Moral Dilemma Questions

[Frozenwolf150]

You've all heard them before. These are scruples questions designed to make you think about where you stand on moral issues. Keep in mind that these questions are completely hypothetical, with some being more far-fetched than others. I'm aware that nearly all of these questions contain logical loopholes, but I won't object if you want to bring those up.

As a reminder, I don't believe in anything supernatural. Please do not mistake any of these questions, or their responses, for violent fantasies or statements of intent. I'm not trying to incite prejudices against anyone based on what they say here.


I'll start off with one that is based on my having recently watched the anime series Death Note. Let's suppose you were to find yourself in possession of the supernatural power to kill people from afar simply by knowing their name and what they look like. This power is completely untraceable, so there's little chance of your getting caught if you use it. What would you do with this power, if anything at all, and why? Would you take out a few serial killers? Would you use it to eliminate oppressive world dictators? Would you get revenge on your personal enemies? Or would you turn the power over to someone else, or otherwise give it up entirely?

Before you answer, think carefully. Suppose you say you'd kill the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. That might seem like a good idea at first, but there are other factors to take into account. First, what's to stop president Bush for taking credit for it, and using the fact of Bin Laden's death to further justify his failed policies in Iraq? Secondly, in a group like Al-Qaeda, there are likely 100 men lined up waiting to take Bin Laden's place. Third, if Bin Laden were to die, it's practically guaranteed that he'd be made a martyr to his cause.


So what would you do?

 

[Hokulele]

It would depend on how difficult it is to use this power. For example, if I simply think of the person in a certain way and they are dead, I would give it up instantly (for pretty much the same reason we keep all of our guns unloaded and broken down in the house). If it is something that takes a little more effort, say, deciding they need to be dead for at least an hour every day for two weeks, I would keep it and I would go after someone like Osama bin Laden. Even if Shrub takes credit for it, he is out of office in a matter of months anyway. Even if there are others to take OBL's place, I don't think they will be as effective. IMHO, bin Laden is guaranteed to cause innocent deaths if left alive. In other words, the price is worth the cost.

 

[Nogbad]

My daughter is fan of this thing and has several of the books the L character goes mad in the end if I recall correctly non?

From what I can gather it is morality tale of sorts (all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). I liked the chap who was keen apples though.

A gift I think best returned to from whence it came.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Before you answer, think carefully.

Ok, that part was hard....(I generally just think)

So what would you do?

I'd take the power and run with it.

Soon I would be king, god, and whatever else I decided you (if I let you live) should call me.

The world would be mine, all mine....but I would imagine someone would get wise to my plan, and just shoot me?

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Everyone should read this paper.

If you had the power to bring OBL back to life if you found out someone used the previous super power to kill him, would you do so if someone had just killed him a few seconds ago?

 

[dacium2007]

I'd pass the power to christopher hitchens, that guys knows whos naughty and nice

 

[Dogmeat]

I'd give it up, I have no right to take anyone's life and neither does anyone else, no matter how depraved the target.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

In the "Death Note" anime, the requirements for killing someone are that you have to know their full name, and you have to know what they look like. The notebook was essentially the "perfect weapon" that Sam Harris describes in his chapter on ethics, in that it's something that can target an individual without harming innocent bystanders or causing collateral damage. It would be an effective and untraceable way to kill someone, but again, the question is how do you decide who deserves to die?

I would point out that technically, we all have the power to take the life of another human being if we choose to, for whatever reason. Would it be justified in self-defense, or in the defense of others? What about using it for personal gain? Is there the risk of becoming addicted and drunk on this power? After all, you could eliminate individuals you deem evil or dangerous, but suppose there comes the point where you start running out of victims. Where do you stop or draw the line?

Now imagine that someone like George W. Bush had this power. How do you think he would use it? Imagine that someone like Osama bin Laden had this power. What would he do with it? Is there a difference between what motivates these two men?

My daughter is fan of this thing and has several of the books the L character goes mad in the end if I recall correctly non?

From what I can gather it is morality tale of sorts (all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). I liked the chap who was keen apples though.

A gift I think best returned to from whence it came.

You'd have to watch it to find out. I don't really want to spoil anything. I think you may be confusing L for Light though. They're two very different characters, and in fact most of the first arc focuses on their intense rivalry.

 

[kinkymagic]

Actually I've always been curious as to what would happen if a co-joined twin commited murder, any thoughts?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Before you answer, think carefully. Suppose you say you'd kill the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. That might seem like a good idea at first, but there are other factors to take into account. First, what's to stop president Bush for taking credit for it...

The fact that I know his name.

 

[six7s]

What would you do with this power, if anything at all, and why?

First of all, I'd try to think and identify the effect of exercising such a power

Would you take out a few serial killers?

My initial thoughts = one specific person dead... but... would that 'solve' a problem... or simply transfer it from one agent to another?

Suppose you say you'd kill the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. ...if Bin Laden were to die, it's practically guaranteed that he'd be made a martyr to his cause

A martyr and a role-model, for a cause that would (I suspect) be just as (if not more) zealously supported

Osama bin Laden ain't the problem

Killing OBL ain't the solution

Fear-fueled ignorance and greed is the problem

I have no idea what the solution is

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've read too much science fiction not to be very weary of "unintended consequences". A very difficult question to answer.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Darn, I was hoping more people would have something to say about this.

My answer would be that the untraceable power to kill someone simply by knowing their name and face is actually too limited. To kill another human being is to end their existence, since I don't believe in any kind of afterlife, and it's not a decision to be taken lightly. In my moral compass, killing is only justified if it is necessary force to defend one's life or the lives of others.

