Moral Dilemma

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:19 am

You are a German in Nazi Germany and have been caught by a Nazi officer to be keeping a Jew hidden in your home. The officer puts a gun to your head and asks you to shoot and kill the Jew by handing you another gun. He says that if you do not kill the Jew, he will kill you and the Jew. Do you shoot the Jew, or not? By the way, killing the Nazi officer is not an option. I am using this to represent something in modern day and in this situation, you cannot kill the threat.

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:16 am

If you fear death, no doubt you will kill the Jew. If you do not, no doubt you will not kill the Jew.

As for threats in the modern day, I look to this:

\"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a \"protector,\" and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to \"protect\" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful \"sovereign,\" on account of the \"protection\" he affords you. He does not keep \"protecting\" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

\"The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves \"the government,\" are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

\"In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

\"Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that \"the government\" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of \"the government,\" and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that \"our country\" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and \"save the country,\" cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.

\"It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to \"support the government,\" it needs no further argument to show.\"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:26 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:You are a German in Nazi Germany and have been caught by a Nazi officer to be keeping a Jew hidden in your home. The officer puts a gun to your head and asks you to shoot and kill the Jew by handing you another gun. He says that if you do not kill the Jew, he will kill you and the Jew. Do you shoot the Jew, or not? By the way, killing the Nazi officer is not an option. I am using this to represent something in modern day and in this situation, you cannot kill the threat.

If he can hand me a loaded gun then I can shoot him instead of the Jew and certainly would.
But just to play along, if I believe he will kill us both and I believe I have no other option then I probably would shoot the Jew.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:12 am

No I wouldn't kill the jew. But I am a die-hard optimist when it comes to there being a third option when you are seemingly only presented with the options wrong or die--I believe that often-times the absolutely restricted choice is an illusion.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:18 am

To be perfectly honest I would shoot myself. It would be quick and painless and removes having to live with it the rest of my life or being shot by the Nazi. The Jewish person is dead either way.

Bettina.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:26 am

Try to shoot the Nazi at all costs. If you are handed a gun, do the right thing, it's always an option. Evil is evil. If I then died either by my hand or the Nazi's, my soul would be clean.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:54 pm

I would inspect the gun I was given to see if it is actually loaded, if it wasn't I would request one that was and then shoot the Nazi.

This kind of moral dilemma is pointless. If you are going to die anyway, better to go down fighting.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:08 pm

The Nazi is going to kill you anyway, so why do his dirty work. Shoot the damn Nazi instead, and at least take one of them out with you.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:31 pm

Huzzah!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:04 pm

Umm..the OP said that shooting the Nazi was not an option...Geeeeez...

Bee

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:30 pm

However rejecting unrealistic moral dilemmas is an option. Unless you somehow alter the laws of physics to make the subject Nazi impossible to shoot the question is just plain silly.

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:35 pm

So alter the premise while preserving the core of the dilemma. Or don't play.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:02 pm

Krom wrote:However rejecting unrealistic moral dilemmas is an option. Unless you somehow alter the laws of physics to make the subject Nazi impossible to shoot the question is just plain silly.

It isn't about changing the rules. It's about the OP's explicit instructions not to shoot the threat. He didn't say I couldn't shoot myself.

Bee

akula65 · Post by **akula65** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:32 pm

Aggressor Prime's prospects of getting an answer along the lines (s)he wants are made worse by the fact that many (and perhaps all) of the participants have just been discussing the death of James T. Kirk, the only guy to beat the Kobayashi Maru test.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:43 pm

Bet51987 wrote:Umm..the OP said that shooting the Nazi was not an option...Geeeeez...

Bee

No, to be exact he said “the ‘threat’ cannot be killed”. Therefore assuming the other Nazis in the room would finish you off in the event you killed one of them.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:14 pm

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:50 pm

My god. The topics you guys come up with...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:16 pm

Admin note: I have cleaned up some personal attacks in this thread. Please do not do it again.

