Chess and moral theology

[ftblwolf]

Hello Intellectuals,

I once read a short-story in high school about (I vaguely remember) a man’s family and friends crash landing on an island. This island had a leader who said to the man, play a game of chess against me and win and I’ll let you go.

The catch was that every piece on the chessboard was a member of the man’s family, so when a piece was taken, that family member was killed.

So the question is, morally speaking, how is one to respond to this type of scenario? Should one do their best to win–in which case one would be forced to place priority of the lives of the innocent members of the family. Or should one opt out of playing at all and sacrifice the lives of the family?

Thank you for your responses!

–Also! if anyone happens to remember the title of this story that’d be much appreciated!

 

[Eucharisted]

One must never gamble one’s or other’s lives. One must rather hope and trust in God.

 

[Celtic_FC]

The man must’ve had a big family. I would try to kill the leader.

 

[Christy_Beth]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[kage_ar]

Greater love has no man than this, than he lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Leopard]

I once read a short-story in high school about (I vaguely remember) a man’s family and friends crash landing on an island. This island had a leader who said to the man, play a game of chess against me and win and I’ll let you go.

The catch was that every piece on the chessboard was a member of the man’s family, so when a piece was taken, that family member was killed.

So the question is, morally speaking, how is one to respond to this type of scenario?..

Stay off such islands.

 

[jemfinch]

I guess it really depends on how good the man is at chess And maybe how many non-gambit openings he knows!

In truth, though, I don’t believe he should consent to participate in such a game. Better for his family to be enslaved by an evil man than killed by a good man cooperating with an evil man.

Jeremy

 

[ftblwolf]

Excellent reply all! thank you so much in this clarification.

One last quick question though, would it still be a sin if I were choose to sacrifice my life to save the life of others?

I understand the whole idea that one should not take one’s own life. But Jesus did essentially the same thing? This type of situation is quite confusing to me.

I understand that the ends does not justify the means, so then sacrificing myself would then be sinful because the means (which is killing myself) would be to a moral end (saving the lives of others)

Thanks all!!

 

[promethius]

Excellent reply all! thank you so much in this clarification.

One last quick question though, would it still be a sin if I were choose to sacrifice my life to save the life of others?

I understand the whole idea that one should not take one’s own life. But Jesus did essentially the same thing? This type of situation is quite confusing to me.

I understand that the ends does not justify the means, so then sacrificing myself would then be sinful because the means (which is killing myself) would be to a moral end (saving the lives of others)

Thanks all!!

This is the classic nazi-scenario in your original post: that as a person in a nazi concentration camp, you are given the choice between two sons as to which will be spared. How do you choose? The difference here is that this scenario is not as well defined. In order to answer your original post, I would have to ask the following:

1. what are the consequences of losing the game? Do you die? are you enslaved? do the remaining pieces (family members) die? Are they enslaved if you lose?
2. what are the consequences of not playing the game? if you refuse do you die? are you enslaved? does your entire family die or are they enslaved?
3. what are the consequences of winning the game? do you go free and your family stays, or do ALL of you go free?

Ultimately I would say that if refusal to play meant your entire family is killed, then you must morally choose to play because that is the only opportunity you have to save ANY life. If it just meant enslavement, you must morally choose NOT to play, because you will then have created a situation in which you must trade lives for your freedom. You’re not responsible for the immoral actions of others. Here the only thing you could influence would be how many people are going to live through it or not.

As to your second question: allowing someone to kill you without resisting is not the same as suicide (unless you asked them to kill you for the purpose of suicide). Again, people are not responsible for the immoral actions of others.

 

[ftblwolf]

As to your second question: allowing someone to kill you without resisting is not the same as suicide (unless you asked them to kill you for the purpose of suicide). Again, people are not responsible for the immoral actions of others.

I see your point that wanting to die (suicide) is different than standing by and accepting death, but doesn’t that in itself make you an accomplice to your innocent life being taken?

For example, I do not want to steal this car so I do not steal this car. (I’m good so far) But then, I see that “Bob” (apologies to any Bobs here) wants to steal this car and I stand back and accept the theft as something that is going to happen. Wouldn’t I be somewhat culpable in this situation as well?

My analogy may not be perfect but I hope you see the point I’m trying to make?

 

[promethius]

My analogy may not be perfect but I hope you see the point I’m trying to make?

I see the point you’re getting at, but what I would say is that we have a logical fallacy of false analogy here… that is to say, the two situations aren’t comparable. Let me address by bringing in a few questions:

1. the person who allows themselves to be killed may do so for a varied number of reasons… perhaps they are old and if they fight back a younger person may be killed… they may have to kill their opponent. The consequence of a resitive act may be dire enough that the person chooses to allow themselves to be killed rather than fight back. What is the consequence of reporting someone for stealing a car? Is there any comparison between a few years in jail and dying?
2. Who is being damaged? If we allow ourselves to be killed rather than fighting back in a situation where the consequences are greater for fighting back, then the only person harmed is ourself. Since we are not doing the harm, we have a right to choose not to defend ourselves. Is watching someone else’s property get stolen analogous to watching someone steal our own property? Are you morally allowed to let a theif get away with YOUR car if you choose not to report it, or is that sinful?