I was asked the other day by my history teacher- is it justified that a leader sacrifice civilians to save a larger number of civilians. For instance; allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to allow the U.S. to join WWII and help the Allies. Or Churchill allowing London to be bombed while he builds planes in WWII.

You may say yes, but what if an Albert Einstien was in the group sacrificed. And if you say yes, then you must be all for stem cell research from aborted fetuses. ( I am for the research to save lives if you wonder).

I find that in my class of 30: 3/5 say 'yes' to sacrificing a few for many. However, 4/5 are against abortion and stem cell research. This does not add up. Perhaps the fact that 9/10 classmates are Christian lines up the results.

Discuss- is it right for a leader to sacrifice a few to save many.
Also- does this justify abortion and stem cell research (although this can be compleatly unrelated)

I believe it is probably the right thing to do to sacrifice a few to save many.
I support stem cell research.

I've heard a variation of the same story a few times....Where a group of oppressed people were hiding from some soldiers, or some people intending to kill them....as an example, I'll use Jews hiding from Nazis. One of the people in the group is a woman, a mother with her baby. The baby starts to cry, and if it keeps crying it will alert the nazis to the location of the whole group. Is it wrong to smother the baby, ultimately killing it, in order to keep quiet and not bring the nazis to the rest of the people, in effect saving their lives?

Two children are dying, both need organ transplants (they need different organs to each other). Is it right to kill a man, then use his organs so that both the children may live?

How can it be?

Who chooses who is the person who is dying to save the kids?

The way that could work is if someone volunteered themselves to die for those kids, but then that person would be committing suicide and wasting their potential.

You should never punish yourself or take away from anyone, including yourself.

So how could that ever be right?

I feel that it is better for a leader to find a possitive solution to all those under him/her. It is why they have the position in the first place- protect and serve. Churchill allowing the bombing of London is inexcusable. If the U.S. knew of the Pearl Harbor plans, and I believe they did, it is absolutly insane to allow it to happen. Then in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, America bombed civilian targets in Tokyo, which is also wrong.

I stand oddly compared to most people who would answer this question. I think a leader should not sacrifice anyone. I do feel that stem cell research is a possitive- and should as I am going into a field that may involve this.

Perhaps in the situation with the Nazis and Jews, the baby may be quieted without death.

"For instance; allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to allow the U.S. to join WWII and help the Allies. "

No, that is wrong. The US was aiding the Allies anyway for months under the BS 'neutrality' and the US had no reason to enter that war, and Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to form a New World Order that happened after WWII

"Or Churchill allowing London to be bombed while he builds planes in WWII."

that seems different. IIRC, London did have AA artillery and London had a good evacuation system and the UK had a good warning system.

Oh also, it can justify abortion/stem cell research. Kill the Parasite the baby it, remove the vermin.

Hahaha....you can simply cover the baby's mouth and not the nose

Or get the baby drunk (US Afro-American slaves fleeing Slavery in the South would get their baby drunk

The problem with this is that, for one, it disrupts society. If people knew that going into a hospital meant they had a chance of having their organs stolen, they would avoid hospitals. Soon the organ seeking doctors would form roaming mobs, and people would need to barricade themselves in their homes and buy weapons for protection.

Alternately, preservation of life is not the greatest good. No one has the obligation to preserve the lives of others at all costs. Everyone dies; their lives are their own responsibility. People do, however, have the obligation to respect the rights of others. You can't hold the belief that you have a right to your life and possessions if you deny that of others. As sad as two children dying for lack of organs is, it is not wrong to let it happen. It is wrong to take someones life without their consent.

you're missing the point.

I 'get the point' you are making, your example sucks