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:38 pm

Thanks for that.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:54 pm

If you are going to follow the rules to the letter the answer can change depending on the situation. Probably almost everyone that said they would not shoot if thrown into it as an extremely high stress situation with no warning might actually shoot. In panic and extreme stress situations your thinking doesn't work the same way as it does sitting at a computer typing words. You can and will act without thinking relying on your instincts more than any form of reasoning. And survival is a very powerful instinct. But a very strong part of your instinct would also be to pursue or create other options.

Or lets say that the Nazi says he will torture and shoot both of you and you strictly follow the rules of the scenario, in which case it would probably be more merciful to shoot the jew right between the eyes and spare them the torture.

You can't really answer the question because it isn't a mindset you can just put yourself in and weigh things out.

That being said, you might even surprise yourself when it comes right down to it. Often when you do something that other people could call heroic it really isn't, its just your social instinct doing the right thing. You just do what you have to do without even a shred of thought.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:12 pm

Second admin note: repeating the same attack toward the same person is not an improvement, even if you conveniently leave out their name. Repeating the same attack while pretending to apologize is worse.

The rule here isn't \"disguise your personal attacks in such a way that you can get away with them\". It's \"don't make personal attacks\". You should be capable of voicing disagreement without insulting someone's character or worth as a human being. If your feelings toward any individual make this difficult, please go for a walk before responding to them, rather than crapping on people's threads.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm

Krom wrote:...Or lets say that the Nazi says he will torture and shoot both of you and you strictly follow the rules of the scenario, in which case it would probably be more merciful to shoot the jew right between the eyes and spare them the torture.

Maybe. But either way the Jewish person dies/gets tortured. Everything that's going to happen to him is going to happen anyway regardless of whether you shoot him or not.

I would definately kill myself.

Bee

P.S. I didn't mean to get the last word in. I'll stop now.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 am

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:01 am

Do any of you actually play descent? Or do you just exist within \"the community\"?

You don't know how you would respond in a situation the op described. You can speculate, thats what you fools do best, but you don't know.

Kill the jew? No personal attacks? You people are insane. Please stay locked in your holmes for the sake of humanity.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:25 am

If society got to the point where the govt was shooting people for their religious beliefs, I would of moved out of the country long before I was faced with the posted dilemma. Failing that option, I would then go underground and do my best by resisting the govt. Hopefully I would link up with Copesy so he can keep my moral compass pure.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:42 am

Lets restate the test to eliminate your obviously moral choice of attempting to shoot the Nazi.

Suppose instead of a gun, the Nazi has put a rope around the Jews neck and tied it to a rafter. The Jew is standing on a small stool. The Nazi tells you to kick the stool out from under the Jew and you will live. Refuse and he hangs the Jew anyway, and you go second. Your hands are tied and the Nazi's outnumber you and have guns pointed at you.

I would refuse to kick the stool out from under the Jew. It would be better to die than to save my life by participating in this horror.

Lets take the test further. Suppose the world was dying from a plague. You are a doctor and have discovered a cure. Unfortunately, the cure is based on the one and only person who has a natural immunity to the plague. An 8 year old girl. Curing the entire world will require keeping the girl alive, but in a condition that can only be described as extreme torture for the rest of her life. The girl is terrified and completely unwilling to undergo this procedure.

Would you torture an 8 year old girl to save the world?

I used to be foolish enough to think that whatever brought the greatest good to the greatest number of people was just. I have matured enough since then to realize that sometimes it would be better for everyone else to die than to participate in evil.

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:46 am

Kilarin wrote: I would refuse to kick the stool out from under the Jew. It would be better to die than to save my life by participating in this horror.

Why, exactly, would it be better to die than save your life in such a manner? That would be interesting.

Would you torture an 8 year old girl to save the world?

I used to be foolish enough to think that whatever brought the greatest good to the greatest number of people was just. I have matured enough since then to realize that sometimes it would be better for everyone else to die than to participate in evil.

On what basis can you declare that it would be better for everyone else to die than for you to participate in evil?

The simple responses to the hypotheticals are uninteresting in themselves, but the reasoning behind the responses, when fully fleshed out, ARE interesting.

Why do you think what you think?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:47 am

TheCope wrote:Do any of you actually play descent? Or do you just exist within "the community"?

