Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is similar to previously made topics but it is a little different. The scenario, granted, is gruesome and farfetched and would never happen, its just a matter of what would you decide if you were forced with the choice. There are several different "levels" of the question.


SCENARIO: You are the leader of a nation, doesnt matter which. Your sources discover that there is a person (not a criminal, just a random guy/girl) who has been born. This person (through supernatural means) determines the lives of the people around him/her through their very existance. You find out that as long as the person is alive, others will most invariably die from random unlinked causes. You have the person imprisoned while you decide what to do. Either you must secretly have the executed or you must let them go. (the person cannot kill themselves)

Now, here are the different stages of the choice:

1) The person in captivity affects 1 other person, as long as the captive is alive, this person will definately die. Choose the sentence: life or death.

2) If you chose to let the person live, now you realize that 100 people are at stake. You must now decide if this one person's life is worth losing 100 people elsewhere. Choose live or die.

3) If you choose to let them live, you now realize that 100,000 people's lives are at stake. This is now a national crisis and though it is secret, you now hold many lives in your hands. You can have the captive killed now, which would save these lives. Or you can now choose to allow this one person to live, now with the knowledge that no more people will be harmed by the supernatural life.

At what point would you be forced to execute this person (1,2, or 3) or would you not?


I cant really even answer this well so see what you can decide.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I cant really even answer this well so see what you can decide.

That is probably because it does not making any ****ing sense.

Really....I understand it.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This is similar to previously made topics but it is a little different. The scenario, granted, is gruesome and farfetched and would never happen, its just a matter of what would you decide if you were forced with the choice. There are several different "levels" of the question.


SCENARIO: You are the leader of a nation, doesnt matter which. Your sources discover that there is a person (not a criminal, just a random guy/girl) who has been born. This person (through supernatural means) determines the lives of the people around him/her through their very existance. You find out that as long as the person is alive, others will most invariably die from random unlinked causes. You have the person imprisoned while you decide what to do. Either you must secretly have the executed or you must let them go. (the person cannot kill themselves)

Now, here are the different stages of the choice:

1) The person in captivity affects 1 other person, as long as the captive is alive, this person will definately die. Choose the sentence: life or death.

2) If you chose to let the person live, now you realize that 100 people are at stake. You must now decide if this one person's life is worth losing 100 people elsewhere. Choose live or die.

3) If you choose to let them live, you now realize that 100,000 people's lives are at stake. This is now a national crisis and though it is secret, you now hold many lives in your hands. You can have the captive killed now, which would save these lives. Or you can now choose to allow this one person to live, now with the knowledge that no more people will be harmed by the supernatural life.

At what point would you be forced to execute this person (1,2, or 3) or would you not?


I cant really even answer this well so see what you can decide.

I'd kill him in all three cases.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This is similar to previously made topics but it is a little different. The scenario, granted, is gruesome and farfetched and would never happen, its just a matter of what would you decide if you were forced with the choice. There are several different "levels" of the question.


SCENARIO: You are the leader of a nation, doesnt matter which. Your sources discover that there is a person (not a criminal, just a random guy/girl) who has been born. This person (through supernatural means) determines the lives of the people around him/her through their very existance. You find out that as long as the person is alive, others will most invariably die from random unlinked causes. You have the person imprisoned while you decide what to do. Either you must secretly have the executed or you must let them go. (the person cannot kill themselves)

Now, here are the different stages of the choice:

1) The person in captivity affects 1 other person, as long as the captive is alive, this person will definately die. Choose the sentence: life or death.

2) If you chose to let the person live, now you realize that 100 people are at stake. You must now decide if this one person's life is worth losing 100 people elsewhere. Choose live or die.

3) If you choose to let them live, you now realize that 100,000 people's lives are at stake. This is now a national crisis and though it is secret, you now hold many lives in your hands. You can have the captive killed now, which would save these lives. Or you can now choose to allow this one person to live, now with the knowledge that no more people will be harmed by the supernatural life.

At what point would you be forced to execute this person (1,2, or 3) or would you not?


I cant really even answer this well so see what you can decide. Can't I keep that person prisoner and use him for my own personal gain?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
SCENARIO: You are the leader of a nation, doesnt matter which. Your sources discover that there is a person (not a criminal, just a random guy/girl) who has been born. This person (through supernatural means) determines the lives of the people around him/her through their very existance. You find out that as long as the person is alive, others will most invariably die from random unlinked causes. You have the person imprisoned while you decide what to do. Either you must secretly have the executed or you must let them go. (the person cannot kill themselves)

Now, here are the different stages of the choice:

1) The person in captivity affects 1 other person, as long as the captive is alive, this person will definately die. Choose the sentence: life or death.

2) If you chose to let the person live, now you realize that 100 people are at stake. You must now decide if this one person's life is worth losing 100 people elsewhere. Choose live or die.

3) If you choose to let them live, you now realize that 100,000 people's lives are at stake. This is now a national crisis and though it is secret, you now hold many lives in your hands. You can have the captive killed now, which would save these lives. Or you can now choose to allow this one person to live, now with the knowledge that no more people will be harmed by the supernatural life.

At what point would you be forced to execute this person (1,2, or 3) or would you not?

I'd probably execute this person before the 100 died, but I'd first explain why. Something you didn't make clear in your scenario: is this person aware of their effect on others? If so, then he/she might even request execution at #1, depending on what kind of person he/she is. Regardless, since all factors seem otherwise equal (eg, everyone involved is an "upstanding citizen", this becomes a situation of cutting losses.

I'd kill the person all three times.

Originally posted by Mindship
Something you didn't make clear in your scenario: is this person aware of their effect on others? If so, then he/she might even request execution at #1, depending on what kind of person he/she is.

The rules of the scenario prevent that. Requesting execution is tantamount to killing yourself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The rules of the scenario prevent that. Requesting execution is tantamount to killing yourself.
Yeah, that's true, interpreting the rules liberally. Regardless, the type of person this Death Guy was (eg, heartless monster vs Mother Thereasa type) would count for something in my decision.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, that's true, interpreting the rules liberally. Regardless, the type of person this Death Guy was (eg, heartless monster vs Mother Thereasa type) would count for something in my decision.

I'd say that would only effect my descision for the first scenario.

Didn't we have a thread about how Teresa wasn't all that great a while back?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Really....I understand it.

I d on't understand it either.What are we supose to be answearing?jm

Kill him in any of the scenario's. As someone said earlier, "cut losses".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't we have a thread about how Teresa wasn't all that great a while back? I believe so, but she still makes for a convenient stereotype.

That would be moi.

Is this based on some Marvel comic discussing telekinetic mutants?

Quick QuoteOriginally posted by Burnt Pancakes
Kill him in any of the scenario's. As someone said earlier, "cut losses". We are not cutting losses if you kill him and only one doesn't die.

Originally posted by chithappens
Is this based on some Marvel comic discussing telekinetic mutants?

No... dont see any mutants about it...

and We'll just say the person cannot order himself killed either for the question's sake as that would obviously be a key part of the decision. This person is a "neutral" kind of person good/bad like anyone.

Seems like there've been mostly "kill hims" so far, because it is to save the most amount of lives...interesting...

This scenario actually came from a slightly different thing I came up with but I modified it.

The other question maybe is better now that I think about it: How many (non-military) people of a nation captured/killed by another does it take to instigate a full-scale war between two countries...one, two, a thousand.....Basically at what point is war justified? (this came from a science fiction book I read once -not a well known book- it became a movie at one point which is more well known)

Why can he or she not be permanently isolated from others?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why can he or she not be permanently isolated from others?

Because that is not possible in this hypothetical question.

I'd kill him the first chance I would have...

