Would you kill someone to save someone you love?

[Argus]

I think most people would kill someone who attacked their family or loved ones. But would you kill someone if it was the only way to save someone you loved even if that person were neither responsible, at fault, nor attacking you or yours?

Let's say there was no food, and no way to get food any time in the near future. Your daughter was wasting away. A guy in a bunker had stockpiled food, so he had plenty, but, of course, he was being cautious. He didn't know how long it would be before he could get more. He wasn't willing to give it away to others.

You can kill him, though, and take it and feed your daughter. Would you if you could? Would it make a difference if he was nasty and unpleasant as opposed to horribly conflicted and apologetic about it? Would it make a difference if it was a young, attractive woman as opposed to a man? Would you be more likely to kill someone if they were old, using the philosophal belief that they'd already had a long life? Would it be easier to say yes if you could kill them from a distance simply by pushing a button?

[eyeball]

First I'd probably kill the person(s) that left me no other choice than these ones.

You're not a politician or senior bureaucrat by any chance are you? It would probably be as easy as pie if you were.

[August1991]

The problem with ridiculous hypothetical questions is that however you answer, you'll likely look foolish.

Edited January 23, 2010 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

Where is M Dancer when you need him

[wyly]

Where is M Dancer when you need him

if it would save one of my kids I'd sacrifice myself...how's that, the other options listed are to hypothetical...

[August1991]

if it would save one of my kids I'd sacrifice myself...how's that, the other options listed are to hypothetical...

So you agree with legalizing suicide, and presumably assisted suicide.

Wyly, if you want to play Argus' game, go ahead. But keep in mind that you are playing a fool's game. This dilemma is pure nonsense, and it is best not to answer. (It's a fool's game because there are too many assumptions in the question or scenario. The best answer is to add another hypothetical condition/assumption and say, "Well, it depends... ")

----

With that said, here's my facile answer:

As an individual, you should protect yourself - or your family.

As the State, the only answer is Trudeau's when he spoke to Margaret. As she reported in Beyond Reason, Trudeau said that if she were kidnapped, he would do nothing to liberate her.

BTW, Trudeau faced such a situation with his friend Pierre Laporte - a situation that Argus has probably never faced.

Edited January 23, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

The problem with ridiculous hypothetical questions is that however you answer, you'll likely look foolish.

Well the question is clearly hypothetical. How is it ridiculous? If you look at a situation like Haiti, we've been hearing all sorts of fears about violence and looting if pepole's basic needs for food and water aren't met. The question I'm posing is the moral dilemna of when does a law-abiding man decide the greater morality is in commiting violence in order to save something he cares about more than his own sense of morality. Or is it moral to kill an innocent to save a loved one? If your daughter were dying for lack of medicine would you kill a man who had that medicine but wouldn't give it to you?

[eyeball]

If your daughter were dying for lack of medicine would you kill a man who had that medicine but wouldn't give it to you?

Would you pause to wonder first if the man had a sick daughter too? It might be wiser to ask him where he obtained it before flying off the deep end.

[Guest American Woman]

Well the question is clearly hypothetical. How is it ridiculous? If you look at a situation like Haiti, we've been hearing all sorts of fears about violence and looting if pepole's basic needs for food and water aren't met. The question I'm posing is the moral dilemna of when does a law-abiding man decide the greater morality is in commiting violence in order to save something he cares about more than his own sense of morality. Or is it moral to kill an innocent to save a loved one? If your daughter were dying for lack of medicine would you kill a man who had that medicine but wouldn't give it to you?

How is it ridiculous? For starters, this: "Would it make a difference if it was a young, attractive woman as opposed to a man?"

How does whether they are a man or a young, attractive woman make a "moral" difference? What does that have to do with one's "moral dilemma?"

[kimmy]

I once saw an episode of the program "Criminal Minds" where a psychopath had imprisoned 3 high school girls, members of a soccer team, I think, in a cellar. There was nothing in the cellar except for the girls themselves. Later, a hammer was dropped in, and they were informed that if one of them were killed, the surviving two could leave.