Why does this matter?

TheCope wrote:You don't know how you would respond in a situation the op described. You can speculate, thats what you fools do best, but you don't know.

Of course we don't know how we would respond in a real crisis. The purpose of ethical exercises is simply to explore the ideas, hopefully in order to help you make better decisions when a real crisis actually arrives. Otherwise no one could discuss anything that they hadn't personally been through. And that would certainly limit our discussions.

TheCope wrote:Kill the jew? No personal attacks? You people are insane. Please stay locked in your holmes for the sake of humanity.

I must have missed something in whatever messages Lothar (probably quite wisely) deleted. Why the hostility? Of COURSE we don't appreciate personal attacks. It sounds like you are offended just because we wanted to discuss the topic. Why?

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:57 am

Kilarin wrote: I must have missed something in whatever messages Lothar (probably quite wisely) deleted. Why the hostility? Of COURSE we don't appreciate personal attacks. It sounds like you are offended just because we wanted to discuss the topic. Why?

As the target of the hate speech which Lothar deleted, I can affirm TheCope is not referring to anything the perpetrator said; his hostility, like the previous hate speech, arises ex nihilo (with respect to this thread) and makes no sense.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:19 pm

TheCope wrote:Do any of you actually play descent? Or do you just exist within "the community"?

I play and use my real name. Meet me anytime.

Bee

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:58 pm

shaktazuki wrote:The simple responses to the hypotheticals are uninteresting in themselves, but the reasoning behind the responses, when fully fleshed out, ARE interesting.

You point is entirely valid. Unfortunately, my answer is not going to be up to snuff.

As A Christian, I don't believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to us. For those that choose Christ, death is a temporary phenomenon. And for those who choose to completely and permanently separate themselves from the source of all life, death is an inevitability, but also a gift.

Preventing death is a good thing to do, but, if death is not the worst thing that can happen to us, then there can be things that are worse than death.

The problem is, my views are not entirely consistent on this and because of that I have NOT figured out a satisfying chain of logic for determining in what situations preventing harm to others allows the harming of innocents.

I DO believe there are times when war is justified, Stopping Hitler is a good example. And in war, innocents ALWAYS get hurt. Thus I believe that:
A: I my mythical plague example, deliberately sacrificing an unwilling innocent child should never be done, even if it was to save other lives.
B: To stop Hitler we had to drop bombs, and those bombs killed untold numbers of innocent children who just happened to be living in the wrong country. We should make every effort to limit collateral damage, but it can never be eliminated. Hitler had to be stopped even though we knew there WOULD be innocent children who were killed in the process.

These views are not consistent. Or there is some element of logical difference here that I have not been able to tie down. I have not yet determined what needs to change in my philosophy and/or reasoning to make this make more sense.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:21 pm

The reasoning behind your conflicting views could be something pretty simple. Bombing a countryside is something done from a considerable distance and it allows people to maintain \"mental distance\" from the act of killing. While putting someone through torture on the other hand is a very up close and personal experience that can't be easily kept at a \"mental distance\".

It is because bombing something from the air doesn't allow you to see and empathize with the people you are killing, but when you see people you cannot help but empathize with them.

In your plague example if it really was the only way, I would use the child. Because if it was my blood that could save the human race, I would go through with it no matter what the cost to me was.

shaktazuki · Post by **shaktazuki** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:08 am

Krom wrote: In your plague example if it really was the only way, I would use the child. Because if it was my blood that could save the human race, I would go through with it no matter what the cost to me was.

I guess you harvested the Little Sisters in Bioshock, eh?

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:09 am

shaktazuki wrote:
Krom wrote: In your plague example if it really was the only way, I would use the child. Because if it was my blood that could save the human race, I would go through with it no matter what the cost to me was.
I guess you harvested the Little Sisters in Bioshock, eh?

lolz

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:26 am

TheCope wrote:Do any of you actually play descent? Or do you just exist within "the community"?

It's also game?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:27 am

Krom wrote:It is because bombing something from the air doesn't allow you to see and empathize with the people you are killing, but when you see people you cannot help but empathize with them.

