What Would You Do...?

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

I would ask for Debbie's phone number ;-)

[Synonym]

If it can be established in a court of law that the Captain had made an honest, reasonable assessment of the situation, then I would not hold him guilty of any wrongdooing. Either legally or morally.

[Hunny]

I don't think this is simple. As the captain, you'd literally have to murder people, drown them. Could you really do that? Wouldn't you try arranging for them all to be able to bail water, and give it your best shot at all getting home? I think I would. I just wouldn't have what it takes to force people to their deaths. And I wouldn't know how to believe we "can't" make it otherwise. We'd soldier on and go home.

If you did it anyway, and ended up on trial for their deaths, you should expect it, but also expect a good deal of leniency, IF it can be PROVEN that the boat wouldn't have stayed afloat otherwise.

If it can't be proven, then maybe you just panicked and threw the weaker people out, which is oh so wrong.

((And shouldn't the Captain get out first? Why was he he even aboard a dangerously overcrowded lifeboat? Isn't he supposed to go down with the ship to give all others the best chance of getting out?))

[Deleted]

I agree with Hunny on this one, the Captain should never have been in that boat, he should have gone down with the ship. I believe that is also an offence , i.e abandoning your ship.

[Hunny]

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


The Secret

You've been the D.A. of your town for over a decade. Election time is a couple weeks away. You're pretty much a shoe in, because the person running against you is new and untried, and there has been a series of brutal murders in the downtown district; no one will be in the mood for taking chances now. The community is getting scared and demanding this get resolved soon.

You're at a late night secret party at an exclusive club on the 3rd floor. You go to the bathroom for a quick break, and you happen to glance out the window and see some movement down below in the alley. There's something odd about it, so you look closer. Right then a man steps into the light for just a quick moment. You see his face perfectly, and then he walks out of the alley, and on into the night. You can’t see anything else in the shadows, and put the moment out of your mind. You continue with your good time, and then go home.

You are awakened to a phone call that another murder was committed. It was in the alley next to where you were last night. You saw the person you think could be responsible. It’s the break the case needs and can stop a serial killer. However...the party you were at was for cross dressers. You make a convincing looking woman, so no one at the club knows who you are.....but you would have to explain where you were and what you were doing there. Your wife and children would be humiliated and possibly leave you. Your parents and friends, everyone you know would find out. And then there is the election. You would surely lose your job. ...or would the town be grateful to you for stopping the killer? One thing's for certain, if you don’t step up more people could die. What do you do?

[Deleted]

What do you care more about - human life or your job?

You'd have to be honest and risk your career for the better of the people.

[Hunny]

It wouldn't just be your job. It'd be your family and friends and everything. Your life. So do you throw your life away, when for all you know they could catch the guy the next day without your help anyway?

It's easy to pick the noble choice, when it's just imaginary. But what if your life really was going to be lost, as such? I bet 99.9 out of 100 would stay shut up about it, if they were really in this situation.

Also being the D.A., he'd have the means to go match the face with a suspect and then provide an anonymous tip. I'd do that.

[sadie1263]

Also.......was the person you saw really the killer.....or just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time..........you might throw it all away for nothing.......but then.....what if you don't do anything and the next murder isn't some unknown person.....but a friend or a loved one?

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2012 12:39:29 GMT Hunny said:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


The Secret

You've been the D.A. of your town for over a decade. Election time is a couple weeks away. You're pretty much a shoe in, because the person running against you is new and untried, and there has been a series of brutal murders in the downtown district; no one will be in the mood for taking chances now. The community is getting scared and demanding this get resolved soon.

You're at a late night secret party at an exclusive club on the 3rd floor. You go to the bathroom for a quick break, and you happen to glance out the window and see some movement down below in the alley. There's something odd about it, so you look closer. Right then a man steps into the light for just a quick moment. You see his face perfectly, and then he walks out of the alley, and on into the night. You can’t see anything else in the shadows, and put the moment out of your mind. You continue with your good time, and then go home.

You are awakened to a phone call that another murder was committed. It was in the alley next to where you were last night. You saw the person you think could be responsible. It’s the break the case needs and can stop a serial killer. However...the party you were at was for cross dressers. You make a convincing looking woman, so no one at the club knows who you are.....but you would have to explain where you were and what you were doing there. Your wife and children would be humiliated and possibly leave you. Your parents and friends, everyone you know would find out. And then there is the election. You would surely lose your job. ...or would the town be grateful to you for stopping the killer? One thing's for certain, if you don’t step up more people could die. What do you do?

I would think about pretending I was somewhere else nearby, somewhere other than at the party. But a moment's reflection tells me that would be unlikely to stand up to close scrutiny.

So I'd probably leave it for a bit and hope the police arrest someone - and that the someone is the man I saw.

[sadie1263]

What about sending a letter (no fingerprints) and explaining what you saw and just saw "I can't come forward personally"..........

[Hunny]

Nov 27, 2012 15:33:34 GMT sadie1263 said:

What about sending a letter (no fingerprints) and explaining what you saw and just saw "I can't come forward personally"..........

Yea, but what if they need him as a witness?

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2012 15:33:34 GMT sadie1263 said:

What about sending a letter (no fingerprints) and explaining what you saw and just saw "I can't come forward personally"..........

Well yes, in Britain we have Crimestoppers, which people can call anonymously. But if they don't have a name, this will be a little more difficult; the witness might have to go to the police station to do one of those identikit pictures. If someone is arrested they might have to do an identification parade. Given my job, what I was doing is bound to leak out.

[sadie1263]

I think I would probably try the Crimestoppers route first.........but I'm not sure I could deal with the death of another person if I believed I could have done something........since the person is the D.A. seems like they could write up something with all the details that a sketch artist would ask......

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


I hope this isn't too nasty a subject.
I was just surprised by my own answer.

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

[Hunny]

I would not pull the chair from underneath him.
I would stab the guard in the eyes with my fingers as hard as I could,
knee him in the balls and strangle him, hopefully till he was dead.
I expect though I'd get shot first.
But maybe they'd forget about killing the second inmate.
And the guard would now be blind.

[Deleted]

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.

[Synonym]

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.

[Deleted]

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).

[Deleted]

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 ;-(

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


The Mad Bomber

A 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?

[Deleted]

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!)

[Hunny]

Dec 10, 2012 14:28:12 GMT @donna said:

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.

[mikemarshall]

Dec 10, 2012 15:34:54 GMT Hunny said:

Dec 10, 2012 14:28:12 GMT @donna said:

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Trapped




A 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?