Let's propose that you are the leader of an entire nation (such as the USA) and have been informed that several of your states/provinces/etc. are in danger of no longer being able to support and care for themselves and that if the problem is not dealt with, your country will be drained financially and many people will simply die from the problem. You are told you can wipe said states/provinces/etc. out in order to prevent this and to prevent its people from suffering needlessly or you can attempt to throw money at the problem, but with no real guarantee in a positive result of any sort. If you do decimate the peoples and wipe them out, you will be considered a monster with no value for human life, but in the long run your country will be more prosperous and will not have its finances or resources drained; on the flip-side if you attempt to find an alternative, death-free solution your country will eventually fall into shambles financially and your resources will become strained and eventually you will be viewed as the reason your country became a shithole all in the name of being a humanitarian.
Threaded Mode