NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)

As I understand it in order to become a NAZI officer you had to be heavily indoctrinated into NAZI ideology. I say the Jews should probably try and pull him up (or failing that kill him because it is self defence and even if they rescued him he wouldn't help them in return because of his ideology), steal his gun and uniform, bound and gag him then try and escape as a work detail of nine led by one of the Jews in the NAZI uniform.

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)


I'd say help him up. First of all, this may make him change his mind. Even if it doesn't, the group of 10 will die soon regardless.

And finally, the Nazi is being ordered to carry out this act. He may not actually believe what he is doing is right, in which case it is only his cowardice that keeps him in line. You have ten people that will likely die anyway, and the one nazi who probably won't. Why kill 11 people when you could only kill 10.

This is the true Utilitarian approach, and I think in this case it is the most humane.

I would help him, if he were a non uberfanatical nazi then he may be inclined to release them and just say he shot them, it would follow the philosophy of turning the other cheek. Either way I'd help as I wouldn't want it on my consious.

As I understand it in order to become a NAZI officer you had to be heavily indoctrinated into NAZI ideology. I say the Jews should probably try and pull him up (or failing that kill him because it is self defence and even if they rescued him he wouldn't help them in return because of his ideology), steal his gun and uniform, bound and gag him then try and escape as a work detail of nine led by one of the Jews in the NAZI uniform.

I agree with this, in theory. They should save his life, but they are in no way obligated to allow him to kill them. They should pull him up, but immediately prevent him from yelling or hurting them. They should then bound him, if possible, and take anything of use from him, and attempt an escape. Being a good Samaritan doesn't mean you have to be stupid.

The jews should help him up. Then beat him to death.

I agree with this, in theory. They should save his life, but they are in no way obligated to allow him to kill them. They should pull him up, but immediately prevent him from yelling or hurting them. They should then bound him, if possible, and take anything of use from him, and attempt an escape. Being a good Samaritan doesn't mean you have to be stupid.



I think they would be well within their moral rights to push him off the cliff and are under no ethical obligation to assist him.

I think they would be well within their moral rights to push him off the cliff and are under no ethical obligation to assist him.

It's not really ever moral to murder someone. It would be easily defensible, but morally right?

It's not really ever moral to murder someone. It would be easily defensible, but morally right?


His direct and very plausible intent is to murder them, it is purely in self defense, even if he slipped on his own.

It depends a lot on other factors. As do most of these moral scenarios. Are the prisoners likely to die anyway? Is there any chance of escape/hiding? What is the mental state of the Guard, is he hardcore or just a grunt doing his duty?

If they saved him, could they barter with him for their lives? If they bound him, how quickly would he be rescued? If he fell, would he die or be able to alert others? What is the physicial condition of the prisoners, would they be able to make it away, or are they nearly dead as is?

All of these factors would have to be taken into consideration. Ideally it is better to save 11 lives than let a single one die.

If the 1 must die so that 10 may live; this is acceptable. If the ten let the one die, but die themselves anyway; it is a wasteful shame. However if the 10 save the 1 only to die themselves, only the inherant human worth of the 1 remaining is saved.

Without knowing the likely outcome of saving/killing the 1, the fate of the 10 is in doubt.

This sort of accounting leads to situations like "four men are trying to kill one man and they are all killed in the attempt, it is better to have let them kill the one man"

His direct and very plausible intent is to murder them, it is purely in self defense, even if he slipped on his own.

Well, self defense would be justifiable if he was actively threatening them. Holding on for dear life on a cliff edge is not threatening.

It's like if someone attacked you with a knife. If you kill them in the act of defending yourself, it's fine. But if you manage to incapacitate the attacker, say by knocking him unconscious, and then proceeded to stab him to death, that's murder.

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)

I'm not religious, I don't believe that the nazi has a soul and therefore would have no problem with ending his life as punishment for the crimes that he already had or was intending to commit. Although, I do think that the decision is just, but I don't think it is moral. The moral thing to do would be to save the nazi's life and hope that he is honourable enough to return the favour.

But I'm asking for the "just" course of action, rather than the best course of action in terms of consequences. Is killing one man to save 10 others just? Or, is sparing someone's life but sacraficing your own more just?

