Moral dilemma: would you kill this man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rascalking said:
I guess. I think you can be an agnostic and not want to kill an innocent man though.
Click to expand...
Sure you could. Of course I can’t see the afiliation of all the people that vote yes, but my point was any Christian who votes yes is missing out on some of the biggest lessons of his faith:)
 
flyingfish said:
Evil people capture you and another man and take you to a warehouse. They handcuff you to a wall and give you a gun. The put the other person in a machine, and connect him to the controls in such a way that as long as he is alive the machine is coming at you (for example, machine is operated by a sensor that detects his heartbeat).

If you do nothing, you will be killed. If you shoot the man the machine will stop operating and you will survive (and be let go to return to your life).

Would you shoot the man?

There are no other ways to stop the machine. So please don’t cheat. If you don’t want to respond to the dilemma, don’t. But don’t invent third options that don’t exist in what I am asking.
Click to expand...
Law enforcement experts would tell you that this situation would most likely result in both people being murdered. Assuming a person were to give up their lives to save the other person, there’s no guarantee the other person would be allowed to live afterward. It’s most likely that both people would die. Anybody evil enough to set up this kind of scenario isn’t going to let anyone go alive.

This is a lose-lose scenario.

The realistic response would be to resist from the moment the abduction started until no other options were available. The final option of resistance would have to be sacrificing oneself for the other person, but it still wouldn’t guarantee the other person’s safety.
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
Sure you could. Of course I can’t see the afiliation of all the people that vote yes, but my point was any Christian who votes yes is missing out on some of the biggest lessons of his faith:)
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m sorry. I misunderstood.

And your point is 100 percent correct.
 
Sonic said:
Law enforcement experts would tell you that this situation would most likely result in both people being murdered. Assuming a person were to give up their lives to save the other person, there’s no guarantee the other person would be allowed to live afterward. It’s most likely that both people would die. Anybody evil enough to set up this kind of scenario isn’t going to let anyone go alive.

This is a lose-lose scenario.

The realistic response would be to resist from the moment the abduction started until no other options were available. The final option of resistance would have to be sacrificing oneself for the other person, but it still wouldn’t guarantee the other person’s safety.
Click to expand...
My point isn’t to ask about a realistic scenario, my point is to get a fundamental moral principle using a contrived dilemma.
 
Rascalking said:
Oh, I’m sorry. I misunderstood.

And your point is 100 percent correct.
Click to expand...
No worries 🙂 I should have been more clear. I didn’t pay much attention to the stated affiliations till you said something. After I went back and looked at the posts so far I can see where my comment was a little misplaced. It is rather obvious who voted for what:rolleyes:
 
First, Kage ar is a genius. 😃

I would die. If I shoot the man, I am assuming that my own life is more valuable than his, and such an assumption runs contrary to every Christian notion in me. Also, I would have to live every day with the memory. No thanks.

If I choose to die, I will see God. Easy choice.
 
What an awful situation, sounds like something out of a Saw movie.

I wouldn’t be able to shoot an innocent person to save myself. For the rest of my life I would be haunted by that thought.
Guess there’s only one other option
 
flyingfish said:
Evil people capture you and another man and take you to a warehouse. They handcuff you to a wall and give you a gun. The put the other person in a machine, and connect him to the controls in such a way that as long as he is alive the machine is coming at you (for example, machine is operated by a sensor that detects his heartbeat).

If you do nothing, you will be killed. If you shoot the man the machine will stop operating and you will survive (and be let go to return to your life).

Would you shoot the man?

There are no other ways to stop the machine. So please don’t cheat. If you don’t want to respond to the dilemma, don’t. But don’t invent third options that don’t exist in what I am asking.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t shoot the man.
 
lynx said:
Knowing only the information you presented, I need to make a choice. Who’s life bears the most weight? If this were the president or some leader I thought could do more good than me, then I would die, albeit not gladly.
Click to expand...
don’t all people have the same value? :confused:
However since I know nothing, all entities being equal, self preservation takes over and I shoot him.
Click to expand...
hmm charity is greater than self preservation…
Rascalking said:
For what it’s worth, I’m with the President. I’d lay down my life for the other guy as well. It’s the only noble solution given the situation you described.

I’d rather have a clean conscience and honor when I die than kill an innocent man.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:me too
 
flyingfish said:
My point isn’t to ask about a realistic scenario, my point is to get a fundamental moral principle using a contrived dilemma.
Click to expand...
And, I was adding to your post. The more realistic the scenario the more realistic and logical the moral principle can be discerned.

Like I said, resistance is the logical and moral path in a more realistic scenario.

Two things to consider here…
  1. A person does not want to commit a sinful action ie. killing another person.
  2. A person does not want to be complicit in the sins of another person ie. participating in the actions of the demented kidnappers by playing their sick game.
So, while the person would logically and morally give themselves up to save the other person, it does not guarantee the safety of either person. This creates a moral dilemma unless possible past events in the scenario are taken into account.
 
Sonic said:
So, while the person would logically and morally give themselves up to save the other person, it does not guarantee the safety of either person. This creates a moral dilemma unless past events in the scenario are taken into account.
Click to expand...
If you want to make a moral dilemma where the kidnappers would kill the two people anyway, please make a separate thread.
 
Sonic said:
And, I was adding to your post. The more realistic the scenario the more realistic and logical the moral principle can be discerned.

Like I said, resistance is the logical and moral path in a more realistic scenario.

Two things to consider here…
  1. A person does not want to commit a sinful action ie. killing another person.
  2. A person does not want to be complicit in the sins of another person ie. participating in the actions of the demented kidnappers by playing their sick game.
So, while the person would logically and morally give themselves up to save the other person, it does not guarantee the safety of either person. This creates a moral dilemma unless possible past events in the scenario are taken into account.
Click to expand...
Good Grief Charlie Brown! The whole point of these logic/moral exercises, is that they are not realistic.

The real world has too many variables and options. The point of these type set ups is to do away with all that. The point is to have an artificially simple situation that has an either/or answer with no wiggle room, to force you to defend a stance, and not have options to find another route.
:confused:
 
No, I most definitely would not kill the man. I would let myself be killed. I would not want to have another man’s blood on my hands when I stood before the judgment seat of Christ.
 
Sonic said:
My apologies, I assumed we might have a conversation. I’ll go elsewhere. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It’s not my intention to be mean, I wanted to make a poll to see if people would kill a man who through no fault of his own was causing them to die. If you assume that both would be killed anyway it defeats the purpose of what I’m trying to do.
 
Monica4316 said:
don’t all people have the same value? :confused:
Click to expand...
Only if you believe in a soul. Otherwise, it is the person who can contribute best contribute to society, humanity and the Earth, however you would like to define that.
Monica4316 said:
hmm charity is greater than self preservation…
Click to expand...
Lets put this to a test. Wire me all the money in your bank accounts. I can use the help paying off my home. It would truly be a charitable act, and you would not be preserving yourself in any way. I look forward to your PM.
 
I’d pop my cloggs. Not knowing much about the person, and knowing pretty much a lot about myself, I wouldn’t risk his eternity. I’m getting into Heaven, for all I know, he could be an atheist or agnostic. I would imagine, that once I’m dead, people will be talkign about me and what I did and the amazing killing machine I was hooked up too, people would start talkign about my life and values and someone would mention “She was a devoute pro-life Catholic”. I’d hope the man I saved would investigate my beleifs further and perhaps discover what it is that I beleive so fully I gave my life to save his, and perhaps his soul. So, hopefully, not only would my actions save his life, but also bring him to Salvation.

(or at least guilt the plop out of him if he didn’t convert 😉

Anyway, I always find these questions so stupid, its like saying a vampire and a werewolf break into your house and start fighting over your friend’s companion who you don’t know at all, you can either jump in and save the man or let him die. Somewhere in that scenario is a zombie.
 
Him or me - very similar to the floating plank scenario I guess.
More problematic might be the ray gun and well shaft thought experiment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top