Mountain Terrorist Scenario

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why can’t I pretend to accept then aim the weapon at the terrorist leader’s head and demand they release everyone?[/quote]

You have a single round of ammunition and the terrorist leader and his cohorts have automatic weapons. These men are not afraid to die for their cause. You would simply add yourself to the body count.[/quote]

Better that than murder someone else. [/quote]

Murder is unjustified. Killing is not. As the moral actor in this situation, your choices are limited. Blood will be spilled. Its better that one should die than twenty. Will twenty people be murdered because you couldn’t bring yourself do a very bad thing for a very good reason?[/quote]

Sloth is a Catholic.

Catholic morality is deontological.

He is NOT the only moral agent in this situation, the terrorists are too and the villagers blood is on them. [/quote]

True but you are the only one in this scenario with a true sense of freedom of action. This is not real life but an ethical scenario. The terrorists will merely react as a result of your choice.[/quote]

No.

They created this situation, they could decide to take it back.

What this example shows, among other things that if you accept utilitarianism as an ethical system you are forever open to moral blackmail.

All I need to do is to create a situation where you are forced to do outrageous things while I lean back and claim that it is all out of my hands.

22

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

OP, do you know who said this?

No fair using google. [/quote]

Friedrich Nietzsche, are you a fan? What is “good” depends on who your asking. I negotiated, at great personal risk to myself, the terms of execution. 1 life ended to spare the remaining 19. Is it “good”? that this person was sacrificed so all 20 would not have to die? Hardly. Is it the best course of action and morally justifiable? In my opinion, absolutely. If fact, if given the option, I would take the bullet myself.

23

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why can’t I pretend to accept then aim the weapon at the terrorist leader’s head and demand they release everyone?[/quote]

You have a single round of ammunition and the terrorist leader and his cohorts have automatic weapons. These men are not afraid to die for their cause. You would simply add yourself to the body count.[/quote]

Better that than murder someone else. [/quote]

Murder is unjustified. Killing is not. As the moral actor in this situation, your choices are limited. Blood will be spilled. Its better that one should die than twenty. Will twenty people be murdered because you couldn’t bring yourself do a very bad thing for a very good reason?[/quote]

Sloth is a Catholic.

Catholic morality is deontological.

He is NOT the only moral agent in this situation, the terrorists are too and the villagers blood is on them. [/quote]

True but you are the only one in this scenario with a true sense of freedom of action. This is not real life but an ethical scenario. The terrorists will merely react as a result of your choice.[/quote]

No.

They created this situation, they could decide to take it back.

What this example shows, among other things that if you accept utilitarianism as an ethical system you are forever open to moral blackmail.

All I need to do is to create a situation where you are forced to do outrageous things while I lean back and claim that it is all out of my hands. [/quote]

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead.

24

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why can’t I pretend to accept then aim the weapon at the terrorist leader’s head and demand they release everyone?[/quote]

You have a single round of ammunition and the terrorist leader and his cohorts have automatic weapons. These men are not afraid to die for their cause. You would simply add yourself to the body count.[/quote]

Better that than murder someone else. [/quote]

Murder is unjustified. Killing is not. As the moral actor in this situation, your choices are limited. Blood will be spilled. Its better that one should die than twenty. Will twenty people be murdered because you couldn’t bring yourself do a very bad thing for a very good reason?[/quote]

Sloth is a Catholic.

Catholic morality is deontological.

He is NOT the only moral agent in this situation, the terrorists are too and the villagers blood is on them. [/quote]

True but you are the only one in this scenario with a true sense of freedom of action. This is not real life but an ethical scenario. The terrorists will merely react as a result of your choice.[/quote]

No.

They created this situation, they could decide to take it back.

What this example shows, among other things that if you accept utilitarianism as an ethical system you are forever open to moral blackmail.

All I need to do is to create a situation where you are forced to do outrageous things while I lean back and claim that it is all out of my hands. [/quote]

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Yeah, then the villagers die.

