Which one of these men will you kill...if either?

by Terry 112 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • whereami
    whereami

    Terry this has been done before. You might like this: http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5

    THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

    If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

    This is also a very good one that's also in the link provided:

    PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

    Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian logic under the name of “cost-benefit analysis.” Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Hard to say, but, my strongest possible guess is this: if I witnessed somebody doing something violent to one of my daughters I don't think
    I would have it in me NOT TO do violence to them instantly. I can't imagine being able to restrain myself.
    That same "instinct", however, doesn't seem to be there when only I am involved in the threat.
    Peculiar at the very least....

    I don't doubt it for a minute, having two little girls myself.

    And I don't doubt that you wouldn't hesitiate in sacrificing yourself for them either.

    And it has nothing to do with that " propegating the species' and "ensuring the surivial of the genes in the gene pool".

  • NeckBeard
    NeckBeard

    Refusing to be inducted into the Military, facing the draft board, being questioned by the F.B.I. and standing before a District Judge and then spending
    time in County Jail and entering Federal Prison took a certain amount of personal fortitude, wouldn't you say? It wasn't heroic, certainly. I did what I did at the time because I believed I was doing the "right" thing (as I understood "right").

    That's cult brainwash. Lemmings running off a cliff aren't courageous either.

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    There certainly are various actions one can take given the variation of situations and circumstances.

    The moral of the story is don't kill, unless your certain afterward that you were morally justified to take that action.

    I made the choice to not kill either of the men because if I chosen the Doctor then I would have made myself an

    actual murderer of innocence making myself a probable accomplice to the murdering by the serial killer.

    Wouldn't be appropriate to kill the person who set up this die or die not arrangement, well thats what usually happens in the movies.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Twitch

    Thanks for the answer; it makes sense and is reasonable as I had hoped. My presumption was a bit of bait in that I tried to mimic Terry's conundrum in a real life situation with the stipulation that one wouldn't have time or the option of waiting for backup and had to make a life or death decision immediately. I realize that police have to resort to deadly force at times, thus my reason for asking. Tough job I'm sure.

    I understood what you and Terry were trying to do, and I wouldn't call anyone names, for trying to be creative with there solutions, which is the whole idea.

    After hearing Terry's story about what happened to him. I can start understand what he was getting at in his test. He's right, most people NEVER think about these issues. Until I started getting into law enforcement, I know I hadn't completely thought it through. Thinking about this is a good idea. If you make up your mind what the right thing to do is now, you can train/plan to respond when the time comes.

    I would disagree with P Sac's statement (but, I think I know what he means):

    "Never, ever, have the notion that killing is 'easy" or that it can be "justified" and that, somehow, that makes it bareable."

    I think some killing is "justified" and so does the law in most countries. In short a police officer (and most everyone else in most cases) is "justified" in using DEADLY FORCE to protect his own life, or that of another.

    I know we are all "wired" differently, in how we think and act. If there is a lesson to learn hear it is: "What does a DEADLY FORCE situation look like?" Most police officers have about one or two seconds to decide in many, if not most cases.

    Terry

    Hard to say, but, my strongest possible guess is this: if I witnessed somebody doing something violent to one of my daughters I don't think

    I would have it in me NOT TO do violence to them instantly. I can't imagine being able to restrain myself.

    That same "instinct", however, doesn't seem to be there when only I am involved in the threat.

    I hear you! That was hard for me to get over as well. What openned my eyes, is when I started to think about how I would be able to protect those around me. If I'm dead, I'm not much good or help to my partner or my family.

    I often recommend to people to take some classes if possible, on personal protection and deadly force.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    whereami

    THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

    There is no moral side to MURDER, it's always wrong.

    However all killing is NOT MURDER.

  • whereami
    whereami

    ^^^Deputy dog, I was quoting from the link I posted from the Harvard Law School web site. They have an excellent study/lecture on this exact subject.

    Did you click the link I provided to see what it's about? I'm sure you'll find it facinating. I know I did. Made me think long and hard on the subject.

    Hope you enjoy it. Get back to us with your comments on it.

  • Terry
    Terry

    That's cult brainwash. Lemmings running off a cliff aren't courageous either.

    The idea that Lemmings run off a cliff is bogus. An old Disney documentary faked the footage of that happening and the rest is urban myth.

    So, Walt Disney fooled you and you are repeating it. Were you brainwashed?

    News in Science

    Lemmings Suicide Myth

    The notion that lemmings, overcome by deep-rooted impulses, deliberately run over a cliff in their millions came not from a biologist, but from that other animal behaviourist - Walt Disney.

