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?

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.

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

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

What Rivka said.

And I think Star Trek tried to have it both ways, depending on what movie you were watching.

PJ

Yes, what Rivka said.

- Vicki

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

You took the words right out of my mouth, Rivka.

JD
:p

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,

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

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.