It’s a matter of ethics...

[Treveler]

A mate of mine just had a course in "general" ethics and they was asked to give an answer to the following question/problem:

During a war situation you are part a group of 100 ppl that are to be killed. They will all be shot in the head. They point you out and give you an option. If you kill half of the group (50 ppl) the rest will be freed and can live on. If you refuse the whole group (100 ppl) will be killed where they stand.

What would you do?

If you chose to kill half the group would the last one you killed be yourself? Why/why not?

If you chose not to take actions are there any religious reasons for that?

It would be interesting to see how a large group like GD would divide between the two options so please only apply with serious responds!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Kill em. Kill em randomly.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Kill em. Kill em randomly.

This option.

Although I'm not sure whether I'd put bullet #50 in someone else's head.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Treveler

They will all be shot in the head. They point you out and give you an option.

Obviously they have a death wish, I'd refuse thereby granting them their wish. Possibly at the cost of my own life. But as long as 99 people get the life* they want, I'm up for that.

*Death.

[Inferno]

I would kill half of them but leave the women and children to live.

I would not kill myself. I dont believe in Suicide.

[midge5]

I'd probably shoot 50 of the people who looked like they had the shortest lives left, oldest and sickest and save myself.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Banned

Obviously they have a death wish, I'd refuse thereby granting them their wish. Possibly at the cost of my own life. But as long as 99 people get the life* they want, I'm up for that.

*Death.

I think I phrased the question a bit unclear. The group dont want to die but they are just about to get killed by some military executioner when the executioner give you the option.

[Tomkat]

I'd kill them. 50 people saved is better than all of them dying.

I don't know if I'd be able to live with myself afterwards though.

[XeeThot]

Shoot the executioner.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Kill em. Kill em randomly.

[JammyJim]

randomly but i wouldnt be included in that.

[Ninja_spammer]

I'd pick the oldest, lamest ones.

Then ugly ones.

Then random.

[Phalon]

I'd kill them randomly and unless there were more than 50 children, i wouldn't shoot myself.

Would anyone shoot themself if say doing so reduced the number that had to be killed overall?

[Knight Theamion]

I'd go for the save 50 option


and I'd just kill anyone I didn't like.

I'd be your regular kapo.

[JonnyBGood]

I'd kill those who I considered to be worse human beings. If I thought I deserved to be among those killed I would nominate myself.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Treveler

I think I phrased the question a bit unclear. The group dont want to die but they are just about to get killed by some military executioner when the executioner give you the option.

I think I may have misintrepreted you on purpose.

You see, the real question I wanted to ask was 'How do you know the military executioner will stay true to his word?' Except in the first revision, there was no military executioner :(

Anyway, how would you know?

[Tactitus]

I can't think of any reason to trust the executioners to keep their "bargain." I don't believe those who go around killing large numbers of people are in the habit of making such deals or keeping them if they do. After subjecting you to intense agonizing and killing 50 people they're just going to kill the rest anyway. 'Ha Ha that was amusing. How shall we torment the next group?' In that context, I can't see that you have any real choices at all.

This is the kind of 'ethics' question that only comes up in ethics classes. After dropping all the context they construct a dilemma that appears extremely difficult, but otherwise has no connection to the real world. I don't know what an answer to such a question would mean.

[JonnyBGood]

I think it's probably better to take the slight chance than definitely condemn all 100 people to death guys.

[1-X]

I'd ask for volunteers to die, and then shoot those who didn't step forward (well, the men and the ugly women )

Whether or not I was victim #50 would depend on a simple comparison between the potential futures of myself and the last in the 'shoot queue'

If we're not keeping strictly to the limits of the question, then the whole group rushing the guards would be a preferable option, especially as I'd be armed with a gun and 50 bullets.

[Marilyn Manson]

I'd shoot the fat people and the disagreable ones.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Banned

I think I may have misintrepreted you on purpose.

You see, the real question I wanted to ask was 'How do you know the military executioner will stay true to his word?' Except in the first revision, there was no military executioner

Anyway, how would you know?

Well I guess you have to look at it as a purly hypothetical situation/question.

In real life your trust in the executioner would play a major part in your decition but, even if you couldnt trust him fully the group would have some chance to live. By counting deaths alone the end result wouldnt, either way, be any different then if you chose to let the whole group get killed.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think it's probably better to take the slight chance than definitely condemn all 100 people to death guys.

Speaking of slight chances, maybe they're not really going to kill anybody but just want to see if they can trick you into doing it.

[Dace]

KILL THEM ALL!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Speaking of slight chances, maybe they're not really going to kill anybody but just want to see if they can trick you into doing it.

Again that's a slightly longer shot so it's probably still worth your while depending on the circumstances.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by 1-X

I'd ask for volunteers to die, and then shoot those who didn't step forward (well, the men and the ugly women )

Whether or not I was victim #50 would depend on a simple comparison between the potential futures of myself and the last in the 'shoot queue'

If we're not keeping strictly to the limits of the question, then the whole group rushing the guards would be a preferable option, especially as I'd be armed with a gun and 50 bullets.

[NEWSBOT3]

i'd shoot the guards.

[Dante Hicks]

I agree this is an unlikely situation but that doesn't make the question totally worthless. Besides, you can restructure the question to make it less disagreeable if you wish.

A similar (but not the same) dilemma I once heard on a training course was : "There are 10 people trapped in a mine shaft which has just collapsed, there is enough time for five people to escape (there's one rope or something like that, I forget why). You are for some reason the leader and have to find five people to save. How do you make a decision?"

They then sometimes give you a list of ten people (one is a rich man, one is a guy working on the cure for cancer who doesn't use notes, one is a supermodel, one is a mother of five kids, one is a gay guy, one is an old man, one is a younger man who has cancer but smokes 100 a day, and so on). The solution they generally seem to want you to come up with is to draw lots (because no man can play God or something). This seems rather ridiculous to me and any man who saves an old man ahead of a mother of five kids or cancer curing scientist - or a supermodel for that matter - get's no respect from me.

In answer to the original question, sticking to the confines of the question (i.e. taking the guards at their words, presuming we can't at least try to fight / escape) then I would ask for volunteers of people who wished to give up their lives. Of the rest I would probably draw lots unless there was some massive diversion in ages / health or something like that. I hope I would give up my life, but I suppose it depends if I had children etc to look after.

In a more "real" situation, if there were a hundred of us, I'd suggest fighting to escape. Even if we all died I'd consider this a lot more "noble" than simply voluntarily being slaughtered. It seems fairly certain we're not going to be the only group being executed and our sacrifice might allow others to escape or avoid the same fate.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

I'd pick the oldest, lamest ones.

Then ugly ones.

Then random.

i would pick the best ones so i can get their wimmens.
btw who does the counting in these kind of events?
"did i kill 45 or 50?"

[Structural Integrity]

In buddhism it's all about intentions and wise decisions. Killing the 50 would be an act with the best intentions: saving the 50 instead of letting the 100 die. Therefore it would give you tonnes of good karma.
Saving yourself might seem as a selfish action, but if you think it over, it would be the wisest solution as you are the one the executioner has made the deal with, and therefore it would give the other 50 the best chance of surviving as with you still alive there is the least chance of the executioner changing his mind. Even if the executioner does not keep his side of the bargain, and kills the others, you can die in peace, knowing that you did all that you could do.

So, kill 50, and walk away with a tonne of good karma. Hurray!

[Vaio]

I'd shoot the french ones, then the ones who had french relatives and if I was still short of the 50 i'd shoot the ones that looked french

~Vaio~

[CrashTester]

This is an easy one.

I'd find out who were the richest and poorest then select the 25 most wealthy. Even though I could save 50 I'd shoot 74 there and then in cold blood.

Now that is sorted I'd get onto the real work.

Id get a gun and make the rich ones I'd saved give me money when I wanted. I'd tell then I will kill them if they dont pay up and they would already know I was able and willing to do this having witnessed me slaughtering 74 people in cold blood.

Its a win win situation. I'd be rich and they would live.


MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[pablissimo]

I'd take the gun from the soldier, look at the ground, look at my comrades shaking in the cold and the mud then look up with blistering defiance in my eyes, drop the rifle on the ground (with a camera close-up of it bouncing into the mud in slow-motion), spit in my captor's eye and say something like 'Not on her majesty's watch'. Then I'd rejoin my comrades, the soldier would ruefully smile, the camera would pan to the soldiers who break out their rifles and the last sight of the film would be the muzzle flashes from their guns (sans sound, of course) and perhaps a British flag waving across the screen at the end.