This sort of accounting leads to situations like "four men are trying to kill one man and they are all killed in the attempt, it is better to have let them kill the one man"

Since we have no personal information whatsoever on the people in question, other than that one is a Nazi officer; we are left with numbers.

Since most people agree that human life is created equal, without knowing the details of their human value, one is left with simple, brutal, unforgiving math. Saving 10 is better than saving 1, when all other factors are excluded.

That's my point, we've all but eliminated all other factors by posing the question in this way. For all we know the Nazi could one day end up winning the space race for the US. We don't know, and that's the point. When you cannot know, save them all, if you can't save them all, save as many as you can.

But I'm asking for the "just" course of action, rather than the best course of action in terms of consequences. Is killing one man to save 10 others just? Or, is sparing someone's life but sacraficing your own more just?

Do what is right/moral with complete disregard for your OWN life, that is what is "just."

Do what is right/moral with complete disregard for your OWN life, that is what is "just."

Can you say which course of action would be most right then?

Well, self defense would be justifiable if he was actively threatening them. Holding on for dear life on a cliff edge is not threatening.

It's like if someone attacked you with a knife. If you kill them in the act of defending yourself, it's fine. But if you manage to incapacitate the attacker, say by knocking him unconscious, and then proceeded to stab him to death, that's murder.


I think though that it is unreasonable to assume that somone who has shown such thoughtless, merciless malice can be expected to do anything but shoot them, even if they save him.

I think that in this scenario, the 10 people operate under the honest impression that the man will kill them if they save him.

People are under no moral obligation to assist others in their own muders.

I think though that it is unreasonable to assume that somone who has shown such thoughtless, merciless malice can be expected to do anything but shoot them, even if they save him.

I think that in this scenario, the 10 people operate under the honest impression that the man will kill them if they save him.


Well if they are capable of saving him and at the same time rendering him incapacitated so he cannot continue his plan to kill them, then I believe that's what they ought to do.


People are under no moral obligation to assist others in their own muders.

I suppose the morally neutral thing would be to just leave him to his own devices. They don't actively cause his death (by pushing him off), so there's less guilt involved.

Do what is right/moral with complete disregard for your OWN life, that is what is "just."
By that logic, I shouldn't shoot the rapist/murderer coming into my house, I should just let him kill me, out of humanitarian compassion for him.

Of course, after killing me, he will continue to rape my daughter/wife/etc.

Justice is doing what is right or moral, which may or may not involve risking your own life.

Justice for the Nazi officer would be for him to be struck dead by God. Slipping and falling off a cliff is the next best thing.

Justice for these particular Jews would be to not be shot by this man, and to somehow escape.

Justice for the Jews in the Holocaust would have been for the countries in Europe to not have rolled over and let Hitler take over half of Europe without firing a shot (Austria, Czecholovakia), which then enabled him to build up his armies even more, and slaughter millions of Jews.

The jews should help him up. Then beat him to death.

Incase nobody saw it

Incase nobody saw it


I saw it. That's some fine work.

It's like if someone attacked you with a knife. If you kill them in the act of defending yourself, it's fine. But if you manage to incapacitate the attacker, say by knocking him unconscious, and then proceeded to stab him to death, that's murder.

Not if he's in your kitchen.

This guy is going to murder 10 innocent people, because of "orders", and now he wants saving? Fuck him. If I helped him up, it would only be so I could get his gun and uniform before pushing him back off the cliff.

People seem to be approaching this in a way that seems very odd to me.

You can't have this discussion without deciding what morality is.

That can be quite an involved discussion.

I'd say morality is a set of rules that act as a short cut for rationally thinking through what would be the best thing to do.

Since there is no clear cut agreement on morality, there can be no clear cut definition of what is "moral" in this situation, so it's pretty pointless to argue over it.

I would suggest the prisioners do what ever they think best. Which could involve trying to save their own lives, saving the lives of others, trying to kill other Germans than just the officer, or even saving the officer in the hope that their example of humanity would shame the Nazis into ending their evil ways.

Of course, knowing what I know about history would make my choice in that situation a grim one indeed.

People seem to be approaching this in a way that seems very odd to me.

You can't have this discussion without deciding what morality is.

That can be quite an involved discussion.

I'd say morality is a set of rules that act as a short cut for rationally thinking through what would be the best thing to do.