For a long time they did not act on this opportunity. But eventually, as one of them became increasingly desperate, and another became increasingly ill, this started to look like a solution to the dilemna. The desperate girl argued with her still-rational friend that killing the one girl, who might die soon if she didn't receive medical care, was preferable to all three of them dying. The rational girl refused to entertain the notion. And while the two of them fought, the sick girl buried the hammer in the back of the desperate girl's head, believing that the desperate girl would kill her and determined to save herself.

Argus poses an artificially constructed dilemma, like the one in the TV show. It's hard to imagine a situation where killing an innocent person is the only possible way to save a loved one. If there is magic medicine that only one person in the whole world has, and he won't share, I'd certainly look into theft or non-lethal force before I'd turn to murder, for instance.

However, watching that episode of that TV show reminds me that while it's easy to say here in the comfort of my home on a Saturday morning "I'd never do such a thing!" people are capable of doing all kinds of things when they're desperate enough. Philosophically, I'd have a huge problem with killing an innocent person to save a loved one, or save myself even. However, I can't say with complete certainty that I wouldn't do it anyway if I were desperate enough.

-k

{has long since stopped watching "Criminal Minds".}

Edited January 23, 2010 by kimmy

[Riverwind]

How does whether they are a man or a young, attractive woman make a "moral" difference? What does that have to do with one's "moral dilemma?"

The point was to make people think about their deeply held prejudices - i.e. most people (especially men), given the same situation, would be less likely to kill a young attractive women than a ugly old man. It would not surprise me to find that such prejudice is in our DNA.

[Guest American Woman]

The point was to make people think about their deeply held prejudices - i.e. most people (especially men), given the same situation, would be less likely to kill a young attractive women than a ugly old man. It would not surprise me to find that such prejudice is in our DNA.

Lucky daughter, then. Sorry, you'll have to die. I can't kill an attractive, young woman. If only it were a man, you could live.

I would hope, if one were inclined to kill for their daughter, they wouldn't chose an attractive, young woman's life over their daughter's.

If so, I don't think that "prejudice" is "in our DNA."

[wyly]

So you agree with legalizing suicide, and presumably assisted suicide.

absolutely, I've had several family members take doctor assisted suicide route before and after it was legal, it's also the reason I keep my EU citizenship, I'm only a day's journey from relief...

[Argus]

Would you pause to wonder first if the man had a sick daughter too? It might be wiser to ask him where he obtained it before flying off the deep end.

Would you let him cure his sick daughter then, rather than take the medicine to cure yours?

[bush_cheney2004]

Would you let him cure his sick daughter then, rather than take the medicine to cure yours?

That depends...how much life insurance for my daughter?

[Riverwind]

If so, I don't think that "prejudice" is "in our DNA."

The notion that our own offspring have more worth than others is rooted in our DNA as is the desire to preserve the life of those that could be used to produce more offspring.

[Pliny]

The notion that our own offspring have more worth than others is rooted in our DNA as is the desire to preserve the life of those that could be used to produce more offspring.

Unless it is proven notions are rooted in our DNA I don't find this to be conclusive.

Add:

I agree the poll is too hypothetical with too many possible variables.

I also agree with American woman that "prejudice" is not in our DNA.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Pliny

[Riverwind]

I also agree with American woman that "prejudice" is not in our DNA.

It is not prejudice - it is instinct.

[Guest American Woman]

It is not prejudice - it is instinct.

You're the one who used the term prejudice, not me. But if you think it's "instinct" for a man to choose an attractive, young woman's life over his daughter's, I have to wonder where you are coming from as I would think "instinct" would be to protect one's children. What you are referring to as 'instinct' is really 'thinking with one's dick' rather than one's brain, and I personally think highly enough of men to believe they can rise above (no pun intended ) that sort of 'thinking.' But the bottom line is that it has nothing to do with morality. It's as I stated: How does whether they are a man or a young, attractive woman make a "moral" difference? What does that have to do with one's "moral dilemma?"

The question here is about our willingness to kill someone else, and whether or not the person is a man or an attractive woman has no bearing on the "moral" aspect of it; the "moral dilemma" involved. None at all.

Edited January 24, 2010 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

But if you think it's "instinct" for a man to choose an attractive, young woman's life over his daughter's

That is not what I said. I said, *given the same circumstances*, a man would be less likely to kill a young attractive women than a old man. Edited January 24, 2010 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

That is not what I said. I said, *given the same circumstances*, a man would be less likely to kill a young attractive women than a old man.