Maybe one of them volunteers?

I bet it would be a man volunteering.

25

This is a famous case that is used to point out the flaws of utilitarianism however not its benefits as a moral decision making process. The primary one being that none of us act as if or consider that solely the result of an action is all that matters morally. The action itself must still be considered. There is no morally correct answer to the dilemma all the answers result in you doing something immoral you just have to pick the choice you can best live with after.

26

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.[/quote]

Suicide is self murder and a mortal sin.

Though admittedly an option.

28

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.[/quote]

Suicide is self murder and a mortal sin.

Though admittedly an option. [/quote]

Oh, I’m not denying it’s a mortal sin. But if he’s sure that it’s better he kill one person so the others live…is this the particular option he’ll take?

29

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.[/quote]

Suicide is self murder and a mortal sin.

Though admittedly an option. [/quote]

Oh, I’m not denying it’s a mortal sin. But if he’s sure that it’s better he kill one person so the others live…is this the particular option he’ll take?
[/quote]

He is not a villager so this would not really make a decision, just throw a monkey wrench in their shitty ultimatum.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.[/quote]

Suicide is self murder and a mortal sin.

Though admittedly an option. [/quote]

Oh, I’m not denying it’s a mortal sin. But if he’s sure that it’s better he kill one person so the others live…is this the particular option he’ll take?
[/quote]

Is it suicide if I don’t pull the trigger, but tell the terrorist “My life for the villagers’” and they oblige me?

31

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

In real life yes, but the scenario in question requires you to accept the presuppositions, one of which is that the terrorists cannot leave the village until either you, a villager, or all the villagers are dead. [/quote]

Well, it would still be against my own code, but I do see a choice for you now that wouldn’t involve murder.[/quote]

Suicide is self murder and a mortal sin.

Though admittedly an option. [/quote]

Oh, I’m not denying it’s a mortal sin. But if he’s sure that it’s better he kill one person so the others live…is this the particular option he’ll take?
[/quote]

He is not a villager so this would not really make a decision, just throw a monkey wrench in their shitty ultimatum. [/quote]

But he did restate the scenario to include himself.

32

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Is it suicide if I don’t pull the trigger, but tell the terrorist “My life for the villagers’” and they oblige me?[/quote]

Nope. It’s in defense of the others. They murdered you.

33

But if I physically pull the trigger “in the defense of others” is that not also justified? Does the possibility of justifiable suicide exist?

34

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

OP, do you know who said this?

No fair using google. [/quote]

Friedrich Nietzsche, are you a fan? What is “good” depends on who your asking. I negotiated, at great personal risk to myself, the terms of execution. 1 life ended to spare the remaining 19. Is it “good”? that this person was sacrificed so all 20 would not have to die? Hardly. Is it the best course of action and morally justifiable? In my opinion, absolutely. If fact, if given the option, I would take the bullet myself. [/quote]

“In my opinion, absolutely.” Now this, my friends, is philosophy!

I met this guy yesterday whom I immediately disliked.You remind me a lot of him.

He talked and talked and talked. On and on and on, about anything and everything. Everything, that is, except the one thing you’d actually asked about.

You are proud of yourself for having googled Nietzsche, but you can’t google why my quote applies to your scenario, what lesson it teaches, or why it points to the motivation behind Sloth’s answer. It doesn’t matter though, because you don’t care. You are just here to parade around your most recently filched hat, as if it were your own.

For the third time, numbskull, I did not ask the question IS it good. The question was WHY is it good?

Do you understand the difference?

WHY is killing one person and saving 19 good?

WHY is one dying not good, but better than all of them dying?

WHY?

So far the closest you’ve come to providing an answer to this question is: “Because I think so.”

35

[quote]Legionary wrote:
But if I physically pull the trigger “in the defense of others” is that not also justified? Does the possibility of justifiable suicide exist? [/quote]

Nope. They murdered you on one hand. You murdered someone on the other.

