The Question.

[SickLude]

alright, this is what was given to us toward the end of the semester to discuss. its pretty sad though. also, its true. none of it is fiction.

alright, during WW2, the Nazis took over a small village in Poland with about 200 people. i dont know if thats "small", but whatever. After the village over, the commander of the army took 3 people hostage and called a "meeting" of some sorts with the army, the head of the village, the rest of the village, and the hostages. The commander lined the 3 up against a wall and handed the head of the village a rifle. this is what he said. (this is not a quote, but just a summary). "you either kill those 3 people with this rifle, or we kill the whole entire village including you". well, after a while he decided to kill the 3. he pointed the gun and fired, but nothing came out. the rifle was jammed or out of ammo, i forgot which. so the commander took the rifle, turned it around and said, "beat them to death". he couldnt do it. he watched his whole village burn. along with the inhabitants. later on in the story it says that one or two, again, i forgot which, of the people, were actually family of his. now the question is, of course, what would you do? This is the reason why i could never be head of anything, like the Prez or Dictator of any country. putting a value on existance is something i could never do.

[SickLude]

the 2nd sentence is supposed to start with "after the army took the village over..." sorry.

[DVSNCYNIKL]

I really can't answer that question. Reason one is because, well, I've never been put in that type of a situation. Secondly, my first reaction would have been to shoot the leader and at least two of his top aides. Shit, if you're going to kill us anyway, might as well go down without you.

[NismoDrifts]

Shit, i just typed like a ton of post and lost it...

anyway...

Our history teacher had a similar question about the japanese when they invaded manchuria, they take a father and son, and give them 3 options:

1. Shoot your son, and you may live.

2. Shoot yourself, but know that your son would be tortured until death.

3. Shoot any officer in the village, but know that you both would die.

He was cool, always getting to the nitty gritty fundamentals of stuff with questions like that. Anyway, i had to pick the DVSNCYNIKL route, kill the highest ranking mofo there, and go down fighting.

[fritz_269]

Classic question.

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

[YogsVR4]

I dont believe that is true. What army commander of any group would hand over a loaded weapon to someone and say - kill them. Thats plain moronic. Clearly the choices were not that limited. He could turn the gun on himself (dumb) or turn and shoot and miss the hostages. He could shoot the commander. The choices are not fixed if that were a "real" situation.

[NismoDrifts]

Hey Yogs, were you replying to my post? coz i included pretty much every option. The officers that handed over the gun were like, general grunts that were ordered to, and the people were threatened with some pretty graphic stuff....oh well, its just supposed to be for the hypothetical sense anyway, even though it was my understanding that they were real events. Did ya know the japanese buried the manchurians up to there necks and ran around crushing their heads with tanks...sick

Oh, btw, whats your avatar supposed to be? I dunno, it may just be me but the pic looks familiar, probably not, just interested

[SickLude]

Fritz, you follow utilitaranism?? (sorry if spelt that wrong). thats interesting. i know the rule about that, it weights life depending on the amount of people involved. you said it all already, so theres no need to add on. however, i think humanists would simply not answer the question. killing to a humanist is like abortion to a priest. thats something else we should discuss later. now THAT would be cool.

and yogs, that did happen. these people were basically taught to torture, by any means necessary. and making fun of, or randomly shooting someone for the fun of it were all a part of the "game" they played.

personally, i think im a humanist. i could never, as i said before, weigh the life of a human by any means. its just something i cant fathom.

[Robert XR4x4]

I'd have to agree with dvs, if they gave you a gun, try and take out as many of "them" as possible

[nubiannupe]

Originally posted by fritz_269
Classic question.

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

Kinda like what Spock said, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

[DVSNCYNIKL]

Originally posted by fritz_269
Classic question.

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

Let's dwell on this, shall we.

I admire your references to the "isms" and all. But let's talk now realistically. Let's talk about real life now. I know this is only a hypothetical situation and God forbid anyone on this forum or the world(although it's happened) ever get put in this situation.

Human behavior is such that deep down inside we are motivated by Emotion. Thus, emotion in every sense of the word dictates our motives. The reason I say this is because you also have to factor in for example, what if the 3 people chosen to be executed were for example, someone you disliked. Then maybe the person would be more susceptible to kill them based on his dislike for the person.

I based my answer on what my behavior dictates I do. To put it blunt, I look out for me. Now, if the people on that line were let's say my mother, father and brother. My love, loyalty, Gratitude for my family is above anyone else. Therefore, I know I am going to die because I won't kill them, no matter how many other people die because of it. It may sound like a foolish answer, but I believe in controlling my outcomes. That means, that as soon as that gun was put in my hand, the closest people next to me and their leader will get it.

Through time, Human beings have been emotional in everything they undertake. When they achieve success, they involve all those that they love. When faced with tragedy, we all get together and mourn or support one another. It's like no matter how "Gung-Ho" you are, you rely on emotion to a degree. Now not to say that there aren't some emotionless people out there, just that not having emotion is an emotion if you think about it. You are refusing to feel. That in itself, is denial.

