What would you do?

[skymama 35]

A friend of mine asked me this question, and I think it's just horrible, and there's no good answer. So I thought I would ask you all.

Say you're being held hostage with some other people. Your captors tell you that you have to shoot a person, or 10 people will die. What would you do?

At first, I said I'd shoot a bad guy. Friend said, nope, you have to shoot a hostage. Then, I said I'd shoot myself, thinking I was VERY clever. Nope again, doesn't count. Then when I poised the question to my son, he said he'd just maim someone. Nope, you have to shoot to kill, friend said. I don't like friend's rules at all!

I've been thinking about it for a week, and I still don't think I could kill someone who wasn't threatening me. Hell, I don't even like to raise my voice to people!

She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man,
because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon

[Jimbo 0]

Shoot one of the bad guys, they shoot you, problem solved and now there's one less bad guy.

Yeah, it's not playing by the rules, but really, you're being held hostage, there are no rules.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[AndyMan 7]

It's a zero sum game. There is no winnable outcome, given the rules.

Good outcomes are only available through breaking the rules. I'd die valiently trying to kill all the bad guys.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[outofit 0]

pretty good odds if u ask me. shoot one and save ten, where is the dilemma? your getting all worked up over nothing!

It is better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool!

[PhreeZone 15]

Shoot to kill, make the injury as painless as possible to the intended recipient. (Head shot if you don't care about the funeral, chest for an open casket)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one in this case.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Zennie 0]

This is bascally the dilemma that governments have when dealing with terrorists.

It's another case of blaming the victim when the bad guy does something wrong. "It's your fault 10 people died because you chose not to kill one person."

No. It's not my fault. You're the one who made an immoral demand upon me. You're the one who killed the 10 people. Not me. My hands are clean. Don't try and transfer your guilt and blame over to me.

So I guess I'm saying I'd refuse. I will not kill an innocent person. Period.

Would I hate it? Would I feel terrible? Yes. Would I feel guilt? Probably.

By virtue of my decision 10 people died, but I was not the cause. The person doing the killing is the killer. Not the person who chooses not to kill.

This is kind of a classic act utilitarian vs. rule utilitarian debate. For those of you who aren't familiar, utilitarianism is the philosophy that the right thing is that which causes the greatest good or the least harm. "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."

Act utilitarians analyze things on strictly a situational basis. So the act utilitarian would likely choose to kill the one person. After all, fewer people die and that's the greatest good (or more accurately, the least harm).

Rule utilitarians are guided by general principles which they believe, if followed, will result over the long term in the greatest good or least harm. So even though killing one might cause the least harm in this particular situation, the ripple effects of catering to a captor's demands, compromising one's principles, and just generally becoming a participant in a culture of killing will in the long term cause more harm.

Obviously I fall in the latter category. I just believe killing is wrong (except in self defense or defense of others). Period. And I won't be a party to it. Period. You might make an argument that killing the one is "defense of others", but I wouldn't call killing an innocent an act of defense.

Maybe that might result in death now, but hopefully someday more people will share that view and violence will diminish. To me, that is how we achieve the greatest good... by sticking to our principles, leading by example and trying to bring about positive change in people's values and attitudes.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[kingbunky 3]

first, you have some very strange friends, but what the hell, you're a skydiver, it was bound to happen. did this question emerge from an alcohol induced haze? it has been my experience that alcohol is very condusive to odd theoretical questions. please keep in mind that it is after midnight on a saturday, so this is an alcohol induced answer!

myself? i think i would have to go for the greater good. i would shoot one to save ten, then see if i could live with myself.

...but then again, they said 10 people would die, they didn't say that they would kill the ten people. if the ten people would die anyway, then i would refuse to shoot anyone and take my lumps.

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[seedy 0]

Well said.
I too would choose not to kill an innocent. To do so would violate my belief that the only justifiable killing in that done in self defense and defense of those I love.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[airdrew20012001 0]

ASk for a vlunteer. If that doesn't work then shoot the oldest single person I could find.

ps. Thanks again for the get well card, did you get the thank you card I sent?

Drewfus McDoofus

[Zennie 0]

Quote

ASk for a vlunteer. If that doesn't work then shoot the oldest single person I could find.

If you're gonna do it, that's probably the best way to handle it.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[DTOXX 0]

If I were in this situation I hope I would have the ability to realize that the terrorist are not making a rational demand. If you shot someone what would it provide them? Is it to tell the authorities that they mean business? That they will make a hostage shot another innocent if there demands are not met?
I say shoot a bad guy... If handed a gun with one bullet make that bullet count. The odds that your shooting one innocent does not ensure that another will not be shot shortly afterwords. One less terrorist however is NEVER a bad thing.
Be layman's definition a terrorist is someone who has strong convictions and limited resources to correct them. There is no reasoning, there is no "talking them down", there is not true recourse than to once again pit violence against violence. The trick is to be on the side who is doing it as a way to save the most people at the end of the day. (just my layman's opinion mind you.)

[Beachbum 0]

not one I'd like to be forced into ... but did notice one thing (at least the way you worded it) ... doesn't say the 10 WON'T die even if you do shoot one ...

I like the "no rules" answer ... if they're dumb enough to give a hostage a gun ... shoot THEM ...

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Viking 0]

Quote

Shoot one of the bad guys, they shoot you, problem solved and now there's one less bad guy.

Yeah, it's not playing by the rules, but really, you're being held hostage, there are no rules.

-
Jim

exactly if these num nuts are stupid enough to give me a gun after holding me hostage they better watch the fuck out b/c atleast one of them getting shot!

I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver
My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>myself? i think i would have to go for the greater good. i would shoot one to
>save ten, then see if i could live with myself.

Posting to answer to all of you who answered like this.

After shooting the 1 person, the terrorists pull another hostage to the firing range and say "If you don't shoot him, 9 people will die."

Where do you stop?

[FallRate 0]

Don't get taken hostage! Captors are rarely nice people.

FallRate

[reprobate 0]

I've been a hostage.

Some time ago some un-reconstructed Biafran Army soldiers turned bandit and being chased by a Nigerian Army unit grabbed some of us to try to negotiate their freedom. It ended with them taking into the bush once more in an attempt to scatter and evade.

A priest was killed and two hostages slightly wounded. The bandits, because that is what they had become, were chased, caught and later executed. I attended the execution and took photos of the execution which I still have in my bank box.

I have a bullet scar on one arm to remind me of what goes through a hostages mind.

This is truly a zero sum game. A hostage wants to stay alive. That is all he/she wants to do. There are no philisophical discourses of any kind. It is not the same as being a prisoner of war, as an Uncle was, it is short term, immeadiate and violent. And the hostage, or me anyway, is willing to do almost anything to stay alive.

A close friend was with me and if the choice had been he dies or I die I probably would have told them to take him and he would have done the same.

There was a plane hijacked and taken to Egypt where a U.S.Navy sub-mariner was beaten to death. Several oil field trash were on board and I have since met a couple of them and they all thought every moment was their last and they all were ready to do that anything to stay alive and all of them seemed to feel that fighting the terrorists was only an option if they became convinced that there was no hope for (their own) life. Which might bring up the point that had the 9/11 hijackers kept their mouths shut re their intentions it is possible Mr. Bemer, et al would not have felt so threatened as to be willing to make a last stand.

To this day I couldn't answer the question posed by skymama and I am a practicing, believing Christian and think have a correct sense of ethics.

Carl

[skymama 35]

Yes, I got your card, Drew. It's amongst a collage I have at the top of my staircase. The aviator dog was just too cute to throw away.
Bunky, you're so funny. My friend isn't weird, he's just a big thinker. It was part of a moral delimma game we were playing. It was fun, and you find out a lot about a person. This question really stuck in my head for some reason. It's been interesting reading everyone's answers.

She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man,
because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon

[jtval 0]

ok i only skimmed this post but I would say fuk it and shoot the towel headed scumbag. even if it meant all of our lives.
terrorism is a game of fear and control. I would not shoot any innocent hostage.and if I shoot one of the terrorist at least I will have a smile on my face when I am in the grave!

My photos

My Videos

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

ok i only skimmed this post but I would say fuk it and shoot the towel headed scumbag. even if it meant all of our lives.

Hmm... In her original post, skymama gave absolutely no description of any of the people in this scenario. I can't help but wonder why you assumed that the captors here are Muslim.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[jtval 0]

I must be profiling.
hahaha

but terrorists may claim to be muslim but they definitely are not followers of any religion that I have ever heard of.

My photos

My Videos

[Brisco 0]

His reason for assuming Muslim in this scenario couldn't possibly be because most terrorist acts in the past 20-odd years (yeah, yeah, I know - Tim McVeigh wasn't Muslim - just crazy) happened to be perpetrated by Muslims, could it?! As far as I'm concerned, this anti-profiling is a load of horseshit. If groups of little gray-haired old ladies had been bombing and killing for the past 20 years, you can bet your ass we'd be looking REAL hard at little gray-haired old ladies.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>but terrorists may claim to be muslim but they definitely are not followers
> of any religion that I have ever heard of.

Why? Because they kill people?

Just like the protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland aren't protestants and catholics, like the jews in Israel aren't jews, and the palestinian muslims aren't followers of islam? And in general all the christians all over the world? "Thou shall not kill"? Ring a bell? [/rant]

[jtval 0]

[replyRing a bell? [/rant]

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

His reason for assuming Muslim in this scenario couldn't possibly be because most terrorist acts in the past 20-odd years (yeah, yeah, I know - Tim McVeigh wasn't Muslim - just crazy) happened to be perpetrated by Muslims, could it?!

I think you have a pretty short memory. Perhaps you've forgotten the Irish, the Spanish, Mexican, never mind any of the 20 odd countries in South America, southeastern asia, or Africa that have been actively kidnapping, murdering, and blowing things up for political gain? Hell, Quebec had terrorist groups not that long ago.

Or, maybe you were talking about terrorist attacks directly against the US. What other events can you blame on Arabs?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

His reason for assuming Muslim in this scenario couldn't possibly be because most terrorist acts in the past 20-odd years (yeah, yeah, I know - Tim McVeigh wasn't Muslim - just crazy) happened to be perpetrated by Muslims, could it?!

Andyman makes a great point - I don't need to rehash it. I also want to point out that nowhere in the original post did skymama call the captors "terrorists." How do we know that we do not have some sort of bank robbery here, for example? There are scenarios involving hostages other than what most people would refer to as "terrorist" scenarios. Let us not forget what happens when we assume...

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All