Desert Situation

[BWS-1]

The problem in this situation is that...

Morally speaking, their are no right answers, just some that are ''less wrong'' then others.

Logicly speaking, their are no wrong answers, just some that are ''less right'' then others.

Anyone could bring up the reasons why they'd think that, morally and logicly, one could have decided to take a certain decision over an other. In the scenario that we'd give everyone the same odds of success to do said action, their would still be debates about wheter or not the action itself was the ''better one'', logicly and morally speaking. It's not much the actions taken that matters, it's after those actions were taken, what will happen, what are the consequences of those actions, will it lead to a civil war? make you a national hero? Get shot in the back of a random mexican bar, with all the other custumers there?

Who knows, if a mind stops to think about all those possibilities in times to take action, he will fail to grasp his chance to do something, therefor turning his inaction as an action that will have results anyway. Results that he might not have chosen in the first place. Not like we choise our wanted results, but what I mean is, not having done anything and see that it leads to certain consequences can make one feel powerless, unable to change what was done due to the fact that he ''didn't do anything'' and it lead to certain, possibly unqanted, consequences. Remaining inactive in front of the situation wasn't his first intention, but inaction was the result of his lack of ability to take a decision, a course of action.

[shadokastur]

There is no "correct" answer here. There is only an action of behavior based on one's beliefs. Each situation has it's own answer. If the question were put to where the variables were taken to a minimum I would explain the situation to the captives and ask for a brave individual to volunteer. If the decision was left completely up to me then one life is better ten.

[whiteypoker]

I did not, as shadokastur stated, expect a right and a wrong answer. Its really more about how you value the options you are given. Though there are obvious ways to step around the decision, shooting the druglord for instance, though then you're be responsible for eleven deaths, I really wanted discussion on the choices given. I have, however, enjoyed the answers given.

[reaper]

On the asumption that the drug lord is telling the truth.

Logicly and moraly you would have to kill one. Because for one, in either case the one you choose would die. But nine lives would be spared.

And if you knowingly allow 9 people to die you are a monster. I dont care about the moral subtext involed. either one will die and nine will live, or all ten will die, there is a correct answer here i think.

To not kill the one is paramount to killing all ten, only you would not sully your own hands.

[whiteypoker]

The refute to that is whether or not negative responsibility is stronger than direct responsibility. For instance, some would believe that if you don't shoot any of them, then your are negatively responsible for nine deaths. That is, by your inaction an action has occured. Direct responsibility derives from you actually shooting one native. You are directly responsible for that death, whereas had you not shot one, pablo would be directly responsible for ten deaths.

That is ultimately where the question leads. Choose your road and describe the path to your decision.

[Doot]

Not to take this off track but I would love to play zobmondo with whiteypoker (it's the Would you Rather... game) Although I have a feeling it might be a long gaming session.

[whiteypoker]

hmmm...Sounds fun...how do we play?

[Excel Zero]

We could start that thread and maybe every week do something else??

Pretty simple whitey...like for instance one week the question could be posed like

"Would you rather be blind, deaf, or mute?"

Then everyone answers and why

[reaper]

or
You can only save 1 person in a burning building one is a 10 year old kid the other is a 25 year old adult both are incapacitated. And you could definetly save either but not both. Who do you save?