|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 315
Beat Reporter
|
OP
Beat Reporter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 315 |
I know this sounds like something right out of Star Trek, but it's actually for a fic I'm considering...
The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the one. In other words, if one person was meant to die for so many others to live, is that alright?
Anne >^,,^<
"I only know how to make four things, and this is the only one without chocolate." Lois Lane "All My I've Got a Crush on You 10/24/1993
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,587
Merriwether
|
Merriwether
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,587 |
Circumstances matter! If the "one" (or "few") CHOOSE to make the sacrifice, then that is noble and good.
If the "one"/"few" is attacking the "many," then yes -- it's self-defense.
If the "one"/"few" are not attacking, and the choice is not made by them, or not made freely, then NO. "A couple of you must die so that many of us will live," is NOT a viable argument, IMO.
Do you know the most surprising thing about divorce? It doesn't actually kill you, like a bullet to the heart or a head-on car wreck. It should. When someone you've promised to cherish till death do you part says, "I never loved you," it should kill you instantly.
- Under the Tuscan Sun
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,133
Top Banana
|
Top Banana
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,133 |
I have no idea how to answer that question. I hate the thought of anyone having to die . However, one of my all time favorite fics deals with this question. Wendy's For the Greater Good looks at whether Clark should sacrifice his own life to save the world. As many times as I read it, I still cry every time! - Laura
Laura "The Yellow Dart" U. (Alicia U. on the archive)
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles." -- Christopher Reeve
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,090
Top Banana
|
Top Banana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,090 |
I was a little confused by the wording of this poll. You presented the question as: "one person was meant to die for so many others to live, is that alright?"
Yet I felt that the two options given said the same thing: "Yes, I agree with that" is the same thing to me as "No, Star Trek got it right". So I voted "other".
I think this is a very tough question to answer because so much considers on the situation.
What if thousands of soldiers die defending a king (many die to save one) who later turns out to be a fabulous dimplomat able to avert a global war (one saving many)? Or in Superman terms, what if twenty police officers die protecting him from a kryptonite death, and he in turn saves thousands?
Yet, fundamentally, I believe that if the death of one or two people can prevent the death of scores, hundreds, thousands, millions, then it is a sacrifice that seems reasonable.
But I agree with Rivka in that this is not so simple when the "sacrificee" is not willing. Who decides and how can anyone be sure? All I can imagine is some terrified young virgin being shoved into a volcano.
I'm glad I'm not in a position to have to make these decisions!
Lynn
You know that boy'd walk on water for you? Or he'd drown tryin'. -Perry White to Lois in Just Say Noah
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,644
Pulitzer
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,644 |
What Rivka said.
And I think Star Trek tried to have it both ways, depending on what movie you were watching.
PJ
"You told me you weren't like other men," she said, shaking her head at him when the storm of laughter had passed. He grinned at her - a goofy, Clark Kent kind of a grin. "I have a gift for understatement." "You can say that again," she told him. "I have a...." "Oh, shut up."
--Stardust, Caroline K
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,384
Top Banana
|
Top Banana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,384 |
Yes, what Rivka said.
- Vicki
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution" - Daniel Webster
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 337
Beat Reporter
|
Beat Reporter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 337 |
I agree that I didn't understand this because I think Star Trek tried to say the needs of the many outweight the needs of a few, it just had it both ways a few times
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,627
Pulitzer
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,627 |
You took the words right out of my mouth, Rivka.
JD :p
"Meg...who let you back in the house?" -Family Guy
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 315
Beat Reporter
|
OP
Beat Reporter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 315 |
Sorry I've taking so long to get back to this, but maybe I can clarify my question. What if a character -- that should have died in the first place -- did or said something that changed history, so that a whole lot of others would not have been saved. Would going back and letting that person die -- as originally happened -- be acceptable? I know it's really vague, but I'm still not sure if it's a story worth working on and I don't want to say too much...just in case.
Anne >^,,^<
"I only know how to make four things, and this is the only one without chocolate." Lois Lane "All My I've Got a Crush on You 10/24/1993
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,384
Top Banana
|
Top Banana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,384 |
Anne,
You say the person "should have died" and, in fact, originally did die. Now I'm confused. Are you talking about a scenario where I go back in time, prevent someone from dying (eg. JFK) and then when I come back to the present I see that the world is now in chaos, and it is all the fault of the person I saved. So, do I go back in time again and this time let him die?
Of course, if this is the scenario you are looking at, then I might be tempted to try to use my time travel abilities to find another way to prevent JFK (in my example) from ruining the world as we know it, without actually killing him (or allowing him to die). However, realistically, this would no doubt only cause more problems, and I think my final answer is, I would go back and set things the way they were, and learn my lesson that I should not attempt to play God.
- Vicki
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution" - Daniel Webster
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,587
Merriwether
|
Merriwether
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,587 |
Oh! You didn't mean ST-III or ST-IV; you meant City on the Edge of Forever! The trouble with playing God is that no human (Herb included ) has sufficient knowledge to do so. OTOH, returning the multiverse to its "original" configuration sounds like a good thing, if it saves many lives, right? Trouble is, there's no way to know if the many lives saved may not doom (in some yet later time period) even MORE lives. Orson Scott Card's The Redemption of Christopher Columbus comes to mind. Anne, it's a question many SF authors besides Ellison and Card have dealt with, and every solution is different. I've yet to meet one that didn't make me think. I look forward to reading your take on it.
Do you know the most surprising thing about divorce? It doesn't actually kill you, like a bullet to the heart or a head-on car wreck. It should. When someone you've promised to cherish till death do you part says, "I never loved you," it should kill you instantly.
- Under the Tuscan Sun
|
|
|
|