Is it ever "OK" to kill an innocent?

[Quantum Ninja]

Some of you have probably stumbled upon something similar to this before in a moral philosophy course or text.

Here's the situation:

You're in a cave, and there's only one possible exit. Unfortunately, another person has become accidentally lodged in this passage, blocking your only escape. There is no way to go around him or remove him without killing him (perhaps you have a small stick of dynamite in your pack that will clear the exit point). The man stuck in the passage is entirely innocent in this situation; he did nothing intentional to block your escape. Nor is he suicidal; he wants to live, and if rescuers arrive he'll be pulled to safety.

Unfortunately for you, the cave is filling up with water, and you know that you will drown before help arrives. The other man will still live once the cave is entirely flooded because his head will remain on the open side of the passage, away from the water.

It's either him or you... one of you will die and the other will live. There's no possibility of both of you surviving.

What do you do?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

I do not think I would be psychologically able to kill this person -- though a lot depends on the specifics. If it were my (hypothetical) child or my wife, no way. A stranger that I never met before, almost certainly not. If it was somebody that I thought has caused more harm in the world than good -- e.g., a tobacco company executive, a drug runner -- I could probably muster enough anger and see my own sacrifice as such a waste that I would save myself instead.

On the issue of multiple people in the cave, much would depend on what the other people want. If I had two people in the cave who were the parents of the person caught in the door and who insisted that the one stuck not be hurt, then I would not hurt him. Correspondingly, if the parent were stuck in the door begging that I save the children caught inside, I would do so.

On the idea of killing an innocent person generally, I have just made some comments in a post on this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57540)

[Theli]

If we assume that we are capable of killing anyone, and just focus on the moral question, then I would have to go with #4. Weither or not you label him as "innocent" doesn't matter, his life is not worth more than any of the people save through his death.
It's a question of numbers.

I'm also guessing you want us to disregard the fact that if this person is "blocking" the passage and cannot be removed through coercion he will surelly drown like the rest of us.

If it was just up to him or me, I don't think we can place a moral judgement on my actions at all (except for perhaps taboo), since both outcomes of my two choices is equal from a third perspective.

[Shake]

Hmm ... the dynamite will definitely kill the other person, but will more than likely deafen you and depending on the integrity of the cave, could potentially kill you, too. So, pull him out and tell him you'll be of more help to him from outside. Then do what you will.

[Calzaer]

Get me outta there. If the cave was just collapsing, sure, it'd be more of an issue for me. But I absolutely refuse to die by DROWNING. That the third-scariest way I could think of to die. I'd come closer to sticking the dynamite in my mouth and lighting the fuse before letting the water get me.

[Adrammalech]

Yeah, I was just confronted with this problem in my philosophy class a couple of days ago. For me, provided that the enterence wouldn't collapse further, and that once he blew up, that I in turn would be able to fit through the opening to get out, then yes I would do it, unless it was a family member or close friend, then I don't think I could bring myself to do it. Although I find the situation sorta hard to swallow because, A) unless you were living in the cave, how would you get fatter in order to get stuck on the way out, and B) usually pulling the guy back into the cave would work in getting unstuck. oh and then there's the fact that I don't like caves so I probably wouldn't be exploring around in something that I think would collapse on my head. But of course it is a hypothetical situation afterall.

[callmejay]

I would not kill an innocent to save my life. He has no less right than me. On the other hand, I also wouldn't actively give up my life for an average innocent. So I guess I would accept the status quo and not make an active decision.

[Quantum Ninja]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
Although I find the situation sorta hard to swallow because, A) unless you were living in the cave, how would you get fatter in order to get stuck on the way out, and B) usually pulling the guy back into the cave would work in getting unstuck. oh and then there's the fact that I don't like caves so I probably wouldn't be exploring around in something that I think would collapse on my head. But of course it is a hypothetical situation afterall.

Right, it's a hypothetical situation; it's not meant to be entirely realistic. It's highly unlikely that someone would be thrown into similar circumstances. Just use your imagination here. It's not meant to be an exercise in demonstrating how the event is improbable. It's an exercise to make you think about your morals.

A) unless you were living in the cave, how would you get fatter in order to get stuck on the way out,

Maybe a large rock shifted, trapping the man in there.

B) usually pulling the guy back into the cave would work in getting unstuck.

Maybe pulling him out from your side will cause the rock/debris to crush him.

[Tenek]

Ask him.

He's trapped and will starve to death if nobody comes.

You can get out and free if you blow it, presumably.

Explain the situation as best you can and ask if he's willing to risk death by explosion if you're not rescued by the time the water gets to a critical level.

His answer is binding.

In the event that you can't communicate, you're in an absurd world of stupid questions, so just pull on the lever and teleport yourself and the guy out.

[meritocrat]

I'd kill him.

[vixstile]

If I loved this person and I killed them I would probably regret it deeply after and might end up not being able to live with myself. So I don't think I would be able kill a loved one.

If this is just some guy; he is screwed!

To an objective bystander this guys life isn't any more valuable than mine, but to me this guy ain't worth shit and i'm worth everything. Ultimately this is all that matters.

[pariah]

I would kill him.

Life has no inherent value or worth, and this particular situation is lacking of a society (which provides the value). Therefore I see nothing "morally" wrong with killing him. Plus, one less person to compete with in the gene pool.

Of course that is only taken as a last resort option. And if it was a family member or loved one, empathy would be too strong, no way I could do it.

[Theli]

I'm not sure what this thread is doing in the morality section, I mean it's not a question of morality just what we would do in a certain situation.

[Quantum Ninja]

I'm not sure what this thread is doing in the morality section, I mean it's not a question of morality just what we would do in a certain situation.

So killing innocent people has nothing to do with morality? :rolleyes:

Just because this is an unlikely, hypothetical situation, it is still clearly a topic relevant to this forum. It's meant to be an exercise to make you think about your own morals by thinking about how you would act in a certain situation. Do you believe in absolute morality? Are you a utilitarian? An ethical egoist? Those are the kind of questions this exercise is making you think about, whether you realize it or not.

[Primal]

I would likely kill the man unless he was someone I really cared for, and even then I might if more people I cared for, or people I cared more for were stuck in the cave.

[Ronin]

All other things being equal in this hypothetical situation...I'd let pure, unadulterated universal chance decide.

<So, Mr. "I think I'm stuck"> flips coin and lights fuse <...heads I win, tails you lose.>

[Ronin]

By the way...I chose #4.

Life is the basis...not an assessment of 'innocence'.

Given a one on one/equal scenario...I'd let him live.

[edited to add that I forgot this wasn't in Elsewhere ;)]

[Theli]

So killing innocent people has nothing to do with morality?
Not necessarily, you can kill an innocent if you have no sense of morality at all, even if morality doesn't exist.

My objection was with the question: "What would you do?".
Now, are we to assume that any action we would take given a certain situation must be deemed moral? If not, then the answer given in this poll is not what is morally right. Therefore no, I don't think this is a moral question.

[Quantum Ninja]

Originally posted by Theli
[B]Not necessarily, you can kill an innocent if you have no sense of morality at all, even if morality doesn't exist.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. You can also go to war, rape a child, torture animals, promote slavery, supress women's rights etc. if you have no sense of morality at all. So why don't you object to those sorts of things being discussed in this forum?

Main Entry: mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior


I'm asking you if you think it would be right to kill an innocent man if it meant saving your life, and under what conditions would you do so. How is that not pertinent to morality?

[Theli]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. You can also go to war, rape a child, torture animals, promote slavery, supress women's rights etc. if you have no sense of morality at all. So why don't you object to those sorts of things being discussed in this forum?
I was saying that murdering the innocent is not necessarily a question of morality.
I'm asking you if you think it would be right to kill an innocent man if it meant saving your life, and under what conditions would you do so. How is that not pertinent to morality?
No you did not. You asked if I would kill an innocent man, not if it was morally right. Thus the answer I give would not necessarily be a moral one.

[xorbie]

There's a saying: a smart man can get out of any trouble, a wise man avoids trouble. Personally, I don't like these sort of hypothetical scenarios. It asks people to make vague judgements about what they would do if they were in a situation they don't really understand. What's the point?

[Nowhere357]

Self-defense is the only valid reason to kill others, though this leaves the question of what constitutes self defense. It seems to me that sometimes, the intent of the other person is irrelevant - that is, we may need self defense even against an innocent. Also, sometimes a pre-emptive strike can be rationalized as self-defense.

This problem seems to involve both of these concepts. I personally would be very reluctant to kill anyone - in the given problem, I would probably struggle to free the person right up till I was sucking H2O.

I don't think it's necessarily immoral to kill the innocent to save my own life. However, in a given situation, there is no way to know for sure that the situation could have only the types of outcomes in the problem. Iow, it seems to me that irl it requires assumptions. People who don't mind killing others would be more likely to assume they need to kill the innocent, while people with stronger morals would not be as likely to make that assumption.

One more point: killing the innocent will give give the survivor a moral stench in the eyes of the world (I do like mixing metaphors), if they ever learn the truth.
---------------------

Use the dynamite to seal off the passage the water is coming through. This buys time, and we will all get out alive before the closing credits. [/Capt Kirk mode]

[Quantum Ninja]

Originally posted by Theli
I was saying that murdering the innocent is not necessarily a question of morality.

Any action you can think of falls into one of these categories:
Morally right
Morally wrong
Morally neutral

A generally accepted example of a morally right action is doing something to help someone in danger (even it's as simple as calling rescue workers). Raping children is something many people would regard as morally wrong. Pouring a glass of juice is almost universally regarded as a morally neutral action.

Morally neutral topics don't have much purpose or bearing in this forum. It would seem rather silly of me to ask, "Is it ever OK to pour a glass of juice?" But can you give me an example where everyone would agree that killing an innocent person is a morally neutral action? Or are you telling me that killing an innocent person can be morally equivalent to pouring a glass of juice?

Look at the poll results. So far, close to 14% of the participants have voted that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person, under any circumstances. To these people, this topic is a pertinent moral question, one that they have chosen to categorize as "morally wrong." Others have said that they would kill the innocent person to save their own lives. Some of these people probably regard this action as either morally right or morally neutral. Others have said that they would kill the innocent person only if it meant saving several other lives. To these people, killing one to save many is probably a "morally right" action.

I think there's a pretty good split between people who classify this action as right, wrong, or neutral. That's what this exercise is asking you to think about. Are there times when you are morally justified in killing an innocent? Is it always morally wrong to kill an innocent person? How the hell are those two questions not pertinent to discussions of morality?



No you did not. You asked if I would kill an innocent man, not if it was morally right. Thus the answer I give would not necessarily be a moral one. [/B]

Yes I did. Check the title of the post there, bud. So maybe this topic is morally neutral to you. Others clearly believe otherwise. I'm just asking you how you would morally classify this action.

[Little-Aphid]

I would kill the person. From an outside point of view, our lives are of equal worth, but from mine, my life is worth much more than anyone else's. Not to mention the fact that one of my worst fears is of drowning.

[beth]

If it were just the two of us, I'd light the TNT and blow us both up. I have no right to murder someone to save myself and I don't wanna drown and I don't want him to suffer. So, it's a mercy killing. But first, I would see if I could structually weaken the wall at another point to see if I could free him.

[Kuu]

I can't answer the poll as my option isn't there.

I would ask the person what he thinks I should do. If he is going to die any way he might give me permission to kill him quickly. If he did than I have done nothing morally wrong. If he didn't give permission I hope I would accept my death. I don't think I could live with myself if I killed him without his permission.

I think if it was my who was stuck I would give my permission as I wouldn't like to be the cause of the other's death.

[Purple Smartie]

I would not be in a cave to begin with, but I'll play along.

I voted to kill him only if there were more people in the cave whose lives depended on it. I might wager that the force of the rising water would push him out of the opening, or might weaken the walls holding him in place. Water weighs quite a bit when there is a lot of it.

Maybe this is how the Bush administration justified the war in Iraq - killing some innocent people to save more innocent people later. I don't know how I feel about having the same moral standard as Bush.

If there were children or relatives in the cave I would do everything in my power to save them. If my girlfriend was the one stuck in the opening I would rather die with her than choose one of our lives over the other. Blow us up together maybe, or try to break through another part of the wall and free us both. How many sticks of dynamite do we get?

[Theli]

Theli:
No you did not. You asked if I would kill an innocent man, not if it was morally right. Thus the answer I give would not necessarily be a moral one.
Quantum Ninja:
es I did. Check the title of the post there, bud.
I never said anything about the name of the thread, I was refering to the poll wich does ask wich action you would take, and the choices clearly shows imminent actions. As I said, the poll is about what you would do, not what is moral.

But, nevermind... :D

[CanoeMan]

Usually I'd say that I'd flip a coin for it. But since I suffer from claustrophobia (or; fear of small spaces, however it's spelled in english), I'd blow him to very small chunks when the water reached my feet.

Unless, of course, it was my girlfriend, my sister or some other person who is very close to me. Then I'd crawl to the bottom of the cave and lit the fuse in my mouth. I wouldn't be able to kill one of those people, I guess.

[Comquirk]

Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Kirk: Or the one.

-Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

:D

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Comquirk
Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I wonder what shape the assembled philosophies of Star Trek would look like. I recall a STTNG where they were going to destroy the new medicine because it came from a mad doctor type (inhuman exeriments and what-not) but then a crew member got the disease. So of course they break their own rule and use the medicine before they destroy it. They can have it but no one else! :mad:

Anyway, do the needs of the ten drooling idiots outweigh the needs of the nine wise men?

[Peter Kirby]

One thing is often overlooked in these hypotheticals: epistemology. Knowledge comes not by magic but evidence.

The question is always raised with regard to capital punishment: there are some people who are convicted of capital crimes who later turn out to be innocent. Do we place a higher value on revenge or making an example, or on eventually bringing justice to those that may slip through the cracks of the judicial system? I apologize if I start a tangent with this example; it is intended as a primer for the kind of question that I want to raise with the OP.

I am in a cave. Actually, some kind of grotto: it's a cave where I'm close to water level. This is already a strange situation for me, and I am not sure I understand all the physics involved. How did I determine the speed with which the water is rising and the time that it will take for rescue workers to appear? Am I on a cell phone with 911? That makes sense, but what if a police car was closer than the dispatcher realized and arrived on the scene, to find that I had blown up an innocent man and had a good five minutes of breathing time? Surely I would face the prospect of jail time--an unattractive thing for the most unenlightened self-interest.

Am I a geologist, so as to know the nature of the rocks and the water level? The water is rising, but how fast? Did I check all the nooks and crannies of this cave? I could easily have ignored the small passageway off to the southeast that will drain off all the water at a level that will allow me to breathe for several hours. I have this dynamite--is it even legal? what am I doing with it in a cave? pyrotechnics? that's so not me--and I blow up this guy. I had called 911, and the rescue workers and officers are on the scene, again now a crime scene. "Why did you murder that man? Goddamit, Jeff, this is the third bizarre flooded cave and vigilante with dynamite case this week. Book him and let's see if he'll lead us back to Mr. Big." OK, so I had good intentions, but I'm sliding down the well-paved path into hell without recourse, after my irrevocable decision to take a life. The jury will have no sympathy for the unjustified belief that I was going to die if I didn't blow up a person, who in fact posed no threat to me.

OK, forget water tables. The water is rising, and I have somehow scientifically determined that I have about 30 minutes to get to a higher level or drown, with a body between me and that goal. The question has already been asked, but deserves to be asked again, have I explored all the options for dislodging that body without blowing it up? First of all, wouldn't I know how he got stuck? I believe that Winnie the Pooh, as I remember it from the hazy past, may have done a parody of this philosopher's yarn. Winnie the Pooh is over visiting at the rabbit's house, an uninvited guest, and finds himself snugly in the backdoor hole out of rabbit's cave. The silly old bear is offered jars of honey as a gift and begins eating and eating and eating. After a long time at this, Pooh is fatter and thoroughly stuck. The rabbit now has the unwanted sight of a bear's butt in the wall of his living room. So the rabbit immediately tries to rectify the situation with the fastidious tactic of converting Pooh's posterior into a shelf for decor, but Winnie is tickled when the rabbit draw a design on his rear and the shelf falls apart. In the meantime, Roo is bringing flowers to Winnie the Pooh and being cheerful. The advice is sought of the engineering badger, who had some bizarre ideas although wizened authority. I think a few things failed. The rabbit eventually came to accept the fact that this bear came to be stuck in his home unwittingly and not to despise him for it. Soon after this, Pooh Bear is somehow shot out like a cannon and ends up in the knothole high up in a conifer, luckily eating honey merrily. Somehow it is easier this time to get him down. What I think that this long tangent tells us is that (a) the situation itself is fictional and (b) within this fictional situation, treating the trapped innocent as an enemy is not the best option.

But let's examine this further along the plausibility angle. Clearly the man did not get fatter while in the entrance like Pooh. What did make him get stuck without the possibility of wriggling and pushing and pulling out? The only possibility I can see is that the rocks shifted, pinning him beneath one by gravity. The physics is now rather clearer. This cave has become rather unstable. Does using a stick of dynamite sound like a bright idea now? There is a good chance, arguably better than 50%, that blowing up stuff results in the immediate collapse of the rocks above you and your own immediate death, along with the death of others at your hands. Bonehead. You were trying to pick the littler of two weevils, and instead you picked the Tazmanian devil that ravages your own body and destroys the life of others.

Is our only tool available the dynamite? That would be nice for the scenario, but even then the only option is not to blow up the dude. Have you thought of creating a leak that allows you to breath, or even opens up a different tunnel. Think like this is an adventure game, if you like fictional scenarios. You're supposed to use your inventory in a creative way for the most points. Or else the witty game designers will pop up a message saying "Nice going dude--did you notice that you could see in this cave and that there was light coming through a hole in the wall? Right behind you was your path to freedom. Restore, Restart, Quit?" Unfortunately, there is no "Restore" option if this is real life. You have just killed a man, and you will be discovered, and you will have to live with that, even though you could have saved your own skin in another way.

OK, suppose that I magically know that all of the above alternative conditions are not the case--in other words, I have omniscience. And with my omniscience I see that the only option is to kill this man and live, or that we both (or just me) die. But now I have become a god. And any god knows that you can just come back to life three days later.

If I'm going to use situation ethics, let's pay attention to the situation as well as the ethics that are being derived from it. To the degree that this situation is remotely possible, there is greater than 50% chance that not killing the man will be in my own unenlightened self interest.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
If I'm going to use situation ethics, let's pay attention to the situation as well as the ethics that are being derived from it. To the degree that this situation is remotely possible, there is greater than 50% chance that not killing the man will be in my own unenlightened self interest.
All that's required is for the person to believe the given situation is the case. But I agree that these kinds of questions always involve complex situations (otherwise there would be no dilemma) and if they occured irl then because they are complicated we couldn't know for sure all the various outcomes!

It's interesting how people will (always?) run over other people to escape the night club fire.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
All that's required is for the person to believe the given situation is the case. Wrong. Knowledge is the key. If I believe that the little old lady living on social security in a trailer park is somehow hatching a scheme to sabatoge my collection of vintage records--and therefore that the only option is to kill her or supposedly sacrifice my own interests--I am a delusional freak that deserves to be locked away or put in a funny farm. Again, knowledge is key. To pick more realistic examples, because I like realistic examples, if you are a police officer and you shoot an unarmed man because he twitched the wrong way, and your colleagues think that you are trigger-happy, you are probably in some serious shit. Many people are responding to the imagined scenario with a "shoot first, ask questions later" bankrupt moral and epistemological philosophy.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Wrong. Knowledge is the key.
I didn't explain myself well. I meant: to perform the thought experiment. :)

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I didn't explain myself well. I meant: to perform the thought experiment. :) Under the thought experiment--in the end perfectly (in hypothetical fact not my own reasonable knowledge) avoiding all my criticism and cutting off all possibility of saving one's own life without killing another--and all possibility of killing another and killing oneself, or devastating one's life--here's what would happen, of course as I imagine myself in the fictional world. First I would make a preliminary attempt to free the man and assess his situation. There's a good a priori chance of that working, but it doesn't--at this stage, I lose with two of a kind against three pair. Then I would do as thorough a search of the surrounding area as I can, so as to in some way allow more time to breathe or find another route of escape, since I am after all contemplating using dynamite to get out. Under this particular scenario, these investigations fail--that's like saying that I am dealt three pair yet lose the hand to a straight--it happens all the time, but it's not preordained knowledge, and I'm playing what I am dealt. Next comes the test of accidental intervention--perhaps the rocks collapse again, luckily rectifying the situation, or the water is siphoned off through a crack. This doesn't happen--so, now, I am losing a straight to a flush. So I am now back to the only exit, blocked with a bloke, with an apparently rising water level. Here is where I make the decision not to blow up the man. Ex hypothesi, the man is trapped under shifting rock, and the most likely result is that an explosion will lead to further decay in the cave's structure and my swifter death. Having this probable knowledge--yet, of course, false under this devil's odds hypothesis, somehow the rocks will actually just fall all around me and I will be able to ascend unscathed, but that's totally irrational for me to believe--I do not choose to cause the probable death of myself and this guy. I am starting to panic. My blood starts pumping more, and a am desperate. I make one final heroic effort to shift the stone just enough for my cohort to wriggle free. Under the increasingly rarefied hypothesis, this attempt must fail, on the dictate of the scenario, but I think I am in real life so try to act realistically. The water is up to my neck, and I can no longer light the fuse. I am frantically tugging on the man's body, and I drown to my death. The original poster says that the other guy survives if I die, but I don't know why, it's another stipulate of this other worldly scenario. So I am dead. Technically, I lost the game of life, and I don't get to see the scorecard. But a man also loses the game of life if he chooses to ride an airplane, the first and last time in his life, and it plummets to the earth. ("Isn't it ironic, don't you think?") That was not the expected outcome. No, I'm not saying that--under a situation that I personally will never be in, spelunkering in dangerous caves with a stranger with pyrotechnics--that it would be known by me that I would have escaped with the efforts that I made. What I would not know is that causing the certain death of this other man would cause any good for myself whatsoever. Why? The rocks were set up to allow the blast to execute perfectly, unbeknownst to me, and I escape to the surface. Now what is most probable--that my life on a whole is better than if I died in that cave? You might think so, but it would not apply to me, for a few reasons. First, I would always feel guilt over killing a person when there were other reasonable courses of action--of course shut off by this evil demiurge running the scenario. Second, I would most likely face charges. The original post intimated something about rescue workers, which presumably they got a 911 call about so that I thought I knew when they would be there. (I am adding detail to try to make sense of the scenario in human terms instead of magic knowledge.) So they knew my cell phone, and they have evidence of me on the scene, and they have a dead body due to explosion. I doubt that the legal code anticipated a loophole for this byzantine hypothetical fiction. So I am legally guilty of murder. The hypothetical fiction of the original post says nothing about the improbable manipulation of jury's minds, so I spend most of my now ruined life in a prison, as somebody's bitch. Or, at least, if I had time to be rational while in the cave, I would have realized that making sure that this man dies does not make a big enough logically anticipated improvement in my own happiness.

I think that the only thing that is proven by this scenario is that, if Hera is out to get you, you will face some unique moral challenges and superhuman difficulties, which if you make all the right decisions will land you in Olympus. But if you try to play by the odds out of self interest, it is usually (I don't have enough knowledge to say always) a bad idea to take another life. I would need more clear-cut evidence that killing this person would save myself in order for that course of action to be rational self-interest. Something like an armed burglar would be easier to understand and would put forward a more useful and less fictional hypothesis.

I still maintain that the epistemological approach is key to deconstructing the false assumptions behind this and other how-it-could-have-been ethical dilemmas. I can find value in situational ethics, but I prefer to spend time dwelling on situations roughly like those that I will live through within the next 50 reincarnations.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Purple Smartie]

<off topic> Comquirk, I'm also in Fredericton. Are you a student? </off topic>

[tronvillain]

Taking the hypothetical situation exactly as stated (it is quite annoying when people insist on disecting the physical plausibility of hypothetical situations), I would kill him in a heartbeat, though I would be a little upset if it was someone close to me. To me, him life is far less valuable than mine, so my choice is obvious and his opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant. In fact, to me even a hundred or a thousand lives are potentially far less valuable than mine.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Taking the hypothetical situation exactly as stated (it is quite annoying when people insist on disecting the physical plausibility of hypothetical situations), I disagree, which is why I used the primer of the frequently epistemological issue related to capital punishment. Suppose that we could establish morally that it is a good idea to execute people convicted of certain crimes. There would still be the legitimate response that this almost never should happen because we almost never have strong enough evidence to prove the crime such that we know we wouldn't be sorry later, because there will be errors made by juries that we can correct later if the convict is not killed. So even if capital punishment is a good idea with magic knowledge, it could be a generally bad idea with real knowledge based on evidence. I think the same way of blowing up people to escape caves, based on a close reading of the fictional situation exactly as stated.

best,
Peter Kirby

[tronvillain]

That is in fact essentially my position on capital punishment, but I am still annoyed by people dissecting the physical plausibility of hypothetical situations. In any case, it would be trivially easy to set up a hypothetical situation that would be physically plausible and would provide the exact same problem.

[Peter Kirby]

Then we should be talking about this other situation. And it should be removed from the textbooks or prefaced with a disclaimer.

The problem is not just physical plausibility--people do get trapped in caves--but determining how we know the future effects of our actions so as to justify taking the action of killing someone, who by the OP is not threatening you and is "innocent," for some anticipated personal benefit or other greater good.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Cretinist]

Peter Kirby and tronvillian are together at night in a dark alley, discussing ethics. I come along with a gun, and tell Mr. Kirby either he can die and tronvillian will live, or he can live and tronvillian will die.

What does Peter do?

[Peter Kirby]

I don't trust you at all (what a psychotic proposition), suspect that you may kill both of us anyway, give you my wallet, and try to run away. I don't encourage you to shoot anybody.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Nowhere357]

And that is the Captain Kirk syndrome. Also called cheating.

Simply alter the conditions in your own head until you accept the given premise - one of you will die, and you get to pick who.

Who do you pick?

[Peter Kirby]

How can you give me a contextless situation and expect me to know how to handle it? Tell me how what the situation is, and how I know what I know about it, and I will try to say what I imagine that I would do.

I will try to make up my own situation. I am on a small aircraft. It is falling out of the sky. There is only one parachute. The other guy says, "It looks like only one of us will survive. I will leave that up to you." I pick to live myself, under these conditions.

best,
Peter Kirby

[tronvillain]

It seems to me that you are just afraid to answer the question, but perhaps I am wrong.