Yeah.

[madi]

am i expected to pull the trigger?

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by madi

am i expected to pull the trigger?

No, just smile for the money shot.

[Dark-Strider]

i would take the kill 50 option. Then i would ask for volunteers.The for the rest of the 50 i would pick the sick and old as they wouldnt have long to live anyway. As for me being the last one to die. I would compare myself to the 50th and decide who has more to live for.

* Although I would rather take the risk of killing the guards and escaping.

[A2]

If you decide to take the 'kill 50' option, and then kill yourself as the last person should it be regarded as an act of self-sacrifice, designed to allow as many other people as possible to live, or is it because after ordering the deaths of 49 people who had no choice in the matter you'd want to commit suicide anyway? Admittedly by the 49th person you might have become slightly desensitised.

I'd go with the 'kill 50' option. Someone pointed out that you probably can't trust people who are threatening to shoot you and who hold all of the power cards to keep to their end of a bargain, but they have already said that the alternative is for everyone to die. Surely it is therefore worth hanging onto that faint hope that they may be true to their word, and potentially save 50 lives. As for selecting who has to die then the first stage is obviously to ask for volunteers. On the off chance you get more than 50 then of course you draw lots between them. To make up any remaining numbers you could do some sort of social divisions, but that relies on you either knowing everyone personally, or everyone telling the truth.

Originally Posted by XeeThot

Shoot the executioner.

That's a possibility, assuming that they hand you the weapon to do the killings with, and don't just ask you to point out who's going to die. Also we can assume that there are guards, and the executioner could hand you a gun with only one bullet in at a time. In principle it's a good idea, but you'd have to eliminate all the opposition before they have a chance to know what's going on.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by KoeN

"did i kill 45 or 50?"

Count how many people are left alive.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Count how many people are left alive.

would you?

[Deepflow]

id kill the 50 that looked like they would have the shortest life. Or anyone i didn't like if i knew them.

i wouldn't kill myself though.

I might find it difficult to live with myself in any case however

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

I might find it difficult to live with myself in any case however

in that case, give me the gun!

[SepH]

I'd kill the 50 oldest (or weakest or whatever) and I would probably kill myself after that.
However, I've never been in a situation quite like this*, so I can only guess what I would do, I might not even have the guts to shoot 50 people in the head, even if it is to save 50 others.

* I don't think anyone on this boards has

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Or anyone i didn't like if i knew them.

The problem with this sort of solution is that I can't see many people going with it. If someone honestly said they were going to kill me because they didn't like white people (or rock music fans, or something equally arbritrary) I would try to resist even if they had a gun.

At least if it was random, or done via esimated lifespan then we can agree on some sort of common framework and I would have to accept the outcome. I drink a fair amount, have an awful diet and semi-regularly use hard drugs so I would probably accept a healthy person of the same age should live.

[Kurashima]

100 die including you
50 die and you live along with 49 others

Its not a particularly hard decision to make.

[Knight Theamion]

It would be rather dark-humor if you 'accidentally' killed 51 or 52 or something like that, while saying

'yeah I know, I get that a lot, once I am into something, I cannot stop.'

[roadrunner_0]

kill yourself first and make the decision someone else's problem

[Dante Hicks]

I think overall though they'd have to be pretty stupid guards to give you a gun in any context, even if they did have an overwhelming superiority in capacity for violence.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think overall though they'd have to be pretty stupid guards to give you a gun in any context, even if they did have an overwhelming superiority in capacity for violence.

this is what i thought as well

you know, better to die on your feet than live on your knees and all that, you would always hope that you would have the willpower to turn the gun on the guards rather than play their games :/

[djbass]

My first question like others was, how could I trust the executioners to keep their word? also as stated, I can't.

Irrespective of the above, I'm not cold hearted enough to take another persons life. If you choose to kill the 50 people you become the executioner.

[Nodrog]

Questions like this are a large part of the reason why modern ethical philosophy is such a pointless irrelevant joke, but I'd kill the 50 since that seems to give me the most chance of coming out alive.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Questions like this are a large part of the reason why modern ethical philosophy is such a pointless irrelevant joke.

first sensible thing i've ever seen gordon say.