The power to cause specific survivable injuries would be far more useful in my opinion. You could stop someone without using lethal force, you could eliminate a threat without becoming a murderer, and most importantly you would leave the target alive to potentially learn the error of their ways. For example, if Osama bin Laden were to suffer certain injuries to the brain, his right hand, or groin (not in any particular order) he'd still be taken out of the picture, yet he would be an embarrassment to his cause rather than a martyr. Our own corrupt politicians could even be taken down a peg, but that's another consideration.

Thusly, what I would do is to ask the shinigami if I could trade in my Death Note for an Embarrassing Injuries Note. After all, I'm not going to be labeled a murderer or provoke an international investigation just for making someone choke on a pretzel or crash his bicycle. Besides, who's to know that I had anything to do with it?

Killing is too easy. Using reasonable force is much harder and requires more discipline and better judgment.


I'll try to post the next moral dilemma situation in a few days, if I remember.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Next scenario. This one was included in the recent Time magazine article on morality and ethics.

Your cruise ship has struck an iceberg and sunk, and now you are crammed with more than 30 other survivors onto a lifeboat intended to hold 7. If at least one person is not offloaded, the lifeboat will eventually sink before reaching safety. Aboard the lifeboat is a terminally ill elderly man, who does not have very long to live regardless. The water is too frigid for anyone to survive a swim, and all other lifeboats are likewise overloaded. If you throw someone off, they will surely die, but the other passengers might make it. If you do nothing, everyone will likely perish when the lifeboat capsizes.

Do you throw the man overboard, sacrificing his life to save the other passengers, or not? What other options might you have? Is there anything illogical about this hypothetical situation?

 

[six7s]

Do you throw the man overboard, sacrificing his life to save the other passengers, or not?

Not without his consent

What other options might you have?

Double check that all the survivors who made it aboard are still alive

Ask for volunteers

Paddle over to that iceberg over there... y'know... the one big enough to sink an ocean liner... maybe, just maybe, it's big enough to support more than 30 people without capsizing... and a darn sight easier to spot from a search'n'rescue plane

Is there anything illogical about this hypothetical situation?

If "the water is too frigid for anyone to survive a swim" it sounds like the 'survivors' boarded the life-boats before the cruise ship sank...
Why did I and 29 others cram into a boat that was designed for seven?
Why did I book a trip on a cruise boat with such tiny life boats?
Why did I book a trip on a cruise boat in the 1st place?

 

[athon]

I had a discussion with my wife about something similar to this. We were discussing if we would give up their life for the other. We came to the conclusion that there are two ways of approaching this, and yet what we would do in such a situation would not necessarily be a rational act.

Acting reasonably, I'd throw the terminally guy out. This makes sense. However, it's not a situation where reason is the only influencing factor. I'd be feeling doubt (what if he's not really sick at all?), guilt (who am I to decide another's fate?), compassion and empathy (what if I was in his situation?) amongst other conflicting emotions.

Emotion is a strong force to contend with. We could discount it and set the requirement of it being only about rational thinking, but it would be an artificial and meaningless response.

Athon

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Next scenario. This one was included in the recent Time magazine article on morality and ethics.

Your cruise ship has struck an iceberg and sunk, and now you are crammed with more than 30 other survivors onto a lifeboat intended to hold 7. If at least one person is not offloaded, the lifeboat will eventually sink before reaching safety. Aboard the lifeboat is a terminally ill elderly man, who does not have very long to live regardless. The water is too frigid for anyone to survive a swim, and all other lifeboats are likewise overloaded. If you throw someone off, they will surely die, but the other passengers might make it. If you do nothing, everyone will likely perish when the lifeboat capsizes.

Do you throw the man overboard, sacrificing his life to save the other passengers, or not? What other options might you have? Is there anything illogical about this hypothetical situation?

Let's draw lots, shall we? If the old boy pegs out before we finish, then we needn't bother. If he doesn't, then we shall see what we shall see. I expect that what remains to him of his life matters quite a lot to him. Almost, I suppose, as much as the remaining life of anyone else in the lifeboat might matter to the person whose life it is.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Still no sign of land..."
"How long is it?"
"That's a very personal question, sir.."

 

[godofpie]

Next scenario. This one was included in the recent Time magazine article on morality and ethics.

Your cruise ship has struck an iceberg and sunk, and now you are crammed with more than 30 other survivors onto a lifeboat intended to hold 7. If at least one person is not offloaded, the lifeboat will eventually sink before reaching safety. Aboard the lifeboat is a terminally ill elderly man, who does not have very long to live regardless. The water is too frigid for anyone to survive a swim, and all other lifeboats are likewise overloaded. If you throw someone off, they will surely die, but the other passengers might make it. If you do nothing, everyone will likely perish when the lifeboat capsizes.

Do you throw the man overboard, sacrificing his life to save the other passengers, or not? What other options might you have? Is there anything illogical about this hypothetical situation?

wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_(film)

 

[bokonon]

The power to cause specific survivable injuries would be far more useful in my opinion. You could stop someone without using lethal force, you could eliminate a threat without becoming a murderer, and most importantly you would leave the target alive to potentially learn the error of their ways.

Or how about this: you have the power to give someone the face of a pig, or a snake. They still have all their teeth, and their dietary options are unaffected, but they're no longer getting any play at the singles bar on Saturday night.

I think the requirement to know everybody's name is too limiting too. How about "All those warlords on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border"? Or "the person who murdered Jon Benet Ramsey"? Or "the person or persons unknown who are responsible for all these pig faces in the U.S. Government"? Oops...