Your plane crashes

[Polycarp_fan]

in a foreign country run by a ruthless dictator. He places you in a room with 100 children, a loaded gun, and no one else. He ensures that you cannot shoot anyone who isn't in that room. Then he commands you to kill one of the children, otherwise he'll kill all of them.

Should you obey?

There is a right answer, and it's not suicide.

Don't forget to show your work.

I'd shoot the dictator.

 

[b&wpac4]

I'd shoot the dictator.

About 3 times now that's been ruled out as not possible.

 

[yguy]

I'd like to ask the O.P. can the dictator be trusted on keeping his word.

You've never heard of him before, so all you know is what you can infer from him having given you the command.

 

[Wyzaard]

in a foreign country run by a ruthless dictator. He places you in a room with 100 children, a loaded gun, and no one else. He ensures that you cannot shoot anyone who isn't in that room. Then he commands you to kill one of the children, otherwise he'll kill all of them.

Should you obey?

There is a right answer, and it's not suicide.

Don't forget to show your work.

Such baloney. "Right answer" according to whom? Am I a utilitarian, a Kantian, a fundamentalist Christian, an anarchist... all would have their own schema of justification and action/inaction. These hypothetical ethics questions bring up all sorts of qualifications too... should I trust this dictator? Who are these kids to me? What do THEY think I should do, and why? That would be more my angle.

No simple answers here.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

About 3 times now that's been ruled out as not possible.

Then I would shoot the hinges off the door.

The names Carp.

Poly Carp.

 

[Wyzaard]

You don't shoot a kid. The dictator may kill them all or he may not, and you're not responsible for that outcome. But if you shoot one and he lets them all go, you're a murderer and he's just a guy with a room.

I don't subscribe to this formulation... those who limit and/or force our choices
are in part (or totally) responsible for our actions.

 

[yguy]

You can only answer for your own actions

But isn't refusing to act an action? Doesn't refusing to shoot one doom the other 99?

Bear in mind that I may or may not be playing devil's advocate here.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't subscribe to this formulation... those who limit and/or force our choices
are in part (or totally) responsible for our actions.

Say that you agree with me or I'm going to beat my dog to death with a hammer.

 

[b&wpac4]

All other things ruled out, I would be willing to trade 1 life to save 99. Seems like a bargain, actually.

 

[The Nihilist]

But isn't refusing to act an action? Doesn't refusing to shoot one doom the other 99?

Bear in mind that I may or may not be playing devil's advocate here.

No. If you said you were going to release a piano above them and let the piano decide what to do, you'd be guilty, because the piano is not a moral agent. Similarly, you cannot be responsible for the actions of another moral agent.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

All other things ruled out, I would be willing to trade 1 life to save 99. Seems like a bargain, actually.

How do you decide which one?

Can I suggest?

 

[b&wpac4]

How do you decide which one?

Can I suggest?

I imagine you would suggest killing the Christian since his place is secured in the afterlife?

 

[Freodin]

Anybody who would put me in that kind of situation is worthy of being killed. I just wait for them to come into the room and never kill any of the children.

Wasn´t there this christian-spam-mail, where a gunman threatened to kill people in a church and then resolved the situation by telling them that it was a test of their faith?

Would you shoot your pastor for this?

 

[b&wpac4]

Wasn´t there this christian-spam-mail, where a gunman threatened to kill people in a church and then resolved the situation by telling them that it was a test of their faith?

Would you shoot your pastor for this?

I think the correct question would be: Would I shoot the gunman during the incident? Yes, yes I would.

 

[MoonlessNight]

All hypothetical questions like this one do is make people forget that in real life things don't boil down to only two options and thus cause them not to look for them.

It reminds me of the story "The Cold Equations" that creates a dilemma by introducing a situation that could have been resolved before it even happened if people had been smarter and then ignores possible solutions to the problem after it happened, while touting the moral "sometimes there's no good solution." That may be true, but whenever someone tries to engineer a situation with two bad ends it always ends up getting patched repeatedly to make sure that there isn't at least an ending that is a little bit less bad.

 

[Wyzaard]

Say that you agree with me or I'm going to beat my dog to death with a hammer.

Crap... I just helped you kill your dog! lol

 

[Freodin]

But isn't refusing to act an action? Doesn't refusing to shoot one doom the other 99?

Bear in mind that I may or may not be playing devil's advocate here.

Yes, it is an action. It is also an action that does not harm any of the children. If that is my goal, it is the only possible action for me.

As has been said: I am not responsible for any action that might or might nor result - by the action of another moral agent - from my action.

 

[yguy]

No. If you said you were going to release a piano above them and let the piano decide what to do, you'd be guilty, because the piano is not a moral agent. Similarly, you cannot be responsible for the actions of another moral agent.

So you'd disobey to avoid being guilty?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

in a foreign country run by a ruthless dictator. He places you in a room with 100 children, a loaded gun, and no one else. He ensures that you cannot shoot anyone who isn't in that room. Then he commands you to kill one of the children, otherwise he'll kill all of them.

Should you obey?

There is a right answer, and it's not suicide.

Don't forget to show your work.

well assuming he is in that room then you shoot him.

 

[yguy]

...it always ends up getting patched repeatedly to make sure that there isn't at least an ending that is a little bit less bad.

This isn't about the ending.

Anyway, for those who may be in a quandary about this, here's a hint of sorts: think about why the dictator wants you to kill that child.