No, I'm not a psychologist, but I have put a lot of thought and research into this topic, and many others that interest me.
You're correct, it would be a lot harder to allow yourself to let a murderer go if you knew he was a murderer.
But would it still be right, to kill a man before he commits any crime?
The law would say that it isn't right, and likely you would go to jail for murder yourself, unless you could produce some evidence that he was going to kill somebody - then you might get off if you're lucky.
But most people would agree that killing a murderer to save a lot of 'innocents' would be the right thing to do.
Yet the scenario doesn't cover all the specifics. Are these people 'innocents'? Or are they murderers themselves, or future tyrants, even?
My perspective says just that: We can't play God. Yes, I would probably kill a murderer before I let him kill a bunch of 'innocents' or even people that I don't know anything about - but I wouldn't do it for utilitarianism.
I think it would be wrong to let him kill them. I also think it would be wrong to kill him to stop him from killing them, but given the choice I think that would be the 'lesser evil'.
Either way, we spin back around to morals.
The scenario in the story is different though. The child is innocent. And the mayor, atleast, has to sacrifice part of his 'morals' in order to allow himself to put the child through torment in order to make the people in his city more comfortable.
One might argue that the Mayor did the right thing for the greater good - if the scenario was closed, that might be the case. But you should consider the future outcome of choices like this.
I would suggest you read my story "The Future" - this is what I think comes from choices like that in the end (history speaks for itself). Thus his choice would be good for a closed scenario, but completely horrid if it was done in an open scenario, like real life.
10-Apr-2010 03:43:37