Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

If you had to choose between your life and the life of a stranger

Rate this topic


Summer

Recommended Posts

If you were kidnapped and given the options to either (one) kill a stranger who is also being held hostage, one who has done absolutely nothing to you, who has not first initiated violence, etc. by which case, you will be released... or (two) kill yourself so that the stranger may be released... or (three) refuse to act and the kidnapper will finish you both rather brutally... how would you respond? Explain why.

I have heard it said that "morality ends where the gun begins". Under threat of your life, what do you do?

Note: for whatever reason you know indefinitely that you will be released should you kill him and the same for him if you kill yourself. Of course, in this sort of situation the kidnapper is likely to go against his word... But let's just pretend that these are absolutes. Also, try not to pick a fourth option, ie: "I would fight back". Act as though the above three are your only choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You are right about the morality of this scenario. Nobody can say what the proper course of action is because of the imposition of force someone will die no matter what and all responsibility, no mater what choice, falls on the aggressor imposing the scenario. Either of those choices would be subjectively correct, but choice three is rather interesting. If refusing to act will assuredly result in both you and the other hostage's death, then I think perhaps option two would be preferable to that.

As far as what I would do, for me it depends on if I know anything about the stranger. But seeing as how you said "stranger," you probably mean that I know absolutely nothing about who it is that the aggressor will kill. So, because of that I will choose number 2: tell the aggressor to kill me and allow the stranger to go.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can kill a hostage, why can't I kill the kidnapper?

I remember in Batman, one ship had to choose whether to blow up the other before the timer ran out. I would have jumped overboard.

Well if you want to get into specifics, he has you locked in a room without windows or doors within your reach and a ventilation shaft far above you (also too high and small to escape through). The stranger is in the room with you, as are the weapons (or whatever you would kill him with). If you refuse to act, the killer will release knock-out gas into the room through the ventilation, come in via some hidden door and strap you both up while unconscious before committing the murders. >_>

Better? My point is: There is no fourth option. Please choose of the three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, my answer is: Who cares?

...Clearly I care if I asked. If you do not wish to respond, that's perfectly fine. But there's no reason to post with intentions of not answering my question. You could have just as easily passed this topic by.

Edited by Summer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm just saying that's pretty much going to be the position of an experienced Objectivist. They would say morality is for living your life, and deliberating over ideas like this is a waste of time.

Why do you care?

It's okay. I am just curious as to their reactions under these circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they would evaluate this circumstance and say "Morality is for living my life and achieving happiness." This is a lifeboat situation irrelevant to living my life long term. I say this myself, being an Objectivist as well.

May I ask again, why you are interested?

Because as I said before about morality ending where the gun begins, I wondered from the Objectivist perspective if it would be "moral" to kill in such a scenario.

Why does anyone ask questions? For answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, maybe you can be a little more helpful and tell me your motivation for seeking those answers.

I enjoy knowledge.

You are making this out to be a far greater deal than need be. Honestly, I think it's taken more time for you to continue bugging me over my query and motives than to have answered. I was curious: Thus, I asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as I said before about morality ending where the gun begins, I wondered from the Objectivist perspective if it would be "moral" to kill in such a scenario.

Why does anyone ask questions? For answers.

Well, you aren't the one killing someone. You are under threat of execution from an attacker. If the attacker forces you to kill someone, then he is killing the person and he is the one acting immorally, not you, even if you choose option number 1. It is no different than if he put a gun in your hand and grabbed your hand and made you shoot someone. You couldn't possibly be responsible for that.

Imo ex_banana-eater is being unnecessarily rude.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you aren't the one killing someone. You are under threat of execution from an attacker. If the attacker forces you to kill someone, then he is killing the person and he is the one acting immorally, not you, even if you choose option number 1. It is no different than if he put a gun in your hand and grabbed your hand and made you shoot someone. You couldn't possibly be responsible for that.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy knowledge.

You are making this out to be a far greater deal than need be. Honestly, I think it's taken more time for you to continue bugging me over my query and motives than to have answered. I was curious: Thus, I asked.

Why are you curious? It has nothing to do with your life or morality. And I've already provided you the Objectivist perspective.

Why does his reply deserve a thank you? You challenged me to answer with only one of your solutions, yet he didn't.

Edited by ex_banana-eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you curious? It has nothing to do with your life or morality. And I've already provided you the Objectivist perspective.

You really don't know when to stop. This is the last post from you over this matter that I will respond to because frankly, you are starting to annoy me.

I enjoy knowledge. I like knowing these things. I prefer to have an understanding of various scenarios and the individual responses are helpful in psychological evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does his reply deserve a thank you? You challenged me to answer with only one of your solutions, yet he didn't.

