A (in)famous Dilemma

[LeftSideDown]

I just want to throw this out there to see how your moral system deals with this issue, and I will give my moral view of the matter, but please answer how you would deal with this situation and your rationale behind it.

Situation 1: You have a gun. A man with a bomb strapped to his chest and is threatening to blow up 4 hostages, and swears that he will not if you do one thing. That one thing is shoot the man across the room, whom the "terrorist" absolutely deplores. If you shoot this one man, you save four. If you shoot the terrorist he blows up. What do you do?

Situation 2: Four different people are in a hospital in critical condition, each needing a different organ (lets just say one needs a liver, another needs a lung, another needs a heart, and the other needs a kidney). A perfectly healthy man, with all his organs, walks into the hospital for a routine checkup. Do you kill this man and harvest his organs (assuming he refuses to give up his organs voluntarily) to save 4 people who will, thereafter, lead normal lives?

My answer:

Situation 1: You have no positive obligation to rescue those 4 hostages. You do, however, have a positive obligation to not kill other people: murder is wrong. In situation 1 the hostages have in essence "Homesteaded the misery" so that it is unethical for them (even if there are more of them) to reflect their misery unto another human being. They had the misery first. Ethically, I would have to walk away to be true to my principles.

Situation 2: This situation is perhaps a more clear version of the first one, and my answer is the same: I have no right to murder anyone to save the lives of others. I have no positive obligation to save anyone, but I do have a positive obligation to not kill anyone (unless they be threatening my own life).

Just wondering what your guys responses are.

[mikelepore]

Why should any social system be associated with a particular response to an unusual moral dilemma? Systems are sets of business-as-usual procedures. Systems have to throw away the rule book when a situation is outside of the range of anticipated events.

[¿Que?]

Should've gone with Sartre's moral dilemma. You'd have gotten more responses and some sympathy. But I guess that would've gone against the grand lesson against communism this is all a set up for.

[#FF0000]

In situation 2, I think it's p. obvious that you don't just kill a guy to take his organs for no reason.

Situation 1 is tougher, but again, yeah I'd probs walk away, but tbh I'm leaning more towards shooting the one guy to save 4.

[spiltteeth]

What is a communist moral system?

Communism is an economic system dealing with how society is organized.

[LeftSideDown]

Alright you little semantic-ites, just answer the question.

[MortyMingledon]

In both situations I'd leave it up to the person who is about to be killed (the guy who the terrorist hates in situation 1, the healthy person in situation 2). I will not be the one to decide what is best for everyone involved, even if I have personal urges to do so (i.e. shoot the guy the terrorist hates). If the healthy person does not want to offer himself up for the four sick people, it is actually his moral dilemma, not mine, and the same goes for the guy the terrorist hates.

[LeftSideDown]

Thanks for responding.

[Sam Da Communist]

Funny situtations them all. who's dilemmas are they? not very dilemmaful for me. and hello MR conservative moron.

Situation 1.

That terrorist is stupid, why doesn't he just shoot him himself? wtf is the purpose of that bomb when he is after one person dead? and would he kill himself, me and 3 others just because that i dont want to kill him?

And I would ask why the fuck this terrorist wants that guy dead, if that guy was hitler for example i would gladly shoot!

Situtaiton 2

Organ transplants always and usually get defective after a couple of years, it is a waste of that individual's life, and a waste of resources to transplant and give anti-rejection drugs. And people die, shit happens, and people with genetic diseases need not to spread defective genes. Also the sick people should have medicinal means or artificial organs for survival eg, insulin, dialysis. Also organ transplants are lifestyle enhancers away from medicine and artificial things, and in addition after recovery and non rejection.

[Dean]

I just want to throw this out there to see how your moral system deals with this issue, and I will give my moral view of the matter, but please answer how you would deal with this situation and your rationale behind it.

Situation 1: You have a gun. A man with a bomb strapped to his chest and is threatening to blow up 4 hostages, and swears that he will not if you do one thing. That one thing is shoot the man across the room, whom the "terrorist" absolutely deplores. If you shoot this one man, you save four. If you shoot the terrorist he blows up. What do you do?

Situation 2: Four different people are in a hospital in critical condition, each needing a different organ (lets just say one needs a liver, another needs a lung, another needs a heart, and the other needs a kidney). A perfectly healthy man, with all his organs, walks into the hospital for a routine checkup. Do you kill this man and harvest his organs (assuming he refuses to give up his organs voluntarily) to save 4 people who will, thereafter, lead normal lives?

My answer:

Situation 1: You have no positive obligation to rescue those 4 hostages. You do, however, have a positive obligation to not kill other people: murder is wrong. In situation 1 the hostages have in essence "Homesteaded the misery" so that it is unethical for them (even if there are more of them) to reflect their misery unto another human being. They had the misery first. Ethically, I would have to walk away to be true to my principles.

Situation 2: This situation is perhaps a more clear version of the first one, and my answer is the same: I have no right to murder anyone to save the lives of others. I have no positive obligation to save anyone, but I do have a positive obligation to not kill anyone (unless they be threatening my own life).

Just wondering what your guys responses are.

I would do nothing in either case. The lives of four others do not "trump" that of the one person.

Thankfully, these kinds of hypothetical situations are irrelevant; they almost never mirror real-world situations.

[LeftSideDown]

Funny situtations them all. who's dilemmas are they? not very dilemmaful for me. and hello MR conservative moron.

Situation 1.

That terrorist is stupid, why doesn't he just shoot him himself? wtf is the purpose of that bomb when he is after one person dead? and would he kill himself, me and 3 others just because that i dont want to kill him?

And I would ask why the fuck this terrorist wants that guy dead, if that guy was hitler for example i would gladly shoot!

Situtaiton 2

Organ transplants always and usually get defective after a couple of years, it is a waste of that individual's life, and a waste of resources to transplant and give anti-rejection drugs. And people die, shit happens, and people with genetic diseases need not to spread defective genes. Also the sick people should have medicinal means or artificial organs for survival eg, insulin, dialysis. Also organ transplants are lifestyle enhancers away from medicine and artificial things, and in addition after recovery and non rejection.

I'm not saying the situations are logical, but in situation 2 I said the 4 transplant-needers would go on to lead a normal life.

[Timebomb]

To be honest i'ld walk away and try to forget.

[John_Jordan]

To one:

The "dilemma" is constructed so that doing nothing saves everybody. And so I would do nothing.


To two:

I would not kill the man.

[Dimentio]

I am shooting the man with a bomb. I cannot know if he is lying. First I turn against the man he wants me to shoot, then I turn around again swiftly and blow away three shots at him.

[Havet]

...First I turn against the man he wants me to shoot, then I turn around again swiftly and blow away three shots at him.

What are you, some sort of Call of Duty ninja master?

[#FF0000]

The first question doesn't really give enough information. What kind of gun is it? A hand gun? What kind? Is it modified? A soft-release would make it much easier to get a shot off without throwing off the aim, and thus make it far easier to shoot the guy with the bomb.

These are important details! :(

[LeftSideDown]

The first question doesn't really give enough information. What kind of gun is it? A hand gun? What kind? Is it modified? A soft-release would make it much easier to get a shot off without throwing off the aim, and thus make it far easier to shoot the guy with the bomb.

These are important details! :(

They are not important, it is the moral thought not the details that matter. I already stipulated that with the gun if you shot the terrorist he would explode and kill the four hostages. The type of gun doesn't matter.

[LeftSideDown]

I am shooting the man with a bomb. I cannot know if he is lying. First I turn against the man he wants me to shoot, then I turn around again swiftly and blow away three shots at him.

Then he explodes and kills all of the hostages. I've already stipulated that if he is shot he explodes and kills the hostage.

[Sam Da Communist]

Just like you have challenged us. Here are my moral dilemmas that challenges altruism, stranger love, sense of community in you Mr Leftsidedown.

1. You have a gun and by chance you bump into a suicidal chance to kill an extremely evil racist, violent person, this person is a genocidal war mongering maniac. you have no chance of evading capture, his body guards surround him. would you do such deed? kill such a person that has done nothing to you? you have the chance to save millions dying in war, in your nation and the others.

2. There is a business man, very rich, very selfish. He pays everyone that works for him very handsomely. this person is very ignnorant and careless. His assistants are very savage people that will do anything to protect thier master and their wealth. The poorly paid workers that greatly outnumber the management and the boss decide on action. The boss tells his assistants to stop them protesting and striking, the striking and protesting workers get attacked by the paid mercenaries (would be corrupt police, security guards). 10 people of both sides die, the workers are protesting angryily about horrible wages and gross profits and the gaurds defending the boss's property trying to restore order. Were the workers actions pointless and brutal? who is at fault?

What do you think about the christian/jewish/muslim saying of "love yourself like you love your neighbour"? Is it possible for people to perhaps love others selflessly? does one love their family selflessly?

Robin hood stole from the rich and gave it to the poor. The rich were the kings and queens and landlords. The starving poor were pretty much made poor due to the very unequal wealth devision and taxes. The poor people get executed in public by the kings men because they were moneyless and hungry, the kings men are corrupt and highly paid and respected by the king. Robin hood surprise attacked and killed the king's gaurds to steal the stuff. What do you think about this?

[LeftSideDown]

Just like you have challenged us. Here are my moral dilemmas that challenges altruism, stranger love, sense of community in you Mr Leftsidedown.

1. You have a gun and by chance you bump into a suicidal chance to kill an extremely evil racist, violent person, this person is a genocidal war mongering maniac. you have no chance of evading capture, his body guards surround him. would you do such deed? kill such a person that has done nothing to you? you have the chance to save millions dying in war, in your nation and the others.

If I'm being threatened (implied by your statement that there is no chance of me evading capture) then of course I shoot him. Self defense.




Wait, you said he pays all his workers very handsomely, so how can he have poorly paid workers underneath him? Address this problem and I will answer this dilemma as well.

[QUOTE=Sam Da Communist;1699789]What do you think about the christian/jewish/muslim saying of "love yourself like you love your neighbour"? Is it possible for people to perhaps love others selflessly? does one love their family selflessly?

I think its an interesting morality, but I don't think its applicable to most people. Most people, not unrightly, care more about themselves than their neighbors (I'm assuming immediate neighbors). If they cared for their neighbors as much as they cared for themselves, he'd split his income equally to all neighbors. It is possible to selflessly love others, particularly those you know, but its wrong to force people to "love" others by means of government taxation.


Robin hood stole from the rich and gave it to the poor. The rich were the kings and queens and landlords. The starving poor were pretty much made poor due to the very unequal wealth devision and taxes. The poor people get executed in public by the kings men because they were moneyless and hungry, the kings men are corrupt and highly paid and respected by the king. Robin hood surprise attacked and killed the king's gaurds to steal the stuff. What do you think about this?

Robin Hood is in the wrong because it is always wrong to initiate force against someone else. Non-aggression axiom.

[#FF0000]

Robin Hood is in the wrong because it is always wrong to initiate force against someone else. Non-aggression axiom.

But the king's terrible policies plunged the countryside into poverty, in the story. What can one do about that?

[Sam Da Communist]

spot on comrade lovesach


If I'm being threatened (implied by your statement that there is no chance of me evading capture) then of course I shoot him. Self defense.

no self defence needed, the evil man and the body guards consider you a sympathising stranger or a trustworthy person. I'm after your thoughts on killing a man to do good.


