Just to think this through a bit more, and especially for those who have said that the man should not commit the rape, even to prevent the killing, because one cannot do evil simply for a good end, please consider the following changes to the hypothetical and comment on whether it changes your response.
Instead of being coerced to rape the woman, the man is coerced to:
A. Rob a bank
B. Slap the woman
C. Steal a pack of gum
D. J-walk
All of these acts too are wrong. But does the degree of wrong come into play?
Thatâs an interesting question. I think we are dealing with two things here. The Principle of the matter and the moral consequences of those actions.
If a kidnapper gave me an ultimatum to do any of these things or heâd kill the woman, the principle remains the same. He is still in control, not me (unless I can forcibly take control), and what HE does is his moral responsibility, not mine. If I refuse to slap the woman and he kills the woman, I think the person who asks âWhy did you refuse to slap the woman?!â doesnât understand that I had nothing to do with the death of that woman, morally or physically. On practical terms, its also not good policy to try to âappeaseâ evil. You compliance with evil will not usually lead to anything good.
That said, a REAL situation contains hundreds of variables and is hardly ever a textbook case. For example, if the kidnapper is not âevilâ but merely suffering from some sort of mental problem, that complicates matters. Then it becomes more of an issue of dealing with that personâs condition to restore order and sanity.
Personally, I would do any of the things you listed to save a life, and I would face the consequences for those actions. But if this woman badly needed a special gum to save her life and I didnât have time to get the money to pay for it, that is a morally different scenario than stealing a pack of gum as some kind of arbitrary condition of the kidnapper to save the woman, because there HE has the moral responsibility of killing her, not I.
For example, if I were the kidnapper and decided whether to kill a woman or not based on a coin toss, the coin has no moral responsibility for my action, not only because it is not a person, but because its actions have no direct consequences on my actions. My decision to decide what my actions will be based on a coin toss is completely arbitrary, as would be my decision to kill a woman if someone else didnât rape, slap or insult her or rob a bank.
But if, though no arbitrary decision of my own or another moral agent, this woman needed money for a drug, for instance, as in the classical psychology question, I needed to cause property theft that is another matter. When body guards protect a person, they have no problem pushing people aside, even old ladies and little girls, and in fact, they often go specifically for the weak, because they are easier to push aside than big, burly men. Provided I didnât purposely kill someone in the process, I would have no problem making the same decision to save a life.
We are told that abortion is not right even if a woman was raped. Why? Because a life is worth inconvenience, and even undue expense, even when that life was not brought about on purpose. I would slap twenty angry men while jay walking to save someone from dying. But not to appease an evil kidnapper who may or may not spare her life.