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
But if I physically pull the trigger “in the defense of others” is that not also justified? Does the possibility of justifiable suicide exist? [/quote]

Nope. They murdered you on one hand. You murdered someone on the other.
[/quote]

Oh, and I take it this is your choice, then? You would rather they kill you then succumb to their demand that you murder one of the villagers?

37

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

OP, do you know who said this?

No fair using google. [/quote]

Friedrich Nietzsche, are you a fan? What is “good” depends on who your asking. I negotiated, at great personal risk to myself, the terms of execution. 1 life ended to spare the remaining 19. Is it “good”? that this person was sacrificed so all 20 would not have to die? Hardly. Is it the best course of action and morally justifiable? In my opinion, absolutely. If fact, if given the option, I would take the bullet myself. [/quote]

“In my opinion, absolutely.” Now this, my friends, is philosophy!

I met this guy yesterday whom I immediately disliked.You remind me a lot of him.

He talked and talked and talked. On and on and on, about anything and everything. Everything, that is, except the one thing you’d actually asked about.

You are proud of yourself for having googled Nietzsche, but you can’t google why my quote applies to your scenario, what lesson it teaches, or why it points to the motivation behind Sloth’s answer. It doesn’t matter though, because you don’t care. You are just here to parade around your most recently filched hat, as if it were your own.

For the third time, numbskull, I did not ask the question IS it good. The question was WHY is it good?

Do you understand the difference?

WHY is killing one person and saving 19 good?

WHY is one dying not good, but better than all of them dying?

WHY?

So far the closest you’ve come to providing an answer to this question is: “Because I think so.”

[/quote]

So what does that make you when you presume to know the character of a stranger and the depth of his education on an internet forum? I googled Friedrich Nietzsche? How did you come to that conclusion? I graduated Summa Cum Laude, but I must be a complete imbecile simply on the fact that we disagree. If anything falls outside your narrow minded codex it is wrong simply because your religious beliefs decree it to be so.

38

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
But if I physically pull the trigger “in the defense of others” is that not also justified? Does the possibility of justifiable suicide exist? [/quote]

Nope. They murdered you on one hand. You murdered someone on the other.
[/quote]

Oh, and I take it this is your choice, then? You would rather they kill you then succumb to their demand that you murder one of the villagers? [/quote]

Well remember that I restated it to include the option of my life for those of the villagers. If the villagers were spared by my life ending then yes.

39

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
But if I physically pull the trigger “in the defense of others” is that not also justified? Does the possibility of justifiable suicide exist? [/quote]

Nope. They murdered you on one hand. You murdered someone on the other.
[/quote]

Oh, and I take it this is your choice, then? You would rather they kill you then succumb to their demand that you murder one of the villagers? [/quote]

Well remember that I restated it to include the option of my life for those of the villagers. If the villagers were spared by my life ending then yes. [/quote]

We shall see, shall we?

40

[quote]Legionary wrote:
You are in a remote mountain village. A group of terrorists has lined up 20 people from the village; they plan on shooting them for collaborating with the enemy. Since you are not from the village, you will not be killed. Taking advantage of your position, you plead with the terrorists not to carry out their plan. Finally, you convince the leader that it is not necessary to kill all 20. He takes a gun, empties it of all its bullets except one, and then hands it to you. He has decided to kill only one villager to set an example to the rest.

As an honored guest and outsider, you will decide who will be killed, and you will carry out the deed. The terrorists conclude with a warning; if you refuse to kill the villager, then they will revert back to the original plan of killing all 20. And if you try any funny business, they will kill the 20 villagers and then kill you. What should you do?

Your Options

Take the gun, select a villager, and kill him or her.

Refuse the terrorists’ offer and walk away from the situation.[/quote]

Agree. Ask for a volunteer. Then shoot the terrorist leader.