Try this hypothetical situation: You are trapped in a chair by metal restraints next to another person trapped in a chair by metal restraints, but you have a timer ticking down to zero in front of your face and a button in your hand, while he does not. Instead, he is blindfolded, gagged, and his ears are muffled. The maniac who has put you here has told you that if you push the button it will release your restraints but electrocute the other person, while if you let the timer tick down to zero you will be electrocuted and the other respon will be released. Do you push the button or not?

Now, it is possible that the maniac is extra cruel and that pushing the button will electrocute you and release the other or that letting the timer count to zero will electrocute the other and release you instead, and it is possible that either course of action will do nothing or kill you both, and it is even possible that it is a sick joke and nothing bad will happen whatever you do. Forget all of that: all you know is that the equipment appears to work as described (assume he demonstrated it to you) and you can either push the button or let the timer go to zero. That's it. Push the button or let the timer go to zero. Pick one! Button or timer, timer or button, what is it going to be? If you are unable to pick one of the two clearly identifiable options, I will have no choice but to conclude that you are simply too afraid to answer.

[Peter Kirby]

Assuming that this is not magical knowledge, I would choose to save my life (where the other guy dies) instead of save one other life (dying myself).

[edit: Though I am not some kind of moral coward, I do think that there should be trepidation in matters of life and death.]

best,
Peter Kirby

[Comquirk]

Originally posted by Purple Smartie
<off topic> Comquirk, I'm also in Fredericton. Are you a student? </off topic>

Yes, but I'm not there currently. I'll be back at St. Thomas at the beginning of September. :D

[Comquirk]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
And that is the Captain Kirk syndrome. Also called cheating.

Simply alter the conditions in your own head until you accept the given premise - one of you will die, and you get to pick who.

Who do you pick?

Someone knows their Kobayshi Maru history. ;)

[phil]

I must say, I haven't laughed so hard in this forum for a long time. This truly is a kobayashi maru situation isn't it?

Well, like Kirk "I always like to think there are... possibilities." so I can't really answer this question. I just wanted to say I was thoroughly entertained though.

For those who don't care much about morals, how about this question:

You have a choice to go to heaven or hell, which one will you choose?

The question is moot for you if you don't believe in heaven or hell. So is that 'moral' question moot for me. It doesn't allow me any choice that I consider morally acceptable.

-phil

[tronvillain]

Well now that's just pathetic. What are you going to do if you eliminate every alternative and it comes down to either drowning or killing the guy? Not making a decision is essentially the same as choosing to drown. In my scenario doing nothing is the same as choosing to be electrocuted. Are you saying that in a scenario where those were your choices you would simply be paralyzed?

[sakrilege]

This does remind me of the doctor in Cambodia who was operating on somebody when Pol Pot's troops invaded the hospital. The doctor left the surgery and was able to escape the country but he did leave someone to die. He surely would have been killed if he had stayed. Is this analogous?

[Gothic_J]

Id splatter him all over the walls.

I might apologize first though.

[Graeme]

Well the other guy is in this position too. Presumably if this were a real life situation both people would end up fighting it out.

If I were in full control of myself (which is unlikely in that kind of situation) I'd probably tell him to decide.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by sakrilege
This does remind me of the doctor in Cambodia who was operating on somebody when Pol Pot's troops invaded the hospital. The doctor left the surgery and was able to escape the country but he did leave someone to die. He surely would have been killed if he had stayed. Is this analogous?
Ouch, that is a painful situation. Terrible thing all around, but I have no real problem with the doctor running under those conditions.

Now I'm depressed. I think I'll read the next Nutwatch (http://www.ludd.luth.se/~asmodean/nutwatch/). I'm up to #17, I think, and I always feel better after an infusion of QoS's wonderful humor. :)

[frostymama]

If it were just me? I couldn't kill him. I would rather die myself.

If my children were with me and my choices were to kill someone or watch my boys drown? Give me the dynamite.