So; I'm grabbing this off another forum that I'm posting on, but I thought it'd be an interesting question to ask, and see what everyone thinks. Ok, here's the question: If you had the oppotunity to cure all of the world's diseases and hunger, would you do it? Now here's the kicker, you have to sacrafice one person in order to do it. One person's life, taken by you, to save billions. What would you do? While some people may put a lot of time in posting thier opinions, and analyzing every situation possible, I'd have to just get right down to the answer. The answer, when you think about it; is possibly the easiest answer to give in the world. In fact, I have more trouble ordering my food at Applebee's than I do answering this question. Everyone has the moral objections of "murder is bad" as well as "What about the feelings of the family members of the deceased party (Whomever it may be)." However, these are only very near sided (although kind thoughts, but as I said near sided) opinions. First off with the "murder is bad" concept. Now the deliberation goes that if you murder someone, your soul is tainted, and not only do you feel bad, but you get a one way ticket to hell. (or pick whatever eternal damnation you'd like) However, think about it. If you have the ability to, essentially, play God in the situation then you have two options. Have one murder on your soul, or have countless murders on your soul. Knowledge is power, and once you know that you can save the world, it becomes your responsiblity to do so. However, if you do not choose to do this because of a moral obligation you hold, you end up defying this obligation by letting countless others die. So really this whole "murder is bad" concept only strengthens your reasoning for killing this one person, because then you've done the lesser of two evils, and thats what everyone wants. (By the way this doesn't matter who the person is.) Now on to this other, hopefully romantic, concept of the party's surviving members. So..what? First off; I'd take the liberty or letting the party's surviving family and friends know that; the person I murdered had just saved countless lives. (So woah..suddenly the person's a hero...kinda like Jesus no?) Continuing on; this may sound cruel as hell, but so what if 30 people are sad? So what if 400 people are sad? Have you ever thought of the number of people that are affected by the diseases you will be curing. The sheer volume of deaths equates (exponentially) into the number affected and the pain felt. So again its the exact same as "murder is bad." You pick the lesser of two evls, by being the murderer of one person, and limiting the suffering to that one persons family/friends; instead of the suffering of easily over 1 million people. Sure it sounds great and happy to worry about tideouse things like an individuals feelings, and such, but in the grand scale of things the point of existance is to exist. The human race exists simply to continue existing. (Otherwise there would be no need what so ever, even in the animal kingdom, for procreation.) If we stop our existance then we're only defying the purpose we were put here. Think about it in a relgious point of view if you want. Whomever, or whatever created you, took the time and effort (or not whatever) to create you. Would they want you to simply die for th ehell of it, or would they rather you (and your brothers and sisters, and moms and dads etc...etc...etc...) to suvive. Creation is meant to continue, or else its a failed experiment, and we as human beings would become a failed experiment if I did not kill one human being. So as I've obcviously stated, I feel sorry for whomever it is, but that person would be dead in about...20 seconds. Not gonna say my one action stops the extinction of the planet from say...martians or even over population, any of those aspects are outside the realm of this question, and this debate.