Your plane crashes

[quatona]

As I said before, to me the question (without adding parameters to the OP) is:
Is it reasonable and/or ethically justifiable to kill a person based on the promise of a person who is notoriously evil and cannot be trusted (the promise that he won´t do what he is otherwise determined to do - kill 100 persons).
And my answer is a clear no.

 

[quatona]

Seems that most people are more concerned about their own 'responsibility' than the fate of the children...

Since the fate of the children cannot be reasonably predicted either way I don´t think the result of your analysis is accurate.

 

[quatona]

Seems that most people are more concerned about their own 'responsibility' than the fate of the children...

Btw. and out of curiosity: When did the emphasis on personal responsibility get a bad rep in Christian morality, of all?

 

[Criada]

Btw. and out of curiosity: When did the emphasis on personal responsibility get a bad rep in Christian morality, of all?

That wasn't really what I meant, sorry, will try to be clearer.

People seem to be more concerned with the effect that killing someone will have on their own conscience than with the effect of the decision on others.
There is a perception, as I see it, that keeping one's own conscience clear is more important than keeping the children alive.

 

[Freodin]

That wasn't really what I meant, sorry, will try to be clearer.

People seem to be more concerned with the effect that killing someone will have on their own conscience than with the effect of the decision on others.
There is a perception, as I see it, that keeping one's own conscience clear is more important than keeping the children alive.

When you shoot one child, the life of the other children is not automatically saved in this scenario. But what you definitly managed was to fail in keeping a certain child alive.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, look at it this way:

ALL authority comes from God, so having this seemingly unquenchable dictator lord over me means that God has placed him there - which makes his command almost as good as God's.
God ordered the killing of infants without a flinch before, and people followed his command without hesitation (except for some virgin girls that were kept as spoils of war - AGAINST God's wishes).
As might makes right, it must mean that God has pre-ordained me to kill one of the children. So I ask them whether one of them volunteers for the job of being shot in the face - and the one who steps forward receives a bullet.

(And yes, that's not a serious answer.)

 

[quatona]

Thanks for explaining further.

People seem to be more concerned with the effect that killing someone will have on their own conscience than with the effect of the decision on others.

I think that´s a false dichotomy, to begin with.
Considering the effects of one´s decision on others is a function of one´s conscience.

There is a perception, as I see it, that keeping one's own conscience clear is more important than keeping the children alive.

I suspect that keeping the children alive will help you keep your conscience clear.

The question whether to actively kill someone prompts me to primarily think of the effect it has on the person and the persons close to him/her.
I don´t think that discrediting a certain decision by reducing it to "you just want to silence your conscience" is a good idea.

On another note, you still haven´t noticed and/or acknowledged that the fate of the children is unpredictable either way.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Within the context of the hypothetical OP, which seems to assume that the dictator will keep his word, then I would kill one of the children.

However, in a real world scenario there is no guarantee he will keep his word. So I would not kill a child. In fact, I would probably select the bravest of the children and give them the gun. Anyone entering the room will not know which of the 101 people within is armed, adding to the chances that some escape is possible.
Any dictator mad enough to set up such a scenario is definitely not to be trusted to keep his word in any sense.

As to the train track scenario? I would go for whichever option I felt most likely to achieve in the instant I thought about it. If it were equal,I would save the larger number.

 

[Criada]

When you shoot one child, the life of the other children is not automatically saved in this scenario. But what you definitly managed was to fail in keeping a certain child alive.

I was actually just interested in the reasoning of others here.. I didn't provide an answer as to what I would do.. because I don't know..

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, look at it this way:

ALL authority comes from God, so having this seemingly unquenchable dictator lord over me means that God has placed him there - which makes his command almost as good as God's.

A declaration of the "anything goes" activism? Anything didn't go with the God declarations to wipe out certain peoples.

God ordered the killing of infants without a flinch before, and people followed his command without hesitation (except for some virgin girls that were kept as spoils of war - AGAINST God's wishes).

With the resulting bad consequences. Those girls grew up to be purveyors of the belif systems God wanted removed. The Israelite men thought with their lust, with the resulting consequences.

As might makes right, it must mean that God has pre-ordained me to kill one of the children.

Or to choose to die with them.

So I ask them whether one of them volunteers for the job of being shot in the face - and the one who steps forward receives a bullet.

I'd really hope that I'd toss the gun back to the non-democratic leader that imposed his will on me and the kids (like a vote for an abortion).

[/quote](And yes, that's not a serious answer.)[/quote]

There are children being murdered every day by force of choice.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Such utilitarian morals only work if the outcome of a situation is certain and inevitable.
In this case here, you have another moral agent whose actions bring the harm, not some unchanging fate.

For the purpose of this exercise, I'm assuming that the other "moral agent" is going to keep his promises -- and his threats.

He will kill them -- or set the free -- because of my decision.

Either you act, and 1 person dies, definitely, by your hands. You are responsible.

Or you don´t act, and 100 people MAY die. Perhaps they don´t. Perhaps they would have died anyway. But this is not within your power to change.

Their lives rest in my hands. I don't think it's worth calling the dictator's bluff -- especially since I don't think he's bluffing.

Suppose you say no, and the dictator has 10 of the children killed to prove he's serious. Would you change your mind then?

 

[Freodin]

For the purpose of this exercise, I'm assuming that the other "moral agent" is going to keep his promises -- and his threats.

He will kill them -- or set the free -- because of my decision.



Their lives rest in my hands. I don't think it's worth calling the dictator's bluff -- especially since I don't think he's bluffing.

Suppose you say no, and the dictator has 10 of the children killed to prove he's serious. Would you change your mind then?

No. Because your reasoning is still wrong. He will not kill them or set them free because of my decision... but because of his.

He decides to kill them, based on whatever reasoning he uses. My actions are not a cause form his actions, only an excuse.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No. Because your reasoning is still wrong. He will not kill them or set them free because of my decision... but because of his.

He decides to kill them, based on whatever reasoning he uses. My actions are not a cause form his actions, only an excuse.

If you must, remove the moral agent then, make it a machine that will do it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

When you shoot one child, the life of the other children is not automatically saved in this scenario. But what you definitly managed was to fail in keeping a certain child alive.

And maybe the bullet wave function appears around the dictators head, killing him, but only if you aim at the child. If you wait for full certainty, you will get nothing done.

 

[quatona]

If you must, remove the moral agent then, make it a machine that will do it.

I was under the impression everyone agreed that it´s important not to change the parameters of the hypothetical, and the "evil dictator" is one of the few parameters that has survived numerous changes made by the OP.

 

[Zaac]

Parameters he's changed around a bit. One of the only details he hasn't changed was the fact that this is a dictator... and that is one crucial detail you tend to bypass in your response.

Well when he changes the OP to read that the evil dictator will change the rules at any time so the parameters presented don't matter, I'll change my answer.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So for those that would not kill the child what about the baby on the tracks?
wahts the difference between sending a train and a bullet?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Perhaps this will work.

You crash on a dictators island.
He has tied kids on a specially laid train tracks. If you pull a switch the train will run over one kid and the rest will be avoided. If you dont it will run over all the kids.

 

[MichaelFJF]

It took me about 10 minutes to skim through all 157 posts. I'm still wondering why I did that. One thing I know for sure is I want that wasted time back.

 

[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.

So what is the "right" answer?
find the pregnant one and force an abortion on her?
go for the retarded one?
for the oldest/youngest...
Ask if any of them want to meet Jesus or their dog sparky?
Any want to sacrifice themselves for the others?