I sort of get this topic.But humans don't hav the right to put anyone to death.God does.This does not go by the chair to punish people but abortion btw.jm

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This is similar to previously made topics but it is a little different. The scenario, granted, is gruesome and farfetched and would never happen, its just a matter of what would you decide if you were forced with the choice. There are several different "levels" of the question.


SCENARIO: You are the leader of a nation, doesnt matter which. Your sources discover that there is a person (not a criminal, just a random guy/girl) who has been born. This person (through supernatural means) determines the lives of the people around him/her through their very existance. You find out that as long as the person is alive, others will most invariably die from random unlinked causes. You have the person imprisoned while you decide what to do. Either you must secretly have the executed or you must let them go. (the person cannot kill themselves)

Now, here are the different stages of the choice:

1) The person in captivity affects 1 other person, as long as the captive is alive, this person will definately die. Choose the sentence: life or death.

2) If you chose to let the person live, now you realize that 100 people are at stake. You must now decide if this one person's life is worth losing 100 people elsewhere. Choose live or die.

3) If you choose to let them live, you now realize that 100,000 people's lives are at stake. This is now a national crisis and though it is secret, you now hold many lives in your hands. You can have the captive killed now, which would save these lives. Or you can now choose to allow this one person to live, now with the knowledge that no more people will be harmed by the supernatural life.

At what point would you be forced to execute this person (1,2, or 3) or would you not?


I cant really even answer this well so see what you can decide. If you decide to kill them for #1, then #2 and #3 are already answered. This is just the exact same thing only with increasing numbers of victims.

No matter what though, I'd kill them.

Originally posted by Tangible God
If you decide to kill them for #1, then #2 and #3 are already answered. This is just the exact same thing only with increasing numbers of victims.

No matter what though, I'd kill them.

I was trying to see if numbers would change anyone's answer. If you killed the first time, then the other questions are obsolete, yes.

i would not kill this person.

it seems as though, through no fault of his own, he negatively affects the lives of people around him.

Yes he does.

I actually wouldnt have killed him either in this strange situation.

You'll sacrifice everyone else, but not him?

Huh. I'd call you contradictory, but I'll wait to hear your reasoning.

being the leader of a nation it would be my responsibility to protect my fellow citizens and their best interest, if dis supernatural being is a threat to d ones im responsible for i will choose death for him. i wont really hav much choice.

because im lazy!!! i dont have to work to get those thousands of people killed, but i would have to work to kill that one person....

I'd make convicts who have committed a rather horrible offense to kill him. Then there's a few less people in the world who want to hurt people, and also the problems gone.
It might sound cold but letting innocent people die just doesn't seem right. He's a problem, and just can't function with people normally. And if you can't live life to the fullest. It's not much of a life worth having in the first place.

Originally posted by Tangible God
You'll sacrifice everyone else, but not him?

Huh. I'd call you contradictory, but I'll wait to hear your reasoning.

Well, I can follow the reasoning.

Originally posted by Ambience
I'd make convicts who have committed a rather horrible offense to kill him. Then there's a few less people in the world who want to hurt people, and also the problems gone.
It might sound cold but letting innocent people die just doesn't seem right. He's a problem, and just can't function with people normally. And if you can't live life to the fullest. It's not much of a life worth having in the first place. I like this.

I would put 100 in prison, so they have company(each other) and they will kill each other(1-99) at the same time, so I'll be merely guilty for imprisonment, not directly murder, buahahaha...i know this isn't exactly the answer to your question...

Originally posted by Tangible God
I like this.

Well there's actually nothing to like, because it's an act of tyranny...
You can find my solution similar to that, but it's different, because I'm just bonding those who are inflicted and they are killing themselves, again not willingly, so in this case, more people get killed, but the highest principle remained...

Originally posted by argesilen
Well there's actually nothing to like, because it's an act of tyranny...
You can find my solution similar to that, but it's different, because I'm just bonding those who are inflicted and they are killing themselves, again not willingly, so in this case, more people get killed, but the highest principle remained... Well, I'm all for capital punishment, so if killing two birds with one stone can be done, I'm all for it.