|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2012 13:59:26 GMT
Nice idea, Hunny, but I'm assuming that I'm not in a position to do anything like that, or even commit suicide, which might be another way out. This is almost a "Sophie's Choice" scenario, isn't it? I doubt if I could kill my own son.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Dec 3, 2012 20:28:52 GMT
I would conclude that my son is dead anyway and so it is a choice between either just him, or him and others, and the 'best' option is to pull the chair. Whether my rational reasoning would beat emotion if ever in such a situation, I cannot say, but intellectually I believe that the right thing to do is do it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 1:39:01 GMT
I couldn't pull the chair. I like Hunnys answer. I'd die anyway, but I'd like to grab the the guards rifle and kill as many guards as I could before I'm shot down. (If I get the chance).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 11:54:15 GMT
I would not kill my son, I would not trust the guard he is probably full of BS , you could end up killing your son and he doesn't kill another inmate for example.
God, what a thing to think about ;-(
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 10, 2012 14:12:01 GMT
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What Would You Do...?
Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The Mad BomberA madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2012 14:28:12 GMT
If I got the setting right they've got the bomber in custody.
So why would they torture his wife rather than him?
(Anyway this is one of those hypotheticsals that never happens in real life thankk godoness. If it ever did I honestly dont know what I'd do!)
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 10, 2012 15:34:54 GMT
If I got the setting right they've got the bomber in custody. So why would they torture his wife rather than him? (Anyway this is one of those hypotheticals that never happens in real life thank goodness. If it ever did I honestly don't know what I'd do!) Well, the United States started torturing prisoners after 9-11 because it claims terrorism means they "have to" make an exception since so many lives are at stake. The P.M. of Canada was saying they need to legalize torture too, for the same reasons of defense. I think it's all nonsense, but ...with the case of the bomber here, it would probably work to torture him - so the question is do you do something wrong, to create a right result? Well, our whole criminal justice system is based on the notion that two wrongs make a right, on treating people abusively as revenge, so it seems a natural conclusion for the US to have made about torture. I mean, even just putting people in cages to sit their life out IS torturing them. so..where is the line if any exists at all!? I would say torture the bomber, because in this case it makes sense, but the problem is in all cases it could "make sense"...so no, don't torture him. If it's wrong, it's wrong. We have a policy about not giving into terrorist demands even if it means they will harm people if we don't. We have this policy because if we didn't, anyone and everyone could make a threat and force us to do whatever thing they want. So there is precedent for letting people get harmed, to protect the greater good. ...So I suggest we need a line drawn here, no torture under any circumstances, so that it remains 'wrong'. And no exceptions. As to the bombs, offer the bomber a very short sentence if he helps. And once he's helped, renig on the promise. Screw him. I didnt say we couldnt lie to a criminal.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Dec 10, 2012 23:34:39 GMT
If I got the setting right they've got the bomber in custody. So why would they torture his wife rather than him? (Anyway this is one of those hypotheticals that never happens in real life thank goodness. If it ever did I honestly don't know what I'd do!) Well, the United States started torturing prisoners after 9-11 because it claims terrorism means they "have to" make an exception since so many lives are at stake. The P.M. of Canada was saying they need to legalize torture too, for the same reasons of defense. I think it's all nonsense, but ...with the case of the bomber here, it would probably work to torture him - so the question is do you do something wrong, to create a right result? Well, our whole criminal justice system is based on the notion that two wrongs make a right, on treating people abusively as revenge, so it seems a natural conclusion for the US to have made about torture. I mean, even just putting people in cages to sit their life out IS torturing them. so..where is the line if any exists at all!? I would say torture the bomber, because in this case it makes sense, but the problem is in all cases it could "make sense"...so no, don't torture him. If it's wrong, it's wrong. We have a policy about not giving into terrorist demands even if it means they will harm people if we don't. We have this policy because if we didn't, anyone and everyone could make a threat and force us to do whatever thing they want. So there is precedent for letting people get harmed, to protect the greater good. ...So I suggest we need a line drawn here, no torture under any circumstances, so that it remains 'wrong'. And no exceptions. As to the bombs, offer the bomber a very short sentence if he helps. And once he's helped, renig on the promise. Screw him. I didnt say we couldnt lie to a criminal. Hunny, I am not sure how you believe that any form of organised society - to put it no stronger - is supposed to deal with issues of this kind. Malatesta was the only anarchist thinker I know who genuinely took the time to address the problems of crime and punishment in a free society. His conclusion was that an anarchist society did not mean that anyone could do whatever they wished regardless of consequences and that some kind of system of rewards and punishments was necessary even in a libertarian order of things. He even defended the death penalty in certain cases. I do not entirely concur with his suggested solutions but broadly I agree with his analysis. Even though I am opposed to capital punishment I find the argument put forward by some antis that execution and murder are morally equivalent acts to be one that I simply cannot agree with. As for torture I am cynical enough to admit that there might be times when its use was the lesser of two evils although as a believer in situation ethics I do not believe it should ever be the norm. But to suggest that execution, war or torture do not possess degrees of frightfulness and that there is no valid comparison between the appalling atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and similar stains on the human race and the behaviour of, say, Bomber Harris is to demean morality and make it nothing more than an exposition of an essentially hippified view of the world (which is in essence little more than a solipsist one). I was in my teens when I discovered exactly how dishonest and narcissistic hippies were and how nefarious the influence they have had upon the world was and continues to be. With all its faults punk (and I was a punk in my teens) had a brutal if generally simplistic honesty about it that sets it infinitely above the incessant navel gazing of the hippie tribe. So on the particular issue I say again: context, situation, motivation, intention are all fundamental. I am happy to defend, for instance, assassination as a weapon to remove tyrants from power. In the same way I am willing to concede that in certain sets of circumstances torture may be the least of a choice of evils.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 13:01:11 GMT
I would torture him ,I'd force him to watch some trashy reality show ,the Real Housewives of New York City springs to mind, he'd be begging for mercy inside 30 minutes .
I wouldn't torture his wife, for one she is innocent ( on these facts) and for another anyone who is prepared to blow up innocent people probably doesn't give a damn about his wife anyway so torturing her won't make any difference.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 17, 2012 14:33:49 GMT
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What Would You Do...?Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// TrappedA pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless she is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the woman, whose head is out of the cave. Fortunately, (or unfortunately,) someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Dec 17, 2012 16:54:18 GMT
I think it could be justified to use the dynamite as she )or the baby) is threatening their lives.
If it is justifiable for a pregnant woman to terminate to save her own life then why cannot others when that foetus is threatening theirs by blocking the exit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 18:36:02 GMT
The woman should really have known better than to get stuck; as the leader, she is responsible for the welfare of the group. Presumably some strong guys have already taken hold of her legs and given her a good tug? OK, then, the dynamite it is.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 17, 2012 19:06:37 GMT
Wow.....that's a tough one. I would think that using the dynamite would be the only answer.......I'm just not sure I could light the fuse.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 19:51:09 GMT
There would be alternative ways of getting her out of there, they could use something for lubrication to slide her out? the mind boggles, well mine does!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 20:07:37 GMT
My mind was boggling too - on the lines of "reduce the bulk". But in the absence of a qualified gynaecologist, and with the water rushing in.......
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 17, 2012 20:36:58 GMT
I say, since there's a whole 'group' of people, they need to grab onto her legs and pull her back in even if they have to hurt her severely, get it done! Then the group can leave and she can get back in the opening.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Dec 17, 2012 22:26:01 GMT
I think the purposes of questions such as these are to test moral intuitions in specific circumstances where it is either death of two or the death of the many, or some other restricted set of choices.
We should assume for them that all other possibilities have been exhausted or there is no time. After all, you could reason that they could pull, or you could posit that Batman turns up to save the day, but this will not tell us anything about your moral intuitions in the specific circumstance of two versus many and you can either act to kill two or do nothing and all die, and you have to decide one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 17, 2012 22:59:37 GMT
Ah. Well then we must blow her up!
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Dec 31, 2012 10:28:42 GMT
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What Would You Do...?Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Drug BustYou are on holiday in Bali with your 18 year old son and wife/husband. You have been there for a week and are ready to head home. All three of you are at the airport getting ready to board your plane, when an armed officer comes around with a sniffer dog. You have all your bags on a trolley, and the dog sniffs at both your wife/husband and your bag, and passes over it, however when he gets to your sons bag, he begins to get a bit more active. You look over at your son and he’s looking a little nervous. You know he’s smoked a little marijuana in his time, but generally, he’s a good kid, and you certainly didn’t think he’d actually be stupid enough to bring it back on the plane with him. At first you feel angry that he would do such a thing and start planning your responsibility lecture, but then you realize that you are in Bali, and they have a zero tolerance policy on drugs, meaning your son could be jailed for life, or worse, executed, if he does have some illicit materials in his bag. You look at your wife/husband and realize she has come to the same conclusion and has gone pale with fear. The armed officer accompanying the dog is beginning to look more stern with every sniff the dog takes and looks directly at you and asks you to open to the bag. You do, and as the officer begins to take things out of the bag, you see to your horror that there is a small quantity of marijuana stashed in with your sons belongings. The officer looks at you and asks “Who’s bag is this?” You realize you have to answer, but the answer won’t be easy. You see your wife/husband in the corner of your eye, and (s)he is about to step forward and claim it as their own; what do you say?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 15:00:46 GMT
easy,let the husband take the rap!
|
|