NationStates Jolt Archive

As a few of you may have guessed by now I consider my self a bit of an amateur Ethicist, and well while looking over my books today I came across this little philological dilemma.

Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of Indians, mostly terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform.

A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge, and after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of the advantages of not protesting.

However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest's privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off.

Of course, if Jim refuses then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all.

Jim, With some recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of the gun, he could hold the Captain, and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed and himself.

The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are odviously begging him to accept.

What should he do?

What would you do.

Basically evey Ethical Theory you can think off is wraped up in that little scenario. Ill let you guess which ones are which yourself.

Poll coming.

Oh, I thought this was going to be a parody of Roger the Shrubber.

Oh and if you choose to shoot one, please specify the criteria you would have for choosing which one.

The logical thing would be to shoot one Indian so that the rest will live. However, depending on a few variables, holding the captain hostage might work.

yell *bang* and hope the indian guy takes the hint and plays dead...

Pfff!

I see the majority have chosen to shoot one indian.

But which one?

It's a senseless waste of life if you walk off and leave all of them to die.

Shooting one is a senseless waste of life too, but its less of a waste than all of them.

One must die so that the many will live.

You'll have to live with that decisions the rest of your life, but at least you'll know it was to save the lives of others.

I'd shoot the cocky bastard with the smart-ass smirk.

I see the majority have chosen to shoot one indian.

But which one?

I'd shoot the oldest one.

Pick the oldest and shoot him.

I'd shoot the oldest one.

So old people are worth less in terms of life than the young.

I see most of you have so far taken the utilitarian/moral relativism approach.

Would it surprise you to learn this example if often used as a example of the slipery slope to immorality.

I see the majority have chosen to shoot one indian.

But which one?

The one that looks most like Barbara Streisand or Keanu Reeves.

The one that looks most like Barbara Streisand or Keanu Reeves.

Now that's just mean...

So old people are worth less in terms of life than the young.

I see most of you have so far taken the utilitarian/moral relativism approach.

Would it surprise you to learn this example if often used as a example of the slipery slope to immorality.

Of course old people are not worth less in terms of life. It's a weak attempt of taking away the least amount of time the person has ahead of him/herself.

Of course there are other factors...I'm not sure everyone would be capable of murdering someone like that. Even though it's an attempt to save the rest.

So old people are worth less in terms of life than the young.

I see most of you have so far taken the utilitarian/moral relativism approach.

Would it surprise you to learn this example if often used as a example of the slipery slope to immorality.

Not at all really.

Would I be wrong in saying that moral relitavism has been the dominany moral philosophy of the last century? If so could it be argued that this is the cause for what can be argued is a slow decline in morality over that period of time?

Don't know if you saw power of nightmares when it was on scouse, but it seems like a logical idea, course, I'm probably wrong :p

I'd shoot one Indian. The one who looks the too old to have young children. If they're all about the same age I'd shoot the one who is least afraid to die.

There's no chance of holding off all the soldiers, so I'm not going to commit suicide for a lost cause.

Not doing anything gets all the Indians killed.

My plan works out best for everyone, except the one guy I shoot.

Of course old people are not worth less in terms of life. It's a weak attempt of taking away the least amount of time the person has ahead of him/herself.

.
I disagree. If you kill a teenager, he probably hasn't had the opportunity to pass his genes on to the next generation. There's nothing left of him when he goes. If you shoot a young man with little kids you impose a hardship on his offspring. If you shoot a grandfather it's still not good, but his line lives on, and his children won't starve.

Not at all really.

Would I be wrong in saying that moral relitavism has been the dominany moral philosophy of the last century? If so could it be argued that this is the cause for what can be argued is a slow decline in morality over that period of time?

Don't know if you saw power of nightmares when it was on scouse, but it seems like a logical idea, course, I'm probably wrong :p

It would be a coin toss between it and rule utilitrianism i'd think, but yeah its been pretty big espeically to liberal christians.

I think moral decline, as you so put it has not been from the liberalisation of ethics, i think its been from a lack of strong virtue ethics.

the power of nightmares..... im not following you there.

I disagree. If you kill a teenager, he probably hasn't had the opportunity to pass his genes on to the next generation. There's nothing left of him when he goes. If you shoot a young man with little kids you impose a hardship on his offspring. If you shoot a grandfather it's still not good, but his line lives on, and his children won't starve.

Thats some icy cold logic there. Your a true act utilitrian.

I disagree. If you kill a teenager, he probably hasn't had the opportunity to pass his genes on to the next generation. There's nothing left of him when he goes. If you shoot a young man with little kids you impose a hardship on his offspring. If you shoot a grandfather it's still not good, but his line lives on, and his children won't starve.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I guess my post wasn't very clear.

Personally, just becuase i have quite a lot of stock with ideas like virute ethics.

I belive you should try and stop it with the gun.


