the "ends-means" argument. It feels a lot like "what is the sound of one hand clapping." No, I would never kill a completely innocent person, not even if there was hope of ending world hunger. I would also not merely allow a person to die for it either. I'm Kantian on this one... a human being has intrinsic value in and of themselves and can never be utilized as a means to an end.
Point HIM out
Did I get carried away again?
This plan has a terrible amount of room to backfire.
Define innocent again for me so I understand the rules. I got a list going here and I just noticed that word kind blows for all intensive purposes, the killing part is easy it's choosing who that you stumped me on.
As I can't imagine how murdering one innocent person could actually accomplish an end to hunger, I can't imagine doing it. There are hundreds of thousands of innocents murdered every year, and still there is hunger in the world.
I know what your question was intended to mean. And my answer has been that it has never benefited everyone else for any INNOCENT to die. And I think what you meant to say here, is *the end justifies the means*. Again I say hundreds of thousands of innocents die each year. So far, I can see no indication that it has benefited anyone else.
The idea of the question was that the death of one innocent would benefit the whole world. Now you are saying it is okay to murder someone for the great rush it gives the murderer. In your own words *I know no greater feeling or a stronger rush than the one that comes after murder.* Now, really, do you know this from personal experience? The way you describe it, is so personal and intense.
You mean I would only get to kill one... dang!
end my hunger?......yea.......rest of ya can go s uck eggs
Nope I am not the murdering type.