The situation we are talking about is whether or not we would kill to protect our family; to quote the opening post: would you kill someone if it was the only way to save someone you loved even if that person were neither responsible, at fault, nor attacking you or yours?, and my response was: How does whether they are a man or a young, attractive woman make a "moral" difference? What does that have to do with one's "moral dilemma?"

This is what you said:

The point was to make people think about their deeply held prejudices - i.e. most people (especially men), given the same situation, would be less likely to kill a young attractive women than a ugly old man. It would not surprise me to find that such prejudice is in our DNA.

So it sounds as if you are saying, in deciding whether or not to kill to save our loved ones, men wouldn't be as likely to kill an attractive young woman as an ugly old man, and that has nothing to do with the "moral" aspect of it, the "moral dilemma," just as I said.

Furthermore, in saying "most people" (which I disagree with) would be less likely to kill the attractive young woman than an ugly old man, that you think that's instinct, IS saying "it's 'instinct' for a man to choose an attractive, young woman's life over his daughter's" .... what else would you be saying given the topic of this thread, my comments, and your responses to them?

Are you now saying you agree with me? That the question is ridiculous in light of whether the person is a man or a young attractive woman has nothing to do with the moral aspect of it? That it has nothing to do with one's "moral dilemma?" That you would be just as willing to kill an attractive young woman to save your daughter's life as you would "an ugly old man?"

Edited January 24, 2010 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

How does whether they are a man or a young, attractive woman make a "moral" difference? What does that have to do with one's "moral dilemma?"

Moral dilemmas need to resolved and the process of resolving such a dilemma is not clearly defined and changing a small detail of the scenario could result in a different decision. For example, lets say in one scenario the person in question refused to help because helping would put him/her in danger. Lets say in another scenario the person in question refused to help because they we just selfish. I would say that the majority of people would be more likely to choose killing in the latter case.

In same way the fact that the person is attractive young woman would tip the balance away from killing in many cases - especially with men. That does not mean that men would never choose killing as an option. It just means that it is a factor that will be taken into account when people attempt to resolve the dilemma.

[Guest American Woman]

Moral dilemmas need to resolved and the process of resolving such a dilemma is not clearly defined and changing a small detail of the scenario could result in a different decision. For example, lets say in one scenario the person in question refused to help because helping would put him/her in danger. Lets say in another scenario the person in question refused to help because they we just selfish. I would say that the majority of people would be more likely to choose killing in the latter case.

The only difference in the scenario is "man" vs "attractive, young woman," and as I have pointed out, there is no "moral" issue involved between the two; whether one would kill a man for his daughter/loved one but not an "attractive young woman" is in no way a "moral issue." It's exactly as I said it is.

In same way the fact that the person is attractive young woman would tip the balance away from killing in many cases - especially with men. That does not mean that men would never choose killing as an option. It just means that it is a factor that will be taken into account when people attempt to resolve the dilemma.

Again, that has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with what I've previously said. If a man would kill another man to save his child's/loved one's life, but not "an attractive young woman," then that doesn't say much for the man.

Edited January 24, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

You guys remind me of a Miller Lite commercial, but not nearly as funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJ_Gp4YFUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJ_Gp4YFUA

....Roddick is blowing it down under.

Edited January 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

Moral dilemmas need to resolved and the process of resolving such a dilemma is not clearly defined and changing a small detail of the scenario could result in a different decision. For example, lets say in one scenario the person in question refused to help because helping would put him/her in danger. Lets say in another scenario the person in question refused to help because they we just selfish. I would say that the majority of people would be more likely to choose killing in the latter case.

In same way the fact that the person is attractive young woman would tip the balance away from killing in many cases - especially with men. That does not mean that men would never choose killing as an option. It just means that it is a factor that will be taken into account when people attempt to resolve the dilemma.

It doesn't sound like "DNA" or "Instinct" enter into the equation in this analysis of yours. It is entirely the dynamics of the situation that will determine an action. It is true that one of the dynamics may have to do with gender and although American Woman would like to eliminate that as having any possible influence or relevance, perhaps in the name of equality, for some situations and with some people, it will.