Yes eveyone will die, but its the right thing to do, simply becuase it is the brave thing to do.

then again im just a gentleman.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I guess my post wasn't very clear.
Maybe I just misunderstood. Sorry.

Bah, you are all wrong. Take the gun, kill all the indians, then kill all the spaniards. None of them deserve to live.

Thats some icy cold logic there. Your a true act utilitrian.
Thanks! :)

Personally, just becuase i have quite a lot of stock with ideas like virute ethics.

I belive you should try and stop it with the gun.


Yes eveyone will die, but its the right thing to do, simply becuase it is the brave thing to do.

then again im just a gentleman.

How can pointless waste of life be "the right thing to do" ?

How can pointless waste of life be "the right thing to do" ?

well the entire point of virtue ethics is its a frame work to live by, be brave, have a good sense of humor be open minded.

So to achive eudiamonia, you have to do it all the time.

Well some times its fun some times it isunt.

A least you'd die a hero.

maybe i just have a messed up sense of chivarly.

It would be a coin toss between it and rule utilitrianism i'd think, but yeah its been pretty big espeically to liberal christians.

I think moral decline, as you so put it has not been from the liberalisation of ethics, i think its been from a lack of strong virtue ethics.

the power of nightmares..... im not following you there.

Power of Nightmares was a political programme on BBC 2 last october I think it was.

It talked about the decline of morality in the western world and the rise of neo-conservatism, pushing ideals like strong church and national identity in order to combat it.

Also talked about the rise of extremist muslim beleifs and the like.

Pretty interesting if nothing else I thought.

well the entire point of virtue ethics is its a frame work to live by, be brave, have a good sense of humor be open minded.

So to achive eudiamonia, you have to do it all the time.

Well some times its fun some times it isunt.

A least you'd die a hero.

maybe i just have a messed up sense of chivarly.

I think people would argue wether or not you were a hero if you did that.

eudimonia? What's that? I'm sorry...English isn't my native language.

As a few of you may have guessed by now I consider my self a bit of an amateur Ethicist, and well while looking over my books today I came across this little philological dilemma.


Basically evey Ethical Theory you can think off is wraped up in that little scenario. Ill let you guess which ones are which yourself.

Poll coming.
This was in the Exorcist Prequel too. The answer is simple. Shoot the oldest male.

Oh, but if you're an Ethicist, then try to grab the gun and hold the captian hostage, knowing you and the indians will probally die.

Because according to the principle of double-effect, you can't will a good THROUGH an evil. Ethically, you can't save a group of Indians by murdering one. So, if there's even a chance that you could hold the captain hostage and save them, you should take it.

If there's no chance at all, then it gets really complicated. But I don't think you can ever realistically eliminate the chance to 0%, as nothing is pre-determined (and even if it is, we can't observe it), so even when you're put into a bleak, impossible situation, it's always best to go for the improbable moral good, instead of the obvious apparent good.

Because you may look back and regret shooting that one Indian, it may haunt your dreams, but if you held the captain hostage--if you died, you died a saint. If you lived, you live, holding the knowledge that you did a great thing. Following the moral good, it is a win-win situation. If you don't, then no matter what you do, you lose.

id take the gun from the captain. bow deeply. walk past all the indians with the gun pointed in the air.

then i would shoot the one who seemed the bravest

in the leg or shoulder

hoping that THAT would satisfy honor and that everyone would be let go after that.

Originally Posted by Markreich
The one that looks most like Barbara Streisand or Keanu Reeves.

Now that's just mean...

Mean nothing! I'm just giving Darwin a helping hand...


-Markreich
What's your favorite camelid?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8619873#post8619873

How about russian roulette to decide?

I'd get the gun and shoot them ALL! RAHAHAHHAHAAAUUSHAUUHUAHAHA!

Not at all really.

Would I be wrong in saying that moral relitavism has been the dominany moral philosophy of the last century? If so could it be argued that this is the cause for what can be argued is a slow decline in morality over that period of time?

No. Because under moral relativism morality hasn't declined over that period of time... it has simply changed to reflect new societal outlooks.

Because you may look back and regret shooting that one Indian, it may haunt your dreams, but if you held the captain hostage--if you died, you died a saint.

With your last thought being "my choice just caused the death of all those indians when I could have saved all but one".

Not so win-win from where I'm standing. And if I was one of those Indians knowing you had the chance to save a bunch of my people and instead pulled a bonehead move that got them killed I wouldn't be looking on you as a deceased saint either.

my suggestion-
tell the captain youll shoot one so you get the gun, then grap him and use him as a human shield as you take out the rest of the soldiers.

This was in the Exorcist Prequel too. The answer is simple. Shoot the oldest male.
why male?

Probably the sick/dying one...

