Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 09-29-2004, 11:12 AM

No, not in this case. There are some cases where I would kill someone to save the lives of others, but those are rare, and usually consist of very contorted philosophical thought experiments. Take the case of Jim and the Indians (with apologies for un-PC language). Jim is an explorer in colonial Brazil who happens across a small village of Indians. Because of a recent plot to overthrow the colonial government, a Colonel happens to be there and is going to execute 30 of the Indians (who had nothing to do with the plot). However, in honor of Jim, the Colonel will allow him to kill one of the Indians. If he does so, the others will be allowed to go free. If he does not, all 30 will die. Assume for the sake of the thought experiment that Jim knows he cannot convince the Colonel otherwise and cannot do anything to help the Indians. Here are the questions:
If you were Jim, would you kill one of the Indians?
Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim has to kill is one of the thirty assigned to die?
Does it make a difference if Jim would die if he doesn't kill the Indian?
Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim would kill is willing to die for the sake of the other 29?

For me, the answer is that, if the Indian is one of the thirty who would die anyway, it is right to kill the Indian. The other questions don't make a difference. But many people whose moral judgement I generally respect disagree with me on this. But this is for me a borderline case! Killing 63 (or any other number) for the sake of something as nebulous as world peace, when they may or may not themselves die as a consequence of there not being world peace is something which I could not endorse.

09-29-2004, 11:12 AM	#18 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	No, not in this case. There are some cases where I would kill someone to save the lives of others, but those are rare, and usually consist of very contorted philosophical thought experiments. Take the case of Jim and the Indians (with apologies for un-PC language). Jim is an explorer in colonial Brazil who happens across a small village of Indians. Because of a recent plot to overthrow the colonial government, a Colonel happens to be there and is going to execute 30 of the Indians (who had nothing to do with the plot). However, in honor of Jim, the Colonel will allow him to kill one of the Indians. If he does so, the others will be allowed to go free. If he does not, all 30 will die. Assume for the sake of the thought experiment that Jim knows he cannot convince the Colonel otherwise and cannot do anything to help the Indians. Here are the questions: If you were Jim, would you kill one of the Indians? Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim has to kill is one of the thirty assigned to die? Does it make a difference if Jim would die if he doesn't kill the Indian? Does it make a difference if the Indian Jim would kill is willing to die for the sake of the other 29? For me, the answer is that, if the Indian is one of the thirty who would die anyway, it is right to kill the Indian. The other questions don't make a difference. But many people whose moral judgement I generally respect disagree with me on this. But this is for me a borderline case! Killing 63 (or any other number) for the sake of something as nebulous as world peace, when they may or may not themselves die as a consequence of there not being world peace is something which I could not endorse. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche