Your plane crashes

[yguy]

Once again, you are putting your feat of having the title 'murderer' above the lives of 99 children.

AFAIK, I was the first person to raise that argument in this thread. The obvious problem with it is that you could just as reasonably be accused of being more afraid of having the blood of 100 kids on your hands than you are of having murdered only one.

I thought that we already established that he is a dictator, and as such he already knows he has such an ability...

to make rules, yes, but not to make them your rules.

First of all, this is quite a leap. How will me playing his game once (assuming he lets the children go) lead to me killing thousands of children.

Wrong question. What you should be asking is: having failed to resist the temptation to do wrong this time, how will I resist it the next time?

If at anytime I feel he is rounding up more children for the sake of toying with me, then I will simply stop right then,

You won't have that choice, because you gave it up when you murdered that child. And the first is always the hardest.

 

[Nathan45]

You won't have that choice, because you gave it up when you murdered that child. And the first is always the hardest.

What nonsense, he can stop killing whenever he wants to.

I don't think there's any reason to trust the dictator to begin with, but if you do trust him and he breaks his word/implicit agreement the first time, there's absolutely zero reason to keep killing, let him do the killing.

 

[yguy]

What nonsense, he can stop killing whenever he wants to.

The dictator won't let him want to, any more than whatever makes a compulsive smoker light up a cigarette will let him do otherwise.

 

[Cognitive]

It would be difficult for me but it seems to be a necessary evil to save the lives of 99 other children. I would be discriminant in my search though and perhaps find a child that was dying who wouldn't make it anyway... However this would my last option..

My first option would be to try to barter my own life.

 

[yasic]

AFAIK, I was the first person to raise that argument in this thread. The obvious problem with it is that you could just as reasonably be accused of being more afraid of having the blood of 100 kids on your hands than you are of having murdered only one.

I am more afraid of being responsible for the deaths of 100 kids over having a title of murderer, yes. I frankly see nothing wrong with this?

Wrong question. What you should be asking is: having failed to resist the temptation to do wrong this time, how will I resist it the next time?

We don't agree that I would have done wrong. I would find it to be wrong to not follow the game of the dictator.

You won't have that choice, because you gave it up when you murdered that child. And the first is always the hardest.

My actions would soley be for what I feel to be the best interest of the most innocent people. If I felt the dictator would just use me to kill more and more people, then I will simply stop. I see nothing that would indicate that a blood-lust would overcome me?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

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 would say no, don't obey. You can't trust him so all you can do is try to stop him. If you can't you have succeeded to the best of your ability in the situation. So even if he kills every child one by one in front of your eyes, if you can't stop it you are not responsible.

 

[Wyzaard]

No, he doesn't know that until you kill the child.

It doesn't matter if you do or don't kill the child; either way, you and he follow the parameters he set from the beginning. You are implicated as an instrument of his cruelty regardless.

 

[Nathan45]

The dictator won't let him want to, any more than whatever makes a compulsive smoker light up a cigarette will let him do otherwise.

I don't understand how killing someone could ever become a compulsive act for anyone who's not completely deranged.

 

[Nathan45]

or for anyone.

I am more afraid of being responsible for the deaths of 100 kids over having a title of murderer, yes. I frankly see nothing wrong with this?

As i already stated, I don't shoot because i think that the dictator will tape it and use it as propoganda.

So a follow up question to you: Would that change your outlook?

If you knew that you were killing the kid on tape, and it would be taken completely out of context and used in some kind of anti-western propoganda video, would you still shoot the kid?

 

[yguy]

We don't agree that I would have done wrong.

It doesn't matter, because you would have. If you can't see that, nothing else I say will make sense to you.

I would find it to be wrong to not follow the game of the dictator.

Actually that would be your first mistake, and the murder would be the second.

My actions would soley be for what I feel to be the best interest of the most innocent people.

But they wouldn't be, because you never bothered to ask yourself why the dictator would go through all this, so that your calculation leaves out the most important factor.

If I felt the dictator would just use me to kill more and more people, then I will simply stop.

But you have already shown a susceptibility to manipulation by killing the child. Once you do it, he may kill them all right in front of you just to rub your nose in your stupidity. And then maybe he'll wine and dine you, make you believe he's your bud. By such various and sundry psychological inducements, he'll make a new man of you.

I see nothing that would indicate that a blood-lust would overcome me?

You won't necessarily have to wield a gun to have blood on your hands. You could just become a propagandist for him, helping him to maintain the power by which he continues to murder. Incidentally, this is essentially what CNN did by keeping silent about the torture it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade before the US finally invaded.

 

[Nathan45]

Incidentally, this is essentially what CNN did by keeping silent about the torture it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade before the US finally invaded.

Do you even watch CNN? even the low info folks knew that Hussein was a madman.

 

[yguy]

I don't understand how killing someone could ever become a compulsive act for anyone who's not completely deranged.

Look up the Milgram experiment.

Also, see "The Grey Zone", which recounts a rebellion of a Sonderkommando at Auschwitz. The guy running the camp is an alcoholic, which tells you that he is not without a conscience. He kills because he's afraid not to, and because he has contempt for the Jews who sell each other out - even though, like the members of the Sonderkommando, he knows he's next.

 

[Nathan45]

Look up the Milgram experiment.

i know all about the milgram experiment and you are fundamentally misunderstanding it if you think it applies here.

The milgram experiment is about the tendency to defer to the opinion of someone who seems to be an expert. It has been noted that the more reputable the university that the experiment is conducted at, the more likely the subject was to administer a lethal dose.

The experiment simply shows that average people don't know anything about lethal electrical doses and are deferential to reputable people who insist they know what they're doing.

It should not be applied to situations where the participant is the captive of a hostile enemy. In the milgram experiment, the subject has every reason to trust the scientists at first. However, they have no reason to trust a crazy dicator especially after he has broken his word once before.

 

[yguy]

Do you even watch CNN?

No, but this has been known for years. Eason Jordan resigned from CNN over it, because even the other media outlets were incredulous that a news outlet would suppress news and try to justify it.

 

[Nathan45]

Also, see "The Grey Zone", which recounts a rebellion of a Sonderkommando at Auschwitz. The guy running the camp is an alcoholic, which tells you that he is not without a conscience. He kills because he's afraid not to, and because he has contempt for the Jews who sell each other out - even though, like the members of the Sonderkommando, he knows he's next.

This is an anecdotal account of one person. Anyways, "He kills because he's afraid not too", which simply shows that his sense of fear is greater than his self respect.

Whether you could torture me enough that I'd be willing to kill a child to make the torture stop is an interesting question and I don't think i could honestly answer the question without being in the situation.

 

[yguy]

i know all about the milgram experiment and you are fundamentally misunderstanding it if you think it applies here.

I'm afraid the misunderstanding is entirely your own.

The experiment simply shows that average people don't know anything about lethal electrical doses

No. What it shows is that people can be intimidated by nothing more than an air or authority into delivering what they believe to be lethal shocks to people whom they have no reason to believe are guilty of anything.

And that's without first being traumatized by being suckered into actually murdering someone.

 

[Nathan45]

No, but this has been known for years. Eason Jordan resigned from CNN over it, because even the other media outlets were incredulous that a news outlet would suppress news and try to justify it.

that's not why he resigned, according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eason_Jordan

On January 27, 2005, during the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan was reported to have said that American troops were targeting journalists in response to a remark from Barney Frank about dead journalists being collateral damage Iraq. [3] On February 11, 2005, Jordan resigned to "prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq." [4]

Wiki does mention an earlier allegation of CNN suppressing info about saddam to gain access to his regime. I'd not heard that before, but i'm pretty sure it was common knowledge that saddam hussein was a murderer and madman.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

No, but this has been known for years. Eason Jordan resigned from CNN over it, because even the other media outlets were incredulous that a news outlet would suppress news and try to justify it.

Were there two different Eason Jordan's at CNN? Cause this one didn't resign for the reasons you gave:

"After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq," Jordan said in a letter to colleagues.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/11/easonjordan.cnn/

 

[Nathan45]

I'm afraid the misunderstanding is entirely your own.

You seem to have a strawman idea about the way other people think which is difficult to dispell, I have noticed it in this thread and others.

I also notice that you clipped out the part of my posts that were relevant, It is possible that you also have a tendency to ignore information which contradicts your preconceived notions.

as i stated already and repeat, whether the patient thought the doses of electricity were "high" is not relevant because they were deferential to opinion the doctor who was conducting the experiment. Presumably he had conducted this experiment before and he knew what he was doing. All the experiment shows is that the subjects are more willing to trust an expert's judgment than their own on the issue of dangerous electrical shocks.

 

[Nathan45]

Were there two different Eason Jordan's at CNN? Cause this one didn't resign for the reasons you gave:

it's the same one, but he didn't resign over the allegation that CNN suppressed information, although he did make that allegation.