Emotionally, yes, big difference. But is there a MORAL difference? I FEEL like there is a moral difference, but I'm incapable of defining it, which strongly implies that I may be basing my decision entirely upon the emotional difference. And that is a very poor backing for an ethical choice.

Krom wrote:In your plague example if it really was the only way, I would use the child. Because if it was my blood that could save the human race, I would go through with it no matter what the cost to me was.

I would offer my own blood as well, no matter what the cost to me was. BUT, offering someone elses blood is a very different issue.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:40 am

shaktazuki wrote:I guess you harvested the Little Sisters in Bioshock, eh?

Anyone who watches scifi knows that everything worthwhile in this world is powered by the souls of Dead Little Sisters.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:47 am

TheCope wrote:Do any of you actually play descent? Or do you just exist within "the community"?

You don't know how you would respond in a situation the op described. You can speculate, thats what you fools do best, but you don't know.

Kill the jew? No personal attacks? You people are insane. Please stay locked in your holmes for the sake of humanity.

Aww shucks Pang - you're making me all gooey inside. (...no offense.

)

I can't come up with a rational decision in the face of an impossible decision. However, if pressed, I would shoot - I have kids and a family of my own. Then once they were safe, I would tend to that nazi and his buddies later on - and probably take my time doing it.

( ...Way to spread the Yultide cheer BTW ...

)

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:06 am

Kilarin wrote:But is there a MORAL difference? I FEEL like there is a moral difference, but I'm incapable of defining it, which strongly implies that I may be basing my decision entirely upon the emotional difference. And that is a very poor backing for an ethical choice.

A moral difference between killing everyone indirectly and killing one person directly? I'd say there is one since they even use different words for them, one is murder and the other is genocide.

Even if it means giving up a piece of our humanity in the process, I would still do it. I couldn't deny everyone else the chance to improve humanity as a whole in the future even if it is only the slightest hope.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:38 am

Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

This scenario is not so hard when you think that the entire world, including millions of young girls will be suffering if you fail to act. The fact that you are not in the same room with them makes it easy to feel less empathic towards them.

I do not believe in God, however if there was a God and he chose to punish me for making that decision, then that would be my cross to bear for the worlds sake. In your religion, this kind of choice is not \"yours\" or \"mine\" to make and yet we are all made in Gods image. You or I would therefore be a tool of God and in such a scenario as the one described, what would God do?

If God would allow the entire population to die to save the life of one young girl who will surely die herself by virtue of no one being left to take care of her, then that is not an empathic God. Perhaps God put the young girl on the planet to save the rest of the world, and requires someone with strength to make the right decision even when put into an such an outstanding ethical position.

http://www.stowawaymarine.com/humor.htm

A man in a sailboat is adrift on the ocean when, suddenly, a fierce storm comes up. A man in a powerboat pulls up alongside the man and offers to tow him to safety. The man responds, \"I am a devout man. I know that God will save me - you go ahead into shore.\" With this, the man in the powerboat roars away.
The storm gets worse. A Coast Guard patrol boat pulls up alongside the sailboat and offers to tow the man to safety. The man again responds, \"I am a devout man. I know that God will save me - you go ahead into shore.\" With this, the Coast Guard leaves the man, his sailboat bobbing in the increasingly rough water.
The storm is really wild now - waves are splashing over the sailboat. A helicopter comes out of the sky, hovers over the sailboat, and a ladder drops down to the man. He waves them off, yelling to be heard over the roar of the wind, \"I am a devout man. I know that God will save me!\" With this, the helicopter flies away.
The storm rages out of control... the sailboat is overturned... the man is swept off the boat and drowns.

Being such a devout man, he immediately goes up to heaven.
Upon seeing God, the man says to Him, \"I worshipped You all my life and I devoted my life to serving You, yet You didn’t save me from the storm! WHY??\"
God replied, \"My son, though you were a devout man, you were pretty darned stupid! I tried to save you!
I sent a powerboat, I sent the Coast Guard, I sent a helicopter...\"

Moral Dilemma

Would you kill the Jew?

Moral Dilemma

Re: Moral Dilemma

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: