NationStates Jolt Archive

Cutting someone's hands off, or cutting one finger off the hand of ten people?

I'm curious because the answer may indicate how you view morality in general.

I'm curious because the answer may indicate how you view morality in general.

how? i'm intrigued. the answer seemed obvious to me, but maybe it isn't really...

I vote the latter. Why let more people suffer?

Is this a crime and punishment thing? We are we being sick individuals saying we should do one for the sake of it?

I need the situation, that determines what I say.

Well it reminded me of the Hitler versus Stalin arguments, who was worse. Stalin killed more people, but does that make Hitler less evil than Stalin? Does committing a crime en masse, make you more evil than someone who just commits one crime? Is morality based on the number of people affected and damage done?

The way I saw it, it's better to have 10 people suffer a bit of pain, but then be able to get on with their normal lives (when was the last time you made critical use of your 'pinkie'?) than to maim somebody so that they can't use cutlery, cook, wash, shave, type... a thousand things that would really affect their life.

It depends. For one... why are they getting their hands or fingers cut off (to punish them or to what)? 2: what method is being used? Will there be pain killers?

I say that with pain killers and proper medical attention its better to cut off the fingers of 10 people. At least they can then keep using both of their hands. Unless of course they are all one-fingered people.

Well it reminded me of the Hitler versus Stalin arguments, who was worse. Stalin killed more people, but does that make Hitler less evil than Stalin? Does committing a crime en masse, make you more evil than someone who just commits one crime? Is morality based on the number of people affected and damage done?
Well look here. The difference is Russia is a lot larger than Germany. I always hear numbers but does anybody ever give you the percentage of people Stalin killed (those slaughtered over the entire population of the area controlled) as opposed to how many people Hitler killed?

If anything Mao is the worst for he certainly killed more people than Stalin.

when was the last time you made critical use of your 'pinkie'?

Every day! I play guitar and piano ... would suck to lose any one of my fingers.

I play guitar and piano ... would suck to lose any one of my fingers.

but wouldn't it suck more to lose both your hands?

The latter choice obviously.

Well look here. The difference is Russia is a lot larger than Germany. I always hear numbers but does anybody ever give you the percentage of people Stalin killed (those slaughtered over the entire population of the area controlled) as opposed to how many people Hitler killed?

If anything Mao is the worst for he certainly killed more people than Stalin.

So you believe that morality is tied to numbers but instead of raw values, percentage of population. Well that kinda makes sense, except what if there was a nation of 4 people and someone killed them all? 100% That's larger than Stalin's percent, Mao's, or any other dictator's - but is it more evil?

So you believe that morality is tied to numbers but instead of raw values, percentage of population. Well that kinda makes sense, except what if there was a nation of 4 people and someone killed them all? 100% That's larger than Stalin's percent, Mao's, or any other dictator's - but is it more evil?
No you missed my point slightly. The fact that Hitler didn't kill more people than Stalin, is simply because he couldn't. Therefore that doesn't make him any less evil.

OK, so would it be possible to be just as evil as Hitler, without even having killed anyone?

they are both evil. evil enough that i would be willing to call them equally evil.

i am supposing that this is being done for no good reason, without anesthesia, and with no other deadly results

but it is more WRONG to leave someone handless. the 10 9-fingered people can go on to lead a normal life, the handless man would be severyly affected forever. enough so that if i were one of the 9 who would be unharmed if someone else got his hands cut off, i would argue for all of us to get one finger removed instead.

OK, so would it be possible to be just as evil as Hitler, without even having killed anyone?
Well yeah. If the circumstances don't allow for an opporunity to kill, the person could want to commit genocide, but unable to do so.

I play several instruments and would of course hate to lose any of my fingers. Not to mention the effect it would have on my sex life... which is admittedly hypothetical at the moment, but hey that could change.

So I'd selfishly volunteer some guy to have his hands cut off instead of one of my fingers. Hmm... am I more or less evil than Hitler?

I play several instruments and would of course hate to lose any of my fingers. Not to mention the effect it would have on my sex life... which is admittedly hypothetical at the moment, but hey that could change.

So I'd selfishly volunteer some guy to have his hands cut off instead of one of my fingers. Hmm... am I more or less evil than Hitler?
See thats something that is undeterminable. Because villany (if is objectively a force within itself... I don't really believe in the whole good-evil spectrum that much) can not be measured in any way.

Assuming that the mutilation isnt in punishment for a crime, and is just being done on completely innocent person/s, then i would say 10 people losing a pinkie is by far the lesser evil. All of those people would be able to go on to further employment and be able to lead a normal life, wheras a man with only 1 hand would be effectively crippled to a large extent and would have continuing problems from then on.

Assuming that the mutilation isnt in punishment for a crime, and is just being done on completely innocent person/s, then i would say 10 people losing a pinkie is by far the lesser evil. All of those people would be able to go on to further employment and be able to lead a normal life, wheras a man with only 1 hand would be effectively crippled to a large extent and would have continuing problems from then on.
And all yea landlubbers would call him The Hook.

Actually it would be best if that particular man was a software pirate and was missing one eye... and a leg... and had a parrot...



...or a monkey.

Better to inconvenience 10 people than ruin the life of one.

Since both are evil, the less of the two evils is cutting a man's hand off. Cutting a finger off 10 people is worse because then you've got ten victims instead of just one.

If you cut off 10 fingers you ruin 10 lives so I think it's worse.

So what are we talking about here? Are thumbs included in the finger choping? Techinacly its not a finger.

an intriguing question. I think you might be better off rephrasing it as cutting all ten fingers from one person opposed to one finger from wach of ten people, and throw in some note that you have to remove one of each position finger (1 rt pinkie, 1 lft index finger, 1 lft thumb and so on) just to shut up those who want to overanalyze the question to avoid answering it. I think I would go with the one person losing all their fingers. Better one suffer than many suffer.

Wait, I'm confused. They both seem morally reprehensible and the choice is presented in a vacuum (meaning that, if this is as punishment for a crime, then if that crime was committed by one person, why are 10 people having fingers cut off?).

On absolute value, however, I went with cutting off both of a man's hands because this leaves him with nothing but stumps. In a very general way, if 10 people lose a single digit, it's less of an obsticle to overcome in the future. An aunt of mine has only about 4 of her fingers between her two hands (cut off by her umbilical cord at birth), but she manages just as fine as someone with all ten digits in a general situation (and has the most beautiful penmanship I've ever seen).

But no hands? That's a pretty big obsticle

I think cutting one person's havds off is worse for two reasons.

1: Out of the times when someone needs at least one finger or hand, what percentage of the time does someone actually need all ten fingers? I think far less than 10% unless the person in question has to play a piano for a living. If you really think about it, having zero hands instead of two is much more than ten times the disadvantage of having nine fingers instead of ten, even if the missing finger is a thumb or pointer finger. In order for a handless person to write, or use almost anything thinner than his/her arm, that person would have to do so with his/her feet. Also, putting socks and shoes on will be nearly impossible without the help of others.

2: Cutting two five-fingered hands off one person is less fair than cutting one finger each off ten people.

Wait, I'm confused. They both seem morally reprehensible and the choice is presented in a vacuum (meaning that, if this is as punishment for a crime, then if that crime was committed by one person, why are 10 people having fingers cut off?).


Look, a lot of people are missing the point. There are no circumstances. There is no punishment. It's a theoretical question. What Santa is trying to say (I think) is if someboy put a gun to your head and said,

"I'm going to either cut off a person's hand or, cut off a finger of ten people. Just random strangers. Tell me what should I do. If you don't decide, I'll shoot you."

Look, a lot of people are missing the point. There are no circumstances. There is no punishment. It's a theoretical question. What Santa is trying to say (I think) is if someboy put a gun to your head and said,

"I'm going to either cut off a person's hand or, cut off a finger of ten people. Just random strangers. Tell me what should I do. If you don't decide, I'll shoot you."

Oh. Well, that makes it easier. Shoot me.

Fine. He doesn't say that. HE says, "If you don't decide I'll destroy the world"

And he can... because he has... several nukes behind him and the capability to launch them. And you're tied down and can't do anything.

Look, a lot of people are missing the point. There are no circumstances. There is no punishment. It's a theoretical question. What Santa is trying to say (I think) is if someboy put a gun to your head and said,

"I'm going to either cut off a person's hand or, cut off a finger of ten people. Just random strangers. Tell me what should I do. If you don't decide, I'll shoot you."

its always a mistake to trust someone with a gun to your head.
sure he SAYS he'll go with whatever you say, but will he?
a person with a chopping fetish isnt likely to stop with a few fingers

Fine. He doesn't say that. HE says, "If you don't decide I'll destroy the world"

And he can... because he has... several nukes behind him and the capability to launch them. And you're tied down and can't do anything.

Bah. Okay. Fine. I still stick with my previous answer. To remove a man's hands will completely destroy his life. To remove a single digit from the hands of ten people will present a serious inconvenience to those ten, certainly, but not an insurmountable one. For example, Daryl Hannah has had a very successful acting career and she's missing part of a finger.

The real question is where did this psychotic get the nukes and, if he's got me in bondage, did he at least buy me an expensive dinner first?

Ok fine... How about this... You have to choose, because you are compelled to choose by a power that transcends time and space and all existance. And tyou can't not choose, because it can control your mind.

Bah. Okay. Fine. I still stick with my previous answer. To remove a man's hands will completely destroy his life. To remove a single digit from the hands of ten people will present a serious inconvenience to those ten, certainly, but not an insurmountable one. For example, Daryl Hannah has had a very successful acting career and she's missing part of a finger.

The real question is where did this psychotic get the nukes and, if he's got me in bondage, did he at least buy me an expensive dinner first?
No he slipped you something in your drink.

I'd cut off 10 people's fingers. But I would give then painkillers and money.

No he slipped you something in your drink.

Ha! Just my luck. About to be taken advantage of and I didn't even get a meal out of it.

what if you were the guy whos head gets chopped off?

liberals dont have liberal clarity. this prooves it.

liberals dont have liberal clarity. this prooves it.

What proves which now?

Ignoring the evil part.

Which is worse? I would have to say that it depends on the circumstances behind that the lopping. I could probably come up with a whole plethora of reasons why each one would be worse depending on the circumstances if I were motivated enough. But I’m not, so I’ll leave it at that.

It´s ok as long it´s not me the man with no hands :rolleyes:

"I cried when I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet. Then I laughed--really hard." -- Jerri Blank.

what if you were the guy whos head gets chopped off?
Hand darling, not head.

You silly goose.

I went with cutting one finger from 10 people. You can't really measure evil per se, it's not quantative. However the fact that the person commits the same crime 10 times is worse to me than the 1 crime of losing their hands. It shows a complete lack of remorse, and a rather sociopathic obsession.