Question: Two men enter, only one can leave...but one's dying anyway

[mpartyka]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

 

[silicasandra]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

I would argue no. It doesn’t seem to fit the grounds for self-defense since the man who is dying is not trying to kill you (he’s breathing, sure, but even if the serial killer is being truthful and not just playing sick games with you, the dying man is innocent in this situation), and I think this would be an example of ends not justifying the means.

(If we can even accept the serial killer’s scenario. For the purposes of your argument, we could assume it’s all true, but in real life, I find it highly unlikely that any of this would actually happen - more like a serial killer trying to convince someone else to kill as part of a sick game, and who is to say the killer doesn’t open the door after 24 hours and just shoot whoever is still living? If I were in a situation like this, I like to think I would have the moral fortitude to not kill the other person and just pray for the both of us.)

 

[jimmy]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

Who cares? Has this ever happened? Why would we argue about a situation that won’t happen to anyone? Why should anyone care about a moral decision that is a meteor’s distance from real life?

 

[thistle]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

Why do people keep coming up with silly hypothetical scenarios like this.

The answer to your question is no. It is not morally acceptable. The Church clearly teaches the end (even if good) does not justify the means (if bad - in this case murder).

 

[Giants]

Who cares? Has this ever happened? Why would we argue about a situation that won’t happen to anyone? Why should anyone care about a moral decision that is a meteor’s distance from real life?

Because if a system of morality claims the jurisdiction to potentially answer all moral questions, then it should be able to take a swing at something like this. Or alternately, if the scenario is so outlandish that it would never happen, there’s no particular reason to not give an answer. You always have a fallback of saying the scenario would probably never happen.

 

[GEddie]

Who cares? Has this ever happened? Why would we argue about a situation that won’t happen to anyone? Why should anyone care about a moral decision that is a meteor’s distance from real life?

Because folks would rather ponder hideous situations that will never eventuate (so they can feel safe) versus things their mind and/or muscles can actually be used to help correct?

(BTW, whose quotation is that in your footer?)

ICXC NIKA

 

[jimmy]

Because if a system of morality claims the jurisdiction to potentially answer all moral questions, then it should be able to take a swing at something like this. Or alternately, if the scenario is so outlandish that it would never happen, there’s no particular reason to not give an answer. You always have a fallback of saying the scenario would probably never happen.

Ok, it’s still irrelevant to everyone on this forum and everyone reading it. Why would I be concerned about the moral decision that Joe Shmoe in India might have to make some day in the 22nd century? Should I prepare myself for a lottery spin? Because that is what this assumes. I should for some reason think about a situation that has never occured to anyone, and probably won’t ever occur to anyone, but in the slight chance that it might occur to me I will be prepared with a rational justification for my behavior.

 

[jimmy]

Because folks would rather ponder hideous situations that will never eventuate (so they can feel safe) versus things their mind and/or muscles can actually be used to help correct?

(BTW, whose quotation is that in your footer?)

ICXC NIKA

It’s Kierkegard. It’s been my sig for the last few days, and it just happens to fit well with this thread, so I figured I’d quoted it in my post.

 

[Giants]

Ok, it’s still irrelevant to everyone on this forum and everyone reading it. Why would I be concerned about the moral decision that Joe Shmoe in India might have to make some day in the 22nd century? Should I prepare myself for a lottery spin? Because that is what this assumes. I should for some reason think about a situation that has never occured to anyone, and probably won’t ever occur to anyone, but in the slight chance that it might occur to me I will be prepared with a rational justification for my behavior.

It’s only relevant because it illustrates an (admittedly) extreme case of a moral question that doesn’t admit of a simple solution that makes everyone happy in the end. Those exist in this world, whether one wants to admit it or not.

 

[ValPal]

Ok, it’s still irrelevant to everyone on this forum and everyone reading it. Why would I be concerned about the moral decision that Joe Shmoe in India might have to make some day in the 22nd century?

Joe Shmoe from India would likely be familiar with yogic breathing techniques and be able to slow down his breathing enough to last 24 hours.

 

[jimmy]

It’s only relevant because it illustrates an (admittedly) extreme case of a moral question that doesn’t admit of a simple solution that makes everyone happy in the end. Those exist in this world, whether one wants to admit it or not.

