Philosophocal question

[Katia's Lover]

Help me with my philosophy paper!  

PLEASE, only serious answers should apply.

Imagine the following scenario.  A psychopath takes you and ten other persons hostage.  His delusional psychosis causes him to give you the choice between exactly two alternatives.

A) You agree to choose and kill five hostages yourself, in exchange for which he releases you and the remaining five.

B) The psychopath kills all ten hostages and releases you.

Which alternative, if either, is morally correct? Does one have more moral value than the other?  Why?  If you select "A", how would you decide whom is to die?  Why?  If you select "B", how would you explain this choice to the hostages (most of whom would undoubtedly beg for the first alternative to be selected)?  

It IS an appropriate answer to say you would make no choice at all, if you take into account that the psychopath will kill you if you refuse to do so.  Then you must ask "Is refusing to make a choice still making a choice?"

I would appreciate it if I could get simply serious responses without replies--to make it easier for me to sift through for answers instead of having 2 answers among 20 replies.  But then again, I realize I'm hoping for something I know will never happen.

Thanks

Todd

[B]

This reminds me of the Freshman Seminar I took in Philosophy and all that stuff about Kant and the greater good and etc.

... unfortunately that was four years ago and I hardly remember anything about Philosophy.  :?.

However, from a moral standpoint it all depends on what Philosophical view you take it from. Some Philosophers would say that you should choose A because saving the lives of five people would benefit the greater good, as to where some Philosophers would say that morally killing anyone for any reason is wrong.

And according to some Philosophers, yes, not making a choice at all is making a choice.

If YOU are forced to choose, which Philosopher do you side with most? I think that could be a starting point and you could ride the line on his views of morality and play it that way. At least in that sense you may not be "wrong" because a Philosopher did see things in that way. (Even if you do not totally agree with his views)

I know this may not be of too much help, but it is food for thought if nothing else.

[Scotty]

I would choose to not choose, so that I may die if the rest are set free because I believe I should have no choice over weither someones life is taken but my own.  I know this is the high and mighty choice but choosing life or death for someone else is a job I don't feel worthy enough. Also guilt would take over me the feeling if only I did another choice then the person would have had a happy life and made other peoples life just as happy would be unbearable.

[Holly]

tough question...
but all i know is that i could never kill anyone!

[Jophess]

In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.

Otherwise. I would choose A, because I believe God will more easily forgive mortal sins if you had no other choice, and you wanted to save 5 people's lives. More people die in Answer B. Less in A, and God will forgive you of your sins.

[xxjenniferxx]

i would choose A but instead of choosing 5 to kill..i would kill the psychopath...unfortunately if the psyhopath has a weapon to offer me to harm the others...it would be really dumb to give it to me when i 'd have advantage of everything....and having advantage of everything esp in a situtation like this...i would rather see the psychopath die then 5 other innocent people..lol
I mean, even if i killed  five people..the psychopath would still have something to laugh about..and honestly..do you think i would personally get away with his dirty work?
if i do that..i be better off killing myself...
i would def not choose B..because that would be selfish and i dont think i would be able to live with that

i may be way off with this :? but i tryed

[LimeTwister]

In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.

i was thinking this.

[B]

In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.

i was thinking this.

I realize I am breaking the no replying rule here, however, considering that this is a Philosophy Paper, the option of the psychopath giving you a gun is not likely, it is not even mentioned what the weapon would be to kill someone, so that is also something to take into account.

One thing I do remember from my Philosophy class, there are so many answers and there really isn't a true "right" answer, it is just to which side do you lean and which theory and theorists do you agree with most.

[LimeTwister]

In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.

i was thinking this.

I realize I am breaking the no replying rule here, however, considering that this is a Philosophy Paper, the option of the psychopath giving you a gun is not likely, it is not even mentioned what the weapon would be to kill someone, so that is also something to take into account.

One thing I do remember from my Philosophy class, there are so many answers and there really isn't a true "right" answer, it is just to which side do you lean and which theory and theorists do you agree with most.

Well it also doesn't say he wouldn't give you a gun...and if there would be more then 2 weapons... This class would drive me nuts...

[Katia's Lover]

The no reply rule has went to hell... much as I expected.   :wink:

Joey, I know you have good intentions, but the question here means absolutely JACK SHIT.  The psychopath means JACK SHIT.  

The question here is not about hostages, and not about psychpaths.

Instead, it's about rather the morality of an issue is in a "Greater Happiness" for society as in 'A' as John Stewart Mill believes, or rather it is the actual action.  If the action has to be moral for the deed to be indeed moral, than 'B' would be a more moral response since the action in 'A' would be killing five people.

It's like the story of a burning house.  Inside one window is a piece of paper with the cure for cancer.  Inside the other window is a baby.  You only have time to save one.  Which do you save?  I get the answer "find a water hose and save the house."  That's not the issue at hand, the issue at hand is what is more moral: Saving a baby directly but letting people die from cancer indirectly, or saving millions of people directly and killing a baby indirectly.

[LimeTwister]

i would get the cure for cancer, unless it was my baby.

but that is besides the point A would be more moral...letting 6 people live would, to me, be better then letting one live.

[B]

Instead, it's about rather the morality of an issue is in a "Greater Happiness" for society as in 'A' as John Stewart Mill believes, or rather it is the actual action.  If the action has to be moral for the deed to be indeed moral, than 'B' would be a more moral response since the action in 'A' would be killing five people.

Essentially it comes down to which theorist you believe has a more valid viewpoint. I think the Mill side would be easier to argue, but that is just how I would do it if I had to write the paper.

[Ms.Redd]

This IS a serious answer... so yeah, I'm not kidding, this is what I would do.

I would chose the first option. The reason is because obviously I'd have to be given some way or weapon in which to end the life of another, otherwise I wouldn't be able to kill ANYbody, being female and not exactly full of strength.

This would therefore cause the psycho to also BECOME a hostage to me, in which he would be the first one I'd choose to kill. Then I would change my mind once he'ss dead that I would kill no one else.

The courts would therefore consider my case one of self-defense despite taking the life of another.

*shrug*

I dunno. Your making my brain bulge, its not very used to this.

Interesting situation though.

[Ms.Redd]

In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.

well yeah, after I made my post, I realize I was a repeat....
 :roll:

[Ms.Redd]

And as far as the cancer thing, I got to go with Joey here. I'd choose the paper with the cure for cancer on it, except if it was MY baby.

However, I'd definately be TORN if my Grandmother was still alive because she HAD cancer (and inevitably died from it)... But then the issue would arise about who deserves life, one who has experienced it or one who was just starting off with one?

It kinda reminds me of the other "morals" situation:

Your son is stuck on the train tracks. Farther down the tracks, the bridge is out. You only have enough time for one: Give the train enough time to stop before it goes over the edge (therefore saving the lives of hundreds of passengers) or getting your child out of harms way.

Which would you choose? The life of your son or the lives of hundreds??

Either way YOU lose.

Life a ........... yeah. Then ya die. We all do. Isn't that what this is sorta all about? Besides morals?? People die.

I tell ya this: Solve the issue of man's death, and no one will ever need to take a Philosphy class again!