He did, actually, and was very helpful.

refusing to act will assuredly result in both you and the other hostage's death, then I think perhaps option two would be preferable to that
After which, he proceeded to explain why the first option would also be acceptable:
Well, you aren't the one killing someone. You are under threat of execution from an attacker. If the attacker forces you to kill someone, then he is killing the person and he is the one acting immorally, not you, even if you choose option number 1. It is no different than if he put a gun in your hand and grabbed your hand and made you shoot someone. You couldn't possibly be responsible for that.

But like I said, I am done responding to you. I still can't fathom why you bothered posting here if you were going to evade the original question. Like 2046 said: Unnecessarily rude.

[Edited to put in quotes]

Edited by Summer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd most likely choose option 1 as well. I want to survive. This kidnapper has put me into a situation where I am forced to do so.

I think the reason other member(s) are becoming antsy is because they believe you're going to use anyone who chooses option 1 as an example of Objectivism being evil.

When 2046 answered, calmly, option 1, did you say thank you because they cooperated and answered, or because you got the response you wanted?

Edited by Amaroq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd most likely choose option 1 as well. I want to survive. This kidnapper has put me into a situation where I am forced to do so.

I think the reason other member(s) are becoming antsy is because they believe you're going to use anyone who chooses option 1 as an example of Objectivism being evil.

When 2046 answered, calmly, option 1, did you say thank you because they cooperated and answered, or because you got the response you wanted?

I don't think Objectivism is evil at all so you've nothing to worry about in that. I actually support it but am still trying to understand bits (hence asking questions). I thanked him for providing an answer and a reasonable explanation for selecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason other member(s) are becoming antsy is because they believe you're going to use anyone who chooses option 1 as an example of Objectivism being evil.

When 2046 answered, calmly, option 1, did you say thank you because they cooperated and answered, or because you got the response you wanted?

That is an unreasoned assumption. There is nothing wrong with asking about the nature of morality in lifeboat scenarios and there was nothing accusational in the question, implicitly or otherwise. The person just most likely wants to know about the subject.

The reason he thanked me is probably because I wasn't being a dick.

Edit:

Summer: if you listen to the question and answer segment from Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum speech "Of Living Death" she talks about lifeboat scenarios and they discuss a court case from England in which the jury is unable to decide (which Rand agreed with) but the judge comes to the conclusion that there is a "higher moral obligation" to sacrifice your life (needless to say, Rand disagreed.) She states that if it were her life, she would be unable to cause someone else to die, but if it were her husband's life, for example, she would choose him over ten other hostages, if necessary.

http://atlasshrugged.com/ayn-rand-works/ar...ving-death.html

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality does not apply in this situation at all. Morality is for living your everyday life, not for coming up with wild improbable situations and seeing how someone would handle it.

That's precisely what's meant by "Morality ends where a gun begins." When one is forcibly prevented from acting on one's moral judgement, then morality leaves the equation altogether.

Look up "Lifeboat" on this forum, and you'll see all kinds of threads about this topic. Hence the supposed rudeness - it's frustrating answering the same questions over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's precisely what's meant by "Morality ends where a gun begins." When one is forcibly prevented from acting on one's moral judgement, then morality leaves the equation altogether.

Thank you.

And actually, I could find myself in a situation like this... Obviously not to the exact details I had to put in given Banana's first response but it is possible there could be an instance where I'd have to choose in between ending someone else's life, ending my own or refusing to decide. Now I won't deny that it is unlikely, but I wanted to know all the same.

If it were annoying, you could have skipped over it. I feel like I am repeating myself all over again. I did not force anyone to respond, it was open to those who wished to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Objectivist perspective in this situation.

Actually there is and I'm surprised no one noted it. Drawing from Rand's 1963 "Ethics of Emergencies" article:

Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics. In the case of the altruist ethics, it is a "malevolent universe": that man is helpless and doomed... that emergencies, disasters, catastrophies are the norm and his primary goal is to combat them. Thus they tend to offer "lifeboat" situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct.

But that is not the norm for man and lifeboats are not the place on which to base one's metaphysics. And that is not how to define one's morality.

When Objectivism says that the moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness, that does not mean that he is indifferent to other men has no reason to help them in an emergency. It does mean that he does not sacrifice himself to the needs of others. Any help he would give would be an exception, not a rule; an act of generosity, not of moral duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is not the norm for man and lifeboats are not the place on which to base one's metaphysics. And that is not how to define one's morality.

I understand.

When Objectivism says that the moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness, that does not mean that he is indifferent to other men has no reason to help them in an emergency. It does mean that he does not sacrifice himself to the needs of others. Any help he would give would be an exception, not a rule; an act of generosity, not of moral duty.

I was quite aware of this but thank you for calling attention to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...