Very recently, I created a topic called Would You Torture a Baby to Death to End World Suffering? My goal was to discuss the topic and see people's reactions. Since then, I've come under fire for creating a question out of a situation that makes absolutely no sense. Of course the question was completely absurd, as that was my original intention. However, some people cannot seem to accept that the question I asked was a hypothetical one, and thus does not matter whether or not it makes any logical sense.
So, in this topic, I am going to attempt to create a new scenario that makes logical sense and is more realistic.
A person in New York City comes down with a deadly virus. This virus, called P1Z5, cannot be treated with antibiotics and there is no known vaccination. It kills the person infected in about two days, after draining them dry of all of their fluids. It is incredibly contagious; anyone who gets within thirty feet of an infected person catches it.
Soon, there is an outbreak in New York City and half the population is infected with the P1Z5 virus. It's spreading like fire and hundreds of people are dying on the streets. The ones who are not yet sick are rapidly leaving New York City so they can avoid dying. However, because of this, the virus is spreading to other parts of the country.
Imagine that you are the President of the United States. Someone calls you on the phone and says, like they do in all of the cool spy movies, "Mr. President, we have a situation, sir." You are given two choices. You can allow people to leave New York City and risk killing the world population, or you can send the army to barricade New York City and let everyone there die. Which one do you choose?