So when basing a decision on possible outcomes and factoring in the honesty of the officer, you really rely on what you feel rather than what is good or best. I mean, yeah, you could kill those three and the village will live. But then what are you gonna do when the officer yells, "Destroy the village anyway!" and you're left there to watch and know that You killed the people you love and your efforts were unfruitful.

Originally posted by fritz_269

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

I know these aren't your words. But looking at them, don't you believe that by today's standards, like many things, they are outdated?

I don't believe that there is one thing today that this idea could be applied. If you get down to the guts of this idea, it's almost presumptous in insinuating that you already know and calculated the outcome. Cause as we all know, nothing ever goes according to plan.


It's good to know what we can "Ideally" do in any situation. But to be as resolute in replying can only be "unpractical" at best.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by NismoDrifts
Hey Yogs, were you replying to my post? coz i included pretty much every option. The officers that handed over the gun were like, general grunts that were ordered to, and the people were threatened with some pretty graphic stuff....oh well, its just supposed to be for the hypothetical sense anyway, even though it was my understanding that they were real events. Did ya know the japanese buried the manchurians up to there necks and ran around crushing their heads with tanks...sick

Oh, btw, whats your avatar supposed to be? I dunno, it may just be me but the pic looks familiar, probably not, just interested

The pic is ripped from a cartoon that I saw some time ago.

[fritz_269]

Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL

I know these aren't your words. But looking at them, don't you believe that by today's standards, like many things, they are outdated?

I don't believe that there is one thing today that this idea could be applied. If you get down to the guts of this idea, it's almost presumptous in insinuating that you already know and calculated the outcome. Cause as we all know, nothing ever goes according to plan.

Some random thoughts in reply:

I don't find the quote dated at all. Can you explain why you feel it is?

You make a strong point that humans are entirely motivated by their emotions, but you fail to provide any method whatsoever by which we can judge the morality of our actions. If your actions are purely ruled by emotion, what makes your morality any different from a lower animal's? At least as individuals, if not as societies, we must find a rational, objective way of judging morality - I believe that this is even a part of human nature. I personally have emotions, but I also strive to follow a moral path that is chosen rationally, and I think I would do that even if I had never read a philosophy book in my life.

Not everyone has to precisely name their philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that everone has one, whether they know it or not. And it's probably a pretty close match to one of the common philosophies espoused by one of the many "isms" coined in the last 3000 years. When you study philosophy for the first time, you generally don't get converted to some new moral code; you find a philosophy that already nearly matches your own, internal, un-named philosophy. Suddenly you exclaim, "Wow, I'm a utilitarian!". You always were, you just didn't have a name for it.

DVSNCYNIKL, from your post, I think you might find Kant fairly interesting.

You are absolutely right in that Mill's utilitarinism is teleological - it only works perfectly when the goal and process are perfectly defined. Which, as you rightly point out, never happens in real life. This, in my view, is where emotions come into play. If I have an objective goal, but a subjective world, I navigate with emotions. Simply, I just take my best guess. But this is a far cry from being ruled by emotions; my philosophy helps me identify goals and processes, and my emotions help me decide/guess which ones I have the greatest chance of sucess with. My emotions help me use my philosophy, they do not take the place of it.

The question above (true story or not, doesn't matter) is a moral conundrum - it's purpose is to point out the differences in philosophies. It's quite instructive to explore your emotions and philosophies by trying to place yourself in extrordinary circumstances. Although "I don't know" is absolutely correct, but it's solipsistic and a rather useless answer. The point of the exercise is to think about the situation.

Personally, I find the answer of "shoot the leader" very objectionable. Doing so would be virtually guaranteeing the death of yourself, the three people and the entire village, not to mention the leader. In my personal view, this is probably the worst action one could take as it almost certainly results in the most harm for the most people. Now, I understand that you were trying to be honest and I very much appreciate that - I'm not trying to put anyone down or force my morality upon you (I'm a big proponent of relativism on the Internet ) I just wanted to express my view of that action.
:smoker2:

[1989 DX R]

So, in a nutshell, the three people are fucked?

[Moppie]

Originally posted by 1989 DX R
So, in a nutshell, the three people are fucked?

If the head of the village was a untilatrian then yes.



The story is most often used as on abjection to consequentialist moral theorys, which would almost all say that killing the 3 people to save the rest of the village is the right thing to do, which is of course murder.
Its one the simplest, and also one the strongest as it appeals to our own intuitions about what murder is, and out generaly held beliefs that murder is wrong.
So the problem goes like this, The utilitarian says the head of the village should kill the 3 innocent villages so that the rest of the village maybe saved, however this goes against our intuition that murder as wrong, and so it seems wrong that he should kill the 3 villagers. This must mean that Utilitarianism is wrong.

Of course the Utilitarian can just turn around and say well no, its your intuitions that are wrong, at which point the objection simply falls apart.
(this is known as the "So what" reply, and Ill be damned if I can remember who thought it up)