Since there is no clear cut agreement on morality, there can be no clear cut definition of what is "moral" in this situation, so it's pretty pointless to argue over it.

I would suggest the prisioners do what ever they think best. Which could involve trying to save their own lives, saving the lives of others, trying to kill other Germans than just the officer, or even saving the officer in the hope that their example of humanity would shame the Nazis into ending their evil ways.

Of course, knowing what I know about history would make my choice in that situation a grim one indeed.
That has to be one of the most irrational arguements for resolving ethical choices I have ever heard.

Suppose one of the Jews is an axe murderer. He does what he thinks is best, and axes the Nazi's hand, then kills a few of his companions.

We have systems of law that reflect the COMMON values - morals - of our society, to prevent utter chaos from people just acting in whatever way they think is best. That is because most of us agree that there are some absolutes when it comes to morals. Murder, adultery, thievery, greed, dishonesty are all absolutely wrong, not just things that we can do if we feel it is best.

Suppose one of the Jews is an axe murderer. He does what he thinks is best, and axes the Nazi's hand, then kills a few of his companions.

Life is full of risks.

Let the bastard fall.

The men owe the Nazi nothing, and in fact, the man will probably kill them if they do help him.
The Nazi isnt going to spare them.

To become a Nazi officer, you had to believe that these people are NOT people.
If your a Nazi, then these people are no more worth saving than ants.
Who cares if an ant saves your life, its still an ant.

Step on it, and move along.

Thats what the Nazis did.

The Jews would be stupid to save him.

We have systems of law that reflect the COMMON values - morals - of our society, to prevent utter chaos from people just acting in whatever way they think is best. That is because most of us agree that there are some absolutes when it comes to morals. Murder, adultery, thievery, greed, dishonesty are all absolutely wrong, not just things that we can do if we feel it is best.

So, "Thou shalt not kill," so the prisoners shouldn't kill the officer. Very simple, if you define, "Thou shalt not kill," as the moral thing to do. But different people might decide what is the moral thing to do differently.

Laws and morals are not the same thing. I'm quite in favor of laws making axe murder illegal. Is it moral to axe murder an S.S. officer, is another question.

make him drop his gun, then pull him up.

Tie him up and leg it.

personally, i would urinate on him or in his general direction. i mean, the jackass was going to off me "just cause." i would then push him down the rest of the way, and laugh as he fell. i may be sadistic, but i would say the fact he was going to brutally murder 10 innocent people justifies any action.

It really depends: How many lives is the NAZI likely to take if he's allowed to live, even if he does let the people go this one time?

It really depends: How many lives is the NAZI likely to take if he's allowed to live, even if he does let the people go this one time?

so... if its a small number, he's fine and should be allowed to live despite the fact he is a crazy murdering* bastard?

*in my book, if you seriously plan on murdering someone, whether you actually pull it off or not, your a murdering bastard. again, my opinions are insane, so dont bother trying to make sense of them.

Suppose one of the Jews is an axe murderer. He does what he thinks is best, and axes the Nazi's hand, then kills a few of his companions.

He really thinks that axe murdering the Nazi and his companions is the best thing to do? I suppose that if he truely thinks that axe murdering his friends is the best thing to do, then perhaps he should do it. But it is possible that he hasn't really thought things through. I would hazard a guess that he has gone insane. But maybe he has reached a rational decision. Perhaps he knows that the Nazis are going to torture them to death slowly so he decides to end his friends lives quickly? Or perhaps they know where other Jewish people are hiding and doesn't want the Nazis to torture the infomation out of them?

Do you often meet people who decide to commit axe murder? If you do, I think the rational thing to do would be to run away and call the police and have them locked up. Of course, depending on what you think best, you might decide on another course of action.

Either way seems "wrong".

:confused: how does saving someone's life seem wrong? No matter what the consequences, I don't see how saving someone's life is a morally "wrong" deed - it's not even as if the Nazi was executed for his crimes after a lengthy judicial hearing; there is no actual clear informed justice behind his killing, it's just random. And I'd also be inclined to think that there's a chance the Jew's lives might be spared if they where to save the Nazi officer's life.