Wait, you said he pays all his workers very handsomely, so how can he have poorly paid workers underneath him? Address this problem and I will answer this dilemma as well.

That is reality, the few Managers and bosses other people that work against the workers get paid handsomely. perhaps they get paid just a few more dollars but recognise they dont want to lose their job, and especially they are alone and unionless people. the workers hate them managers, and managers must serve the interests of the boss. The workers are all united as one, and they are all poorly paid, or paid far less than the assistants or the boss. The boss seeks to extract profits out of all the workers, everyone hates bosses. in third world nations managers get paid good, at times people will strike and protest about wages and inform the workers union, and the manager or boss will arrange Hitmen to kill the democratic leader. eg phillipines has insane unionist deaths every year.


I think its an interesting morality, (neighbour thing) ......... taxation.

This is a metaphor for love people around you like you love yourself. It can mean a neighbouring country, or a person next to you in a train, does it not?

could there ever be someone that really didn't give a fuck about their crappy life, but felt that someone else's life was more important?

If you enter a stranger's house, do you act differently? definately not like you are home, but at a stranger's house, you must act selflessly respectful. and that person may offer generous kind hospitality in return.

How about affirmative action, eg aboriginal people australia (and minorities in india and china) get extra marks to attend Universities. that is being not equality, but over-equality and attempting to gain equality of past wrongs.

[vyborg]

In a socialist society there won't be weapons. So the situation will be easier.
In this society I think in the situations given could be useful to use your Vulcan mind merge skills to convince people not to kill anyone. Of course, provided that you learned from the Vulcan scientific academy to use this skills properly

[LeftSideDown]

In one sentence you say that they are all well paid in the next you say the workers are poorly paid: which is it?

[vyborg]

If you have workers, this is not socialism...

[RGacky3]

Unless a moral delema is likely, its a waste of time, these moral delemas are less than likely.

[LeftSideDown]

no self defence needed, the evil man and the body guards consider you a sympathising stranger or a trustworthy person. I'm after your thoughts on killing a man to do good.

So what it comes down to is moral justifiability vs morality in general. It would be morally wrong for me to initiate force against him if his actions are only going to take place in the future (assuming I have this knowledge somehow), but they may well be morally justifiable. I think in this case it is morally justifiable even though it is not moral.

That is reality, the few Managers and bosses other people that work against the workers get paid handsomely. perhaps they get paid just a few more dollars but recognise they dont want to lose their job, and especially they are alone and unionless people. the workers hate them managers, and managers must serve the interests of the boss. The workers are all united as one, and they are all poorly paid, or paid far less than the assistants or the boss. The boss seeks to extract profits out of all the workers, everyone hates bosses. in third world nations managers get paid good, at times people will strike and protest about wages and inform the workers union, and the manager or boss will arrange Hitmen to kill the democratic leader. eg phillipines has insane unionist deaths every year.




This is a metaphor for love people around you like you love yourself. It can mean a neighbouring country, or a person next to you in a train, does it not?

It might be a "good" thing to love everybody as you love yourself but not necessarily a moral thing or something you can expect all people to respect so its only real place is in that of theory.


If you enter a stranger's house, do you act differently? definately not like you are home, but at a stranger's house, you must act selflessly respectful. and that person may offer generous kind hospitality in return.

How about affirmative action, eg aboriginal people australia (and minorities in india and china) get extra marks to attend Universities. that is being not equality, but over-equality and attempting to gain equality of past wrongs.

Of course you act differently, but not because you "love him as you love yourself" but for the most part you expect something in return ( a pleasant meal, an arrangement that is solved satisfactorily, being invited back, etc etc).

If my grandfather punched your grandfather, do I have to pay you something? No, and I think if you apply this to a bigger problems we (present people) are not responsible for the actions taken by past generations (past people). You don't see Egyptians paying Jews any money for all that slavery. Its silly, if you applied it to its logical conclusion we'd all be paying everybody else for things we didn't do.