Philosophocal question

[tylor2000]

Is this a viable answer?  

Kill the psychopath at all costs, even if everyone dies.  Have everyone gang up on him if possible.  Anyone who dies is by chance and not by choice.   With this option you are taking a chance and the odds can swing either way depending on the situation.  If anyone refuses tell them if they don't co-operate then you will choose choice B.

tylor

[kaysha]

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

1) Kant is an idiot
2) From my perspective, being a moral individual i would never harm (kill) someone no matter what the choice.
3) I would never *not* choose because inaction is the worst of all
4) I don't believe there is no other way out of this situation... i would sooner kill myself trying to save everyone
5) To answer your question, the moral solution is B.  Why should *I* sacrifice my morals not to kill for some psychopath?  It makes me no better than he is.
6) The baby/cancer thing is an entirely diff subject.  It's safe to assume if someone figured out the cure once, it can be figured out again... so why risk a babies life to get the cure for cancer?

-katia

p.s. it's philosophical, not philosophocal

[Katia's Lover]

Evil admin...

[Grakthis]

Evil admin...

Why don't people understand this?  Is it so difficult?!?

You are not supposed to think logically people!  This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered".  Yes, katia... we know that.  But let's assume it couldn't be.  Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die.  Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil.    The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.

These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good.  Stop thinking about it logically!  These are philosphical questions not logic tests!

My answer is A.  I firmly believe in the concept of the greater good at all cost.  However, in this case the greater good is easily measured..... total life lost and saved.  But most decisions in life aren't that clear cut.  What is the greater good is often hard to measure or predict.

As for choosing which people to save, i would choose those who make the greatest contributions to society.  Like it or not, children would die first (unless he or she showed some outstanding aptitude) then unskilled workers, then skilled laborers, then people who contribute ideas, then the leader types.  In that order.

Discuss

[kev222]

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.

Because the future is known (i.e. the only possibilities are 5 dead or 9 dead and no other possible outcomes) I'd go for A. Seeing as we can quantify the cost of both A & B I choose A because the cost is less (4 lives less).

As for who I'd choose. I'd probably choose people who had the least amount of other people to miss them (if I could know this) this should result in the minimum impact.

As for whether one is more morally correct than the other. I'd say no. In both cases the resulting deaths are not directly your fault or will. If for some reason I couldn't kill 5 people to save 4 and opted for B, it's weak and the wrong decision to make but not immoral IMHO.

-Kev

[kev222]

As for choosing which people to save, i would choose those who make the greatest contributions to society.  Like it or not, children would die first (unless he or she showed some outstanding aptitude) then unskilled workers, then skilled laborers, then people who contribute ideas, then the leader types.  In that order.

This may or may not be relevant but... Why not put unskilled workers before children? The least a child could amount to is an unskilled worker. Why not keep the chance of getting a ideas person or leader type out of them?

-Kev

[Katia's Lover]

Why don't people understand this?  Is it so difficult?!?

You are not supposed to think logically people!  This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered".  Yes, katia... we know that.  But let's assume it couldn't be.  Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die.  Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil.    The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.

These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good.  Stop thinking about it logically!  These are philosphical questions not logic tests!

That's what I'm screamin'.

[kev222]

Why don't people understand this?  Is it so difficult?!?

You are not supposed to think logically people!  This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered".  Yes, katia... we know that.  But let's assume it couldn't be.  Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die.  Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil.    The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.

These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good.  Stop thinking about it logically!  These are philosphical questions not logic tests!

That's what I'm screamin'.

Well you could always do your own homework :-PPP

[kaysha]

This is also why i despise class taught philosophy.

Andrew, If the cure for cancer could not be rediscovered, i would choose the cure for cancer 100% of the time over saving a child, even my child.  Same goes for curing AIDS.

-katia

p.s. the philosophers that THROW OUT logic in their conclusions are the true evil people... the goal at all cost should be to stay as connected to reality as possible.

[Katia's Lover]

Why don't people understand this?  Is it so difficult?!?

You are not supposed to think logically people!  This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered".  Yes, katia... we know that.  But let's assume it couldn't be.  Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die.  Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil.    The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.

These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good.  Stop thinking about it logically!  These are philosphical questions not logic tests!

That's what I'm screamin'.

Well you could always do your own homework :-PPP

The paper asked to cite at least five different people and their answers.

[Grakthis]

p.s. the philosophers that THROW OUT logic in their conclusions are the true evil people... the goal at all cost should be to stay as connected to reality as possible.

Hypothetical's are fun.  They tell you a lot about a person.  Sometimes leaving reality behind is the best way to find out about yourself.....

[rosieposy87]

Its Utilitarianism vs Legalists. Or Situationalists (woot woot!) vs Legalists. Either way i'd choose A. Surely, it would the right thing to save more people (even if it does involve also making a 'selfish' choice of saving yourself)? I find it very very hard to accept the hard and fast 'killing is wrong' rule.

In your philosophy classes do you have to argue your own perspective? We aren't allowed too, we are only allowed to say what the philosophers have said and in turn criticise their arguments (the BEST part). And the question you raised would be termed as Ethics over here.

 Hmmm, good luck with it.

[VanessaLover03]

deep....i would go with A...save more lives, though not totally moral.

[kev222]

Its Utilitarianism vs Legalists. Or Situationalists (woot woot!) vs Legalists.

 8O

[tylor2000]

The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong.  Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose.  Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand.  That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.

In this case neither one is moral.  And they are equally immoral.  You might as well flip a coin.  And use dice to pick the people who would be killed in one case.  And if you think that is immoral, You're right!  But both answers are immoral.  And equally so, so to make a decision in any manner is immoral anyway.

Whenever morality is unreasonable or illogical people will be pick immorality.  But in this case you are posing something that is immoral, illogical, and unreasonable. And in this case if it takes the use of a psychopath to pose the hyphothetical question, it just shows how unreasonable, illogical, and immoral the question is because a psychopath is just that.  For anyone to pose the question they would have to be out of their mind, and an idiot.  Because your pining people up to a psychopathic question that establishes nothing except stupidity, including the author's.

tylor