Well I tend to have a bit of a militaristic mind, but here's what I think:

Since the Nazi has effectivly declaired war on mankind by participating in genocide, the Jews have every right to kill him. I also think It would be morally acceptable to assasinate world leaders who commit genocide.

In fact, I'm planning on devising a spec ops group for my NS country that would specialize in assasinations.

so... if its a small number, he's fine and should be allowed to live despite the fact he is a crazy murdering* bastard?

*in my book, if you seriously plan on murdering someone, whether you actually pull it off or not, your a murdering bastard. again, my opinions are insane, so dont bother trying to make sense of them.

Depends on the overall amount of harm/benefit that would hit throughout his effect on the universe....

Personally, unless the guy was crying like a baby and showed signs of being convertable, I'd pick him up just long enough to throw him down and make sure he lands extra hard.

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)

I say they should help him up...

he may even think about what he's doing if they help him

:confused: how does saving someone's life seem wrong? No matter what the consequences, I don't see how saving someone's life is a morally "wrong" deed - it's not even as if the Nazi was executed for his crimes after a lengthy judicial hearing; there is no actual clear informed justice behind his killing, it's just random. And I'd also be inclined to think that there's a chance the Jew's lives might be spared if they where to save the Nazi officer's life.

"Wrong" for the Jews, since they'd be allowing someone who was ultimately going to kill them to live.

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)
Kick him in the face and stomp on his fingers! :D

Take his gun, help him up, then shoot him off the cliff.

Whats a Nazi Officer?
SS you mean?
Save him so the chance of me being kept alive would increase by 2%
Maybe id get Moldy Bread for Dinner too! :)

1st reply was best:

help him up, tie him up, use his stuff to escape.

I would let the nazi fall to his death as punishment for his crimes already commited/about to be commited. But the moral thing to do would be to help him and expect their lives to be spared to return the favour. Although i'm not sure if you would find that type of honour among nazis.

I was recently asked to decide what would be the "just" action in the following moral scenario:

Ten Jews and one Nazi officer are walking along a secluded cliffside path. The officer is taking the Jews to a quiet bit, and is going to shoot them. Suddenly, he loses his footing, and falls over the edge, only just managing to grap hold of a rock outcrop. What would be the "just" thing to do? Should the Jews let him fall, die, and therefore live a few more days? Should they help him up, save his life, but in doing so sign their own death warrent? Either way seems "wrong". What would be the "more just" action?

I'm personally inclined to say let him fall, since more people would benefit from that than otherwise. However, this seems to be a very Utilitarian approach, and I've never really liked Utilitarianism as a moral theory as it allows punishment of the innocent (and "moral" killing.)
As a German I'd say "Let him fall." Killing him to escape would also be moral, since their lives are in danger. It's a twisted version of a self-defence scenario, in which case allowing the Nazi to fall saves the lives of the Jews.

I think you need to separate out Just from Moral.

Morall essentially reflects what actions are 'good' whilst 'just' relates to fairness or equity. An action does not have to be moral to be just and vice versa.

I think the moral (good) thing would be for the Jews to save the Nazi. Regardless of his actions or character they can only be responsible for their own actions and to let him die would be immoral. There's no point trying to do a balancing act of number of lives here as no one could ever judge that (perhaps the Nazi was in fact taking the Jews to freedom and would go on to discover the cure for cancer whilst one of the Jews causes WWIII and kills millions).

In terms of 'just' however (which was the question) if the Jews believed that the Nazi was taking them all away to execute them then I think its only fair and equitable for the Jews to take this piece of good fortune and escape, leaving the man to die.

I think that the solution depends on the uniform of that nazi. If it is black with skulls and bones on the marks in his shoulder, he is from SS, which means that he has VOLUNTARILY joined the anti-jewish organization and lifeguard troops of A.HItler. If it is normal Wehrmacht's uniform, then he is just ordered to fullfil his duty and obey his officers. Although it is not right from HIM to do so, he should refuse and get shot. But if the jews are about to die anyways..... :headbang:

Alltogether, my answer for the question is:
1. He is SS Grüppenführer: kick him at the face so that he has to feel some pain by the brokening of his nose before he dies.

2.He is Wehrmacht's Lieutenant: pull him off and punch him to get his stuffies, then escape if possible. Someone said this already. If it is impossible to survive anyways, then jump down by ureself.