5 Answers

  1. I would have killed him. I don't know him, so he's a passerby to me. That's all, nothing complicated or dangerous. Although with my family, I don't think they would have been killed. Like this.

  2. I recently watched a video on YouTube: a young guy attacked a taxi driver with a knife and almost killed him. When they began to investigate: there is some kind of game-you need to kill another, then you will have some kind of bonus. (Well, also a similar dilemma).

    Apparently, this guy was in a similar situation when he had to choose. Only I didn't have enough brains to find the right solution.

  3. Put it out. If he tried harder to deceive, relax, and then kill her. Believe me, the hand would not have flinched. Those who make such a choice do not deserve to live. You can always find a moment to poke your finger in the eye.

  4. This moral and ethical dilemma is individual, but in my opinion everyone will be inclined to choose the first one, which is more rational from their point of view(given that the situation has two outcomes, either the first or the second) . But one life at the expense of another, at least in this case, is selfish.

  5. In practice, this is unlikely to happen, the options are not well thought out – to kill any passerby means to be on the street, respectively, having the opportunity to cover the killer before he has time to kill the family. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the circumstances in which family members are located, whether the killer works on his own or with partners, and so on. In general, such questions are difficult to answer, since you can reason about anything, and there will be no time for reasoning directly in the situation and state of affect.

Leave a Reply