You could let them draw lots, or let one come forth to be shot. If that does not work then shoot the one nearest to death. If that doesn't work charge with all your might at the Captain.
*Arrrrrrrrr!!!*

why male?
Because, in most cultures, men are generally more willing to die than women (as seen from the greater number of men in the military and in prison), and although you're right, in that there's no real distinction, it's important to make onne, or else you've got another ethical problem.

What about the ethics of interfering in a situation that is not yours to judge? It's not your country, it's not your cause, it's not your rebellion, it's not your repression, it's not your problem. Do you have a moral right, or obligation to get involved in the first place? Do you have all the information needed to make the choice between indirectly killing many or directly killing one?

Are the imediate effects all that matter in this situation? i.e. if you kill one to save the rest and they go and massacre the countryside, do you take this possibility into account as well as the possibility of saving everyone by turning on the officer?

Rape the prettiest girl, shoot her, then rape her corpse.

hmm... cant say how id act.

dont think i could kill one, just cause it would bother me personally, even if it was to save the lives of the rest.

i think id have to look at how my actions would affect the situation after im removed of it-long term like.

i imagine part of shooting the indians is to squelch dissent. personally, i think thats wrong, especially through the use of violence.

im pretty sure the officer wouldnt offer me the weapon unless he was certain that i wouldnt be a serious threat with it-ive handled a gun before, but im certainly no old-western sharpshooter, i imagine he has people keeping an eye on botanist jim for just such an attempt.

at the same time, doing such an action, while suicidal, would probabally be the easiest on the conscious(for all of 1/2 a second...) plus it may give the rebels some hope.

or, maybe leaving, and bringing news of this massacre to the outside world may bring help to their cause/plight.

i guess i could try to shoot one of them, to save the others, but try to do it in a manner that would steel their determination, though i dont think i could stomach the act. if i did that, id have to be carefull who i shot. probablly not the leader, but then again, they could be seen as a martyr, and someone would likely replace them.

but most likely, this last attempt would backfire, and is probablly the reason for the officer offering you the opportunity to shoot one-to show the dissenters that the outside world does not care, but i guess you could argue this for all of the actions except attacking the officer..


not really an option, but probabally the bravest(and more suicidal) would be to simply stand with in/front of the indians, and await being shot?

interesting dilemma....

Rape the prettiest girl, shoot her, then rape her corpse.

Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.

No. Because under moral relativism morality hasn't declined over that period of time... it has simply changed to reflect new societal outlooks.

My point was that the change in societal outlooks is symptomatic of a moral decline.

My point was that the change in societal outlooks is symptomatic of a moral decline.

I disagree. By what objective measure are you evaluating the state of morals today as opposed to those in the past such that you can conclude that those that exist today are "lower" on the scale than those of the past, thus indicating they have "declined"?

I disagree. By what objective measure are you evaluating the state of morals today as opposed to those in the past such that you can conclude that those that exist today are "lower" on the scale than those of the past, thus indicating they have "declined"?

Increasing rates of teenage pregnancy? Crime? Violent Crime?

I'd have thought that those were good measures of a decline or morality in society.

Increasing rates of teenage pregnancy? Crime? Violent Crime?

I'd have thought that those were good measures of a decline or morality in society.
There was plenty of that stuff going on all through history. I'd wager that if you compare the rates today with the rates in the 1800s you'd see a net decline due to contraception and better law enforcement.

Please note that I don't have any figures to back up my claim.

Wow this is still going,

um.... cool

Once i come up with a decent virtue ethicist arguemtn for my grab the gun and fight option ill post it.

Well assuming I could actually shot and successfully kill someone, I'd kill one of the indians. I would hope for the indian's sake that the soldiers gave me a few practice shots on something else first because I have 0 experience with guns. And as for picking the indian I'd ask them which one would rather die.

Increasing rates of teenage pregnancy?

Since when? Historically speaking girls used to be married off and expected to be producing babies by age 16 if not younger for cripes sake.

So if this really WERE an objective measure of morality we would have to conclude morality in this regard has "increased" since times past, not "decreased". Of course, I doubt you could make a case for it actually being an objective moral measure of any kind.

Crime? Violent Crime?

Again, since when? Do you have any idea how prevalent violent crime was during, just for one example, the colonization of the Western United States?

Violent crime has also been on a steady decline for at least every one of the last dozen years or so. You could certainly selectively focus on a narrow slice of recent historical data of a few decades and point to it and say "Aha! It increased THERE!" But was it an increase from 100, 200, 300 or 500 years previous to THAT if we were to apply the same legal concepts of what constitutes a crime to all those time periods?

I seriously doubt it.

when i am given the gun to kill one i turn and start shooting the other d00ds :)

I chose the "shoot one Indian..." option.

Hypothetically, I would ask if any of them would volunteer to be shot, and if none of them did then I would shoot the one who looked closest to death.

Realistically, as I don't like killing or guns, I would probably close my eyes and fire in their general direction.

Although my method is cruel I still think russian roulette is the fairest way of doing this