the latter type of view on groups, do/should the "division" of groups in itself have a type of special value? Such that maintaining the number of groups is more important than maintaining the number of people that exist? I think not. If I did, then I would be saying that Italians are more valuable because they are a part of a group ("artificial" or not) that is rare. It would be saying that your group (ethnicity) is more important than your individual self (your fundamental connection of our common humanity).

Thus, I think I would kill the 10 Italians, if there was no choice but to kill someone. I hope my explanation was clear.

From a cold hard scientific standpoint, killing the 10 would suffice. The fact that the Italians (or the lesser groupin general) shows that genetically, culturally, behaviorally, etc. they are unfit for survival so even if they do reproduce, the genes that are passed on will be inferior and hinder the growth of the human race. Utilitarianism likewise supports killing the 10 because if the greater number of lives at stake

From a modern humanitarian view, it'd be crucial to save the 10 to preserve genetic diversity and culture.

Now for me, I'd prefer to say that I'd save both or if i'm feeling nihilist, give no shit. But if I were to choose, in truth, I'd kill the lesser amount. Now if we still considered that part-lesser group people still lived, it'd further reinforce my choice

Choosing inaction is still a choice in any situation you have an ability to alter.

A possibly good example of this (op post, not previous sentence) could be Syria and Libya infighting and killing (but for the sake of avoiding personal views on the matter leading to a messy conversation) while the U.S., Russia, and every other country either argues over the merits of interfering or simply pretend they don't exist (I honestly don't know, and at this point, I'm believing they're no "best" or "good" answers. So I really don't have an opinion weighing either way).

A good hypothetical would be a situation in which, "one (larger) side is attempting to push another (smaller) side into annihilation, and winning. If left alone the situation will lead to the genocide of the weaker side. But it just so happens you (the reader) came across information that states the weaker side plans to take both themselves and the other side out in a final confrontation (suicide).

You (reader) are in a position to stop the many and save the few from genocide, or kill off the remainder so that the conflict can end with the fewest casualties, or do nothing and let them kill each other, which in the end is choosing (or aiding, if you want to put it that way) to kill both."

To make the situation neutral(ish), the larger side had been on the receiving end for multiple generation, and only in the last 10 years have they ever been able to push back, and this conflict has been between the two sides for most of their history, so there is no way for either sides (current generation) to ever attempt to stop their fighting (within the time frame of the choice)

If we use real ethnic groups, we'll (either consciously or unconsciously) attribute those groups to their real history. There's too much bias to get a clear (unbiased) answer in this way.

OT, As for my answer, there would be too many factors for me to think about before I conclude, such as...
-"Who am I to interfere?" (A stranger , an ally, a protector?)
-"Is either side worth saving? Or should I let them wipe each other out? Victims are already unavoidable so is sympathy an unnecessary burden?" (Are they more than the destruction they cause for each other?)
-"Would the conflict/cause end if I saved ____ side?"
-"What is my relationship to both sides?" (Am I from either side? Am I neighbors to those countries? Am I on the other side of the world?)
-"Would it contribute to me if either side disappeared?" (Have I or the people who represent me conflicted with either side? Do I belong to a side that would want either side's territory?)
ect ect...

Answer, But for the sake of answering from the point of view of who I am as of now. I might end up choosing the hundred. Out of a condescending desire to make sure no side is incapable of wiping out/being wiped out. I would hate for a culture to disappear, (I have a nature of manipulating ftp mmo fps/tps (S4 really at this point) so that the matches are as even as I can get them to be, or at least tipped against me,) I would probably contribute to the underdog.

And I know saying this causes more tragedy than the 100 I killed, their family and friends being hurt. I also leave a lot of hatred, rage, and desires for revenge against me. (And in my example) the conflicts will most likely continue, despite my interjection (unless I can go down Lelouch style).

I can not distances myself from my emotions and I would ultimately side with the loser/underdog. With every choice being the killing of another human, not sure what I'd do afterwards... I couldn't commit suicide though. This is all speculation of what I'd do in the situation though, being on the spot is different than when you have time to distance yourself (a bit) and think.

(Sorry long, and many unnecessary parts.)

For me at the end it comes down to sustainability of the earth since it's gonna exist much longer than the human race, so for the world to exist with a greater biodiversity (in the human race) and for better health of the human species, i'd say saving the 10 italians would work out better in the long run or we will have one less strain/race of humans existing on the planet especially when the 100 or 1000 lives lost will only live less than 100 more years and the earth will stay here for a few more million years (unless we all die from global warming)

I don't know if that made sense. I suck at writing.

10, but not for the sake of lives, but for the sake of not having to kill a hundred people and having that on my consciousness.

I would kill the 10. If a culture/ethnic group declined that much, they aren't worth saving over a larger number of lives.

I bring the question as to whether the human race should really repopulate in that scenario...

How are we doing the deed? do i have to do them one at a time, or all at once? and what method? by hand, gas, gun, etc.?


if one at a time, by hand, i'll go with 10. if all at once, i don't care either way because they're probably beyond my monkey sphere.

All life is precious, but I'd kill the ten and save the larger numbers.

Fuck you, m8
Tl;dr but voted on the poll.

One could argue that not killing group A would almost be considered "racist" after all you're valuing their lives at least ten times the value of group B. That kind of thinking could be reversed to imply that group B is worth only a tenth, at best, of group A. What kind of unethical human being would be so blind to keep themselves ignorant to basic mathematics in such a situation, or would be so numb to their value as individuals rather than as members of an ethnic group. What you've done, and I must say, fairly dimly, is show that you still subscribe to the ideas ofrace and ethnicity come into play when determining the value of a life. If those are my only options I'd choose option 1, and freely so. This basic realization is what probably kept this thread in random, the premise itself is racist and shows a latent quality of tribal suspicion within the individual posting this. Anyone would come to this conclusion given a moment's time to think.