    By Karl S. Kruszelnicki

    One myth deeply entrenched in our language is that of the "Lemming Suicide Plunge" - where lemmings, apparently overcome by deep-rooted impulses, deliberately run over a cliff in their millions, to be dashed to their deaths on the rocks below, or to drown in the raging ocean. Indeed, this myth is now a metaphor for the behaviour of crowds of people who foolishly follow each other, lemming-like, regardless of the consequences. This particular myth began with a Disney movie.

    Lemmings belong to the rodents. Rodents have been around for about 57 million years. Today, about half of all the individuals mammals on Earth are rodents. There are four genera of lemmings - Collared Lemmings, "True" Lemmings, Wood or Red-Backed Lemmings and Bog Lemmings. They are found in the cooler northern parts of Eurasia and North America. The True Lemming is about 10 cm long, with short legs and tail.

    Many of the rodents have strange population explosions. One such event in the Central Valley of California in 1926-27 had mouse populations reaching around 200,000 per hectare (about 20 mice per square metre). In France between 1790 and 1935, there were at least 20 mouse plagues. But lemmings have the most regular fluctuations - these population explosions happen every three or four years. The numbers rocket up, and then drop almost to extinction. Even after three-quarters of a century of intensive research, we don't fully understand why their populations fluctuate so much. Various factors (change in food availability, climate, density of predators, stress of overcrowding, infectious diseases, snow conditions, sunspots, etc) have all been put forward, but none completely explain what is going on.

    Back in the 1530s, the geographer Zeigler of Strasbourg, tried to explain these variations in populations by saying that lemmings fell out of the sky in stormy weather, and then suffered mass extinctions with the sprouting of the grasses of spring. Back in the 19th century, the Naturalist Edward Nelson wrote that "the Norton Sound Eskimo have an odd superstition that the White Lemming lives in the land beyond the stars and that it sometimes comes down to the earth, descending in a spiral course during snow-storms." But none of the Intuit stories mention the "suicide leaps off cliffs".

    When these population explosions happen, the lemming migrate away from the denser centres. The migrations begin slowly and erratically, with an evolution from small numbers moving at night, to larger groups in the daytime. The most dramatic movements happen with the True Lemmings (also called the Norway Lemming). Even so, they do not form a continuous mass, but instead travel in groups with gaps of 10 minutes or more between them. They tend to follow roads and paths. Lemmings avoid water, and will usually scout around for a land crossing. But if they have to, they will swim. Their swimming ability is such that they can cross a 200 metre body of water on a calm night, but most will drown in a windy night.

    So lemmings do have their regular wild fluctuations in population - and when the numbers are high, the lemmings do migrate.

    The myth of mass lemming suicide began when the Walt Disney movie, Wild Wilderness was released in 1958. It was filmed in Alberta, Canada, far from the sea and not a native home to lemmings. So the filmmakers imported lemmings, by buying them from Inuit children. The migration sequence was filmed by placing the lemmings on a spinning turntable that was covered with snow, and then shooting it from many different angles. The cliff-death-plunge sequence was done by herding the lemmings over a small cliff into a river. It's easy to understand why the filmmakers did this - wild animals are notoriously uncooperative, and a migration-of-doom followed by a cliff-of-death sequence is far more dramatic to show than the lemmings' self-implemented population-density management plan.

    So lemmings do not commit mass suicide. Indeed, animals live to thrive and survive. Consider a company like Disney, where one rodent, namely Mickey Mouse, was Royalty. It's rather odd to think that Disney could be so unkind to another rodent, the lemming...

  • tec
    tec

    Just because Terry didn't fight does not make him a coward. Nor anyone else for that matter. Christ is not a coward. I do not believe Ghandi could be called a coward. Pacifists are not cowards either. (at least not from the act of pacifism) If you are not a violent person, if in fact, everything in you speaks against violence, then I can understand how you would not react violently, even in self defense. It just wouldn't be in you. But that is not the same thing as cowardice.

    Tammy

    (Shelby - oh yes, a definite trekkie with you. One day I would love to make it to a trekkie convention, just to be a total sci-fi geek :). I think I loved Spock and Kirk equally, and oh yeah, loved the Uhura/Spock match in the new movie. But I grew up more with The Next Generation. Worf, Data (since the Tasha Yar incident), and Picard are my favorites.)

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    People throw the word coward and cowardice around far too easily.

    True strength and bravery is sticking to what you believe to be right, regardless of the consequences.

    Of course, there are good and bad aspects to that, as there are to everything we do.

    Bravery and stupidity sometimes are indistingushible.

    Bravery is facing up to our fears, whatever they may be, and overcoming them.

    Fighting back because society expects it is being a sheep, not being brave.

    Fighting back to protect ourselves is self-preservation, again, something expected.

    We should be very careful in using the words brave and hero and coward and so forth.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit