It's all well and good theorising the "ethical" position but I don't think anyone would ever know how they react unless truely put in this situation.

In times of crisis , many people react in different and strange ways, sometimes in quite differemt to what they would think they would do.

The other question to ask, is if you did sacrifice the kid, could you live with your conscience afterwards?

Like I said earlier, would you ever realy know, would you ever realy want to, hopefully you never have to find out.


It's a cop out I know, but ethical questions are designed to make you think and to take you out of your comfort zone.

It's like a Lawyer defending a serial child molester (or politician) who they suspect/know is guilty, do they still do the job? knowing full well that if they do a good job that person would be back out there commiting more unspeakable acts.

I would dive to the floor, pulling the spear gun out from under my jumper, shoot the terrorist through the eye whilst cutting the detonator wires. The police cheif would forgive me and drop the charges. I would reunite with my beautiful estraged wife and take a windsurfing holiday in Vietnam. The sick child would be cured by "House" a week later. But will the terrorists strike again ? Depends on the ratings....

Sorry Liz, I totally and strongly disagree with your response, but that's a good scenario, and you'll always get varying results depending on each person and their experiences. My response would be very similar to DavMen's (us 'draftys' must think alike);


NEVER negotiate.....the reason being, what if you sacrificed the child, and the terrorist turns to you and asks you to grab the next child and do the same.....then the next, and next? "You know for certain that she always keeps her word" This is a ridiculous statement to place in this scenario. Terrorists aren't the most 'trustworthy' bunch? Personally I'd prefer to be shot than to 'perhaps' survive knowing I took an innocent life to please a terrorist.

In my limited knowledge on terrorists, if they're wired with explosives, they've already made the conscious decision to end their own lives, and those around them, and no matter what they ask, that is the ultimate outcome they have ran through their minds over, and over, they are prepared for that.

Teachers aren't terrorist negotiators, that is a specialised skill in its own right, but the only option you would have would be to try to change the terrorist's views with sympathetic discussion, or distract them with some form of knowledgeable debate (I know, it's a risk, but better than becoming a 'tool' for their plight), by speaking with them, and stalling, it allows time for the 'police response-team' to gather the info they require, and do their job.

In conclusion, I hope this never has to become a reality for yourself, or any teacher for that matter.....and as Elmo said, it's easy to speculate, but unless you're in that situation, you never know.


(sorry, I was going to go all 'McGyver' on it, but I guess you're after serious debate)

seriously? this antagonist is not a terrorist. Why would they change their plan, abondon their "cause" just to play mindfack games with you ??? they're obviously a nut case . Mind you this is nit picking and has nothing to do with ethics. Forget what this person is and just assume that they will do as they say. This raises the question of ethics not politics. What would YOU do not what should you do. what does your action say about your ethics. would your "religion" or conscience allow you to kill in extreme circumstances if at all. Do you have enough ego to play god? Are you a part of a greater entity/good, or is it you against the world? How flexible are your rules you live by ? Tough subject. good luck.

I would strip naked
The sight of my rippling muscles and unnaturally long shlong would stop her in her steps without the need to kill.

Very true....

Would all your responses stay the same or change if this was kill one person and you save millions!? Increasing the number of people who were to die...

What if instead of children, they were the top doctors and surgeons of the world?

I don't answer trick questions.

Poida's right. Ask yourself what would Machiavelli say? If you don't know ask Poida. Its about ends and means.

I strongly disagree with the generally accepted notion that one shouldn't negotiate with <insert pejorative for despised adversary>. Always negotiate! Communication is fundamental. There are lots of reasons. Here are a few -

1) When you communicate in good faith you become de-objectivised in each others eyes. Terrorists are people too. Empathy is a powerful motivator.
2) Its a useful stalling device.
3) You can't possibly know how committed your adversary is until the game is over, but you may get an indication of lack of resolve.
4) Communicating may reveal something about her motivation.
5) You can play on her doubts.

etc.

Elizabeth .......well well ......

I had that exact experience resently ,i walked into a pub ,this wird looken chick 1grabbed me by the hand
2tryed to make me become a dad to her children
3said she did nt like dogs ,
4drank me dry and blooooow her self up when i tolder her i hated kids and she was fat.

Help me ...... she then said i was the terrirost.

Elizabeth .......well well ......

I had that exact experience resently ,i walked into a pub ,this wird looken chick 1grabbed me by the hand
2tryed to make me become a dad to her children
3said she did nt like dogs ,
4drank me dry and blooooow her self up when i tolder her i hated kids and she was fat.

Help me ...... she then said i was the terrirost.

Richiefish said...

It's not a riddle or a hypothetical escape scenario. The ethical question is will you kill the kid, not will you talk to a terrorist....

But I already said...
Poida's right. Ask yourself what would Machiavelli say? If you don't know ask Poida. Its about ends and means.

In other words, in the given situation, and in the spirit of the hypothesis, the proper ethical response is to kill the kid. Its the old choosing the lesser evil dilemma and its quite clear cut. However that particular situation can't possibly exist.

The chat about negotiating is a digression, but it is interesting. The notion that one shouldn't negotiate has a wide following. It's almost received standard dogma. But it's nonsense.

thats a better explanation Notwal

i thought kill one person was the practical but unpopular solution. I didnt give it a lot of thought. given the reality I would probably procrastinate - then BOOM.
It would be nice to take the high moral ground to send a message to other would be terrorists, but not as practical as delaying a lot of other deaths.

Some lecturer once told me that for a once off engineering failure it usually takes 2 or more deaths caused by an engineering design failure to get on the front page of the paper. thats usually not acceptabe for an engineering design. Hundreds of road deaths per year and the method for the design of vehicles and roads changes very slowly and we probably wont stop driving, so its an acceptable design. go figure that one.

If you kill the kid, you're responsible for his death.
If the terrorist destroys the rest of the universe, that's her responsibility not yours.

That terrorist is going to have to kill all of us because I wouldn't kill the kid.
The kids and I are innocent and will all die with a clear concious.
Thou shall not kill is not a conditional rule.

DAM71 said...

NotWal said...

decrepit said...

If you kill the kid, you're responsible for his death.
If the terrorist destroys the rest of the universe, that's her responsibility not yours.

But can you decline to accept the assignment of responsibility?
As a pragmatic fact you can prevent the deaths of lots of people by killing one. If it is within your power to save those 30 odd (or the rest of the universe) then to the extent that you don't do it, you are responsible.

... You can refuse to become apart of her psychopathic game by making no decision at all. And in doing so you cannot be considered to be responsible for her actions.

No but you ARE responsible for your own actions or inaction.