Yes, they exist, but I am pretty confident they won’t happen to me (atleast this particular one and any that we might discuss on this forum). If some extreme situation happens to me, it will probably be nothing discussed on this forum, and I will probably react in that particular situation in a way that will occur to me at that moment.You can’t prepare for the unexpected. I probably won’t be thinking back, “thank God we discussed on Catholic forums the moral implications of killing green aliens who are stealing my cows.”

 

[maltmom]

There’s a third option…use the knife to kill the serial killer

 

[Giants]

Yes, they exist, but I am pretty confident they won’t happen to me (atleast this particular one and any that we might discuss on this forum). If some extreme situation happens to me, it will probably be nothing discussed on this forum, and I will probably react in that particular situation in a way that will occur to me at that moment.You can’t prepare for the unexpected.

No, my point is that the no-win situation does exist, even if the extreme cases basically never happen. The less extreme cases do happen. You may not be able to prepare for unexpected, but you can allow your mind to dwell on greater moral principles that these examples bring to light. And in doing so, perhaps gain purchase on a moral principle that can be applied to a less extreme case happening in the future.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

It’s only relevant because it illustrates an (admittedly) extreme case of a moral question that doesn’t admit of a simple solution that makes everyone happy in the end. Those exist in this world, whether one wants to admit it or not.

Well, those do exist, but they aren’t universal. That is to say, not all moral solutions will make everyone, or maybe anyone, happy.

 

[po18guy]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

No.

 

[GEddie]

In fact, isn’t the nature of moral exigencies such that somebody will be unhappy, at least in the short term, no matter what is done?

Happiness at least in the short term is not the goal of morality; eternal truth is.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jimmy]

Well, those do exist, but they aren’t universal. That is to say, not all moral solutions will make everyone, or maybe anyone, happy.

That’s his point. Someone is being violated in this hypothetical situation. Someone is going to be unhappy about the result no matter what the result is.

My point is simply that it’s pointless to think about something that will not affect me (or in your case it is pointless for you to think about it) in anyway any time in the near future. In other words, it only means anything to me if I want to judge the actions of other people to be justifiable or unjustifiable by abstracting principles from their actions in extreme situations and comparing them to these hypothetical extremes.

 

[phoooiee]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

For me, it is important to ask some additional questions. “Is it morally acceptable for the man to stab the dying man” is not the only question- but rather, “Can we have the degree of certainty necessary to know that our act of killing is only hastening a death that is otherwise inevitable.”

Think about it- in this situation, it is still absolutely not justifiable for the healthy man to kill the dying man, since there are so many unknowns.

Based on his behavior, we know that the serial killer is quite capable of acting immorally- therefore we cannot trust him not to lie. Therefore, we have no reliable information about the poison that the other man has been given, whether it is actually fatal, whether there is an antidote.

Furthermore, we don’t know for sure the capacity of the room and the amount of air. Even if the information came from some supposedly reliable source and not the serial killer, it is still possible that there is a miscalculation about the amount of air required, or about the amount of time that it will take the other man to die.

In addition- there is no evidence that killing the (possibly) poisoned man will actually save a life- as we have seen, the serial killer is not to be trusted and so we have no evidence that the door will actually open in 24 hours. More likely, based on an evaluation of the killer and how he is likely to behave, both men will die anyway.

I would argue that it is never possible for situations in life to be predictable to the degree that the OP is proposing- therefore it is always possible that the healthy man might actually be killing someone who would not otherwise die.

 

[RPRPsych]

Why do people keep coming up with silly hypothetical scenarios like this.

Because this is what passes for philosophical and ethical discussion among men of low wit.

Been waiting to say that for quite a long time!

And, obviously, the answer is no. (In fact, it’s quite trivial to construct a counter-example, but these sorts of “pseudo-ethical” conundrums just annoy the heck out of me.)

 

[thistle]

Because this is what passes for philosophical and ethical discussion among men of low wit.

Been waiting to say that for quite a long time!

And, obviously, the answer is no. (In fact, it’s quite trivial to construct a counter-example, but these sorts of “pseudo-ethical” conundrums just annoy the heck out of me.)