NotWal said...

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.

I agree - but I cannot be forced to accept the responsibility for the terrorist's actions. So by choosing to not be involved in the decision making process - ultimately the terrorist is the person making the decision and it is out of my hands as to the outcome. If she wishes to end everyone's life that's her call, if she wishes me to get involved - it is not going to happen - so I cannot be held responsible for the death of one nor will I be responsible for the death of 30.

As I've said before - it will never be ethical to take the life of this child, no matter the circumstances. This is much more a question of personal philosophy, morals and the like, and the responses of everyone will differ based on their spiritual beliefs, social position and personal morality.

ok, if there was a situation where the terrorist was a 10 year old girl and you had the chance of saving the group by stabbing her and killing her , while disarming the bomb, would you do it? Or does "thou shall not kill" overide?

Just by being in that situation you become part of the decision making process, You can say all you like that if you say nothing you are not making a decision, but in fact you are making the decision not to act at all, given the choice you have I am not sure many people could not carry the burden of some guilt no matter what the outcome as the terrorist has included you, and you potentially have the power to affect the outcome.

Here is something else to throw in there, what if your own children made up some of the people in the room who would die??

I worked delivering adult education and team bulding programs for many years and we used these scenario based activities a lot, for us the showed group dynamics. Elizabeth B, your lecturer just got a great insight into the group they are working with. From this they have probably worked out who the analytical thinkers are, who the leaders are etc etc. From a trainers point of view it was always interesting to sit back and watch the debate.

DavMen said...

The terrorist makes you beleive you are in control of the outcome - when infact you are not!

In this hypothesis you are.

You know for certain that she always keeps her word.

In fact its not possible to know that. It's just hypothetical.

Elizebethb, You didnt include utilitarianism in your response, I love utilitarianism, kill the child.

Rex said...

evlPanda said...

So:

A) You do as terrorist requests and save everyone else
= Terrorist wins

B) You deny all requests and everyone dies
= Terrorist wins

I haven't learnt anything about ethics.

But you have learnt that should you ever be in a hostage situation where someone is given the choice to save your life, you better hope it's someone that can see past the smoke and mirrors.

Agreed. For the record I'd kill the kid be they terminal, mine, a young adolf hitler, whoever, without hesitation. Like a band-aid, straight off.

For me it's just logical: many lives are worth more than zero (remember that kid's dead soon no matter what). Terrorist still wins.

Liz B

Good responses, hey wot!

Whaddayareckon it's winter, there's b^gger all wind & we're all stir crazy[}:)]

Richiefish said...

sure. You could fake a fainting episode. What would this say about your ethics/morals ???

How is this a moral dilemma? Either way the kid gets it? So you have the choice of ensuring the others survive. Irrespective of whether or not its your child, it's either you or the terrorist thats going to kill them. A better dilemma may be something like u have to choose between killing your wife or child. I think most people will intellectually accept they would opt to kill the child and save the lives of the others. Whether they could do it I guess would depend on them. I don't think I'd have a problem. Especially if it's anything like my neighbours kid.

elizabethb said...

A terrorist is holding you and your class, with everyone wired with explosives. She says that she plans to kill everybody, including you. You know for certain that she always keeps her word. However, she offers to spare everyone, except the child whose hand you are holding, as long as you kill him. You are absolutely certain that there is no way of avoiding this choice.

* Should you kill him? Why (or why not)?
* Should it make a difference if the child has an incurable terminal illness that will painfully end his life very soon, and he begs you to allow him to save the lives of his friends?
* Should it make a difference if there were a million lives in the balance? A billion?
* Should it make a difference if the child is yours?

Allow me to decode the above ^^^^

You're a male teacher and the 'terrorist' is really your wife....
and the kid holding your hand is your very own child.
So, the 'terrorist' is really the mother of your kid.
The 'terrorist' knows her kid is suffering from a terminal illness....
and wants you (her teacher/husband) to end the kids pain.
In other words, this desperate mother is demanding the father to mercy-kill their child under the threat of total devastation.

you've all lost the plot...............