Moral Dilemna - how to solve it

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

You and ten others are held captive by some terrorists. One of the terrorists instructs you to kill one of the other captives, or he will kill nine of the other captives.

What is the morally correct course of action and why?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is no "morally correct answer". In my opinion.

[sauronsfinger]

What is the moral standard being used here?

[Frelga]

This was actually addressed by the Jewish sages, the question being frequently directly relevant to the persecuted minority. Jewish ethics do not permit taking a life to save a life. Specifically, this applies to the situation when the authorities demand that the community gives up one member on the threat of repressions against the entire community. I need to look up the exact historical circumstances.

Still, based on Jewish approach to ethics, I would say the answer is not to commit murder. Whether that's the "correct" answer, or the answer I would choose in a RL scenario, I can't say.

[sauronsfinger]

Frelga... but Jews are not pacifists. What does Judaism say about self defense and military service in a war?

[WampusCat]

Wait until he gives you the gun, then shoot the terrorist. Sure, it's a suicidal act (assuming there's more than one terrorist), but it's better than participating in killing the innocent.

[Frelga]

SF, that's correct, and I will respond to this when I have more time.

ETA: Wampus, I like your solution.

[River]

That's what I was thinking, Wampus. I'm not sure if there's a moral way out of the scenario, but I find that solution more palatable than the others.

[Maria]

Yep, Wampus has it right.

[MithLuin]

Wait until he gives you the gun, then shoot the terrorist. Sure, it's a suicidal act (assuming there's more than one terrorist), but it's better than participating in killing the innocent.

That's what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

The correct answer is "fight back" in some way. The choice to kill 9 more victims rests with the terrorist, not you. The terrorist could just as easily shoot you all no matter what choice you make; trusting him to keep his word isn't very smart.

Your culpability (in killing someone) is greatly reduced if there is a gun to your head. But you are not guiltless. However, you are not guilty if it is someone else doing the killing and you are not an acomplice in any way.


For instance, was a person who escaped from a concentration camp guilty for the deaths of the 10 prisoners the Nazis killed by starvation in retaliation? No, those deaths were ordered by the Nazi soldiers, not the escapees. There may be a cause/effect relationship, but the escapee does not have any transfer of culpability.

[Frelga]

Except he's probably not going to give you a gun, he'll probably have you do it in some sneaky horrible way. I mean, sure, if he's dumb enough to give me a gun, then there's no dilemma.

ETA: x-posted with Mith, with whom I agree completely

[MithLuin]

Pull this giant lever of doom, and a pulley will lower the victim into a cage of writhing poisonous snakes....


But terrorists don't have pre-built torture pits and pulleys controlled by levers of doom laying around. This scenario is more appropriate for a cartoon villain.

[vison]

Tell the terrorist if he wants to kill people he has to do it himself.

An unlikely scenario, though. Can't quite figure out what a terrorist would gain by this ploy.

[Frelga]

Well, you could conceivably imagine a terrorist wiring up a victim to a makeshift electric chair and making you flip the switch. Or placing a victim on a chair with a noose around their neck and making you kick out the chair from under him. Or...

Why would they do it? Because they are sick freaks, is why. Why do they kidnap people and behead them in front of the camera? Why do they cut a soldier's throat and call his mother from his cell phone?

SF, I've googled a bit, and here's a brief response from Chabad, which are fairly orthodox in their interpretation of the Law.

You may be surprised to learn that nowhere in the Ten Commandments or the entire Bible does it say "You shall not kill". Understanding this is vital to a true appreciation of Biblical morality.

The original Hebrew is "Lo tirtzach", which means "Do not murder". The Hebrew word for killing is "hariga", a completely different verb. There is a world of significance in this choice of words.

Murder is the taking of innocent life, which is always forbidden. Killing is the taking of any life, which is sometimes permitted or even obligatory. The Bible commands us to kill those who have irreversibly lost their innocence. There are two categories of such people:

1) Someone who is found guilty in a court of certain crimes, such as murder or kidnapping.

2) Someone who is posing a clear and direct threat to the lives of innocents. An example would be an armed gunman who breaks into someone else's home (Exodus 22:2).

I believe this is the most consistent and compassionate moral system. Above all else, innocent life is protected, both by the commandment not to murder and the commandment to kill those who are a threat to innocent people.

[sauronsfinger]

Frelga... thank your for answering that question of mine.
Now I have ten more .... but will look on my own.

[nerdanel]

The correct answer is "fight back" in some way. The choice to kill 9 more victims rests with the terrorist, not you. The terrorist could just as easily shoot you all no matter what choice you make; trusting him to keep his word isn't very smart.

Your culpability (in killing someone) is greatly reduced if there is a gun to your head. But you are not guiltless. However, you are not guilty if it is someone else doing the killing and you are not an acomplice in any way.

There's a way in which this strikes me as selfish, though. To me, life is one of the highest values there is, and is something to be preserved to the maximum possible extent.

I see a lot of responses here that are fighting the hypothetical ("shoot the terrorist," etc.) But let's put that aside and assume that these are the choices:

(1) You take one life under duress; or
(2) Another person (of his or her own volition) takes nine.

Assume that, if you take the one life, the terrorist will honor his word and not kill the rest of you. (otherwise, it's again fighting the hypothetical and allows us to circumvent the more difficult issue of whether one should take innocent human life under duress)

To me - if it would save eight human lives that would otherwise definitely be lost - it is preferable to take one innocent life. To say, "I am not willing to do this thing because *I* do not want blood on *my* hands," leaves you culpable to the eight others who will die, IMO. You have THEIR blood on your hands if you will not take action that would save them. To me, the questions become:

(1) Does the terrorist give you the option to take (sacrifice) your own life to save the others? Of course this is risky because you are then dead, and have no way of knowing whether your sacrifice was worth anything. Also, it is much harder (in a self-preservation sense) to sacrifice your own life to save eight others, than to sacrifice another person's life to save eight others. But this might be the ethically preferable path, if it is offered.

(2) Who are the eleven of you; what do you know about the other people; is there one whose life it is clearly easier to take? (I know this sounds like "playing God" and in a sense it is - but in a violent/terrorist situation sometimes these choices must be made.) For instance, is one person suffering from a terminal illness, in great pain, and also ten days away from death? (in which case, hastening the inevitable under great duress to save eight other healthy lives does seem like a lesser evil) Is one person a convicted serial child molester who also enjoys sadistically torturing and killing women for fun? (I'm resorting to the most extreme examples in order to make what I'm saying - which is fairly offensive - a bit less offensive.) On the other hand, are members of your group scientists on the verge of an AIDS/cancer breakthrough? Do you have the next Mother Teresa or MLK Jr. present? Is there someone whose life it is most urgent to save? (a controversial question, but one that arises all the time in medicine and ethics courses. )

There may be no "morally correct course of action," but it seems to me that one would have the duty - in the few seconds you'd probably have - to consider the "morally least evil course of action." As I just mentioned on b77 in a completely unrelated context, I have a fairly strong utilitarian streak. I believe that one in this situation has a duty to consider the potential consequences in terms of how to save the maximum number of lives - not solely through the microscopic lens of the evil of taking one life (which doesn't represent the totality of this situation.)

[Frelga]

Again, speaking form a Jewish perspective, taking a life is the ultimate crime. Sages say that killing a million people is no worse than killing one person, simply because nothing is worse than killing one person.

So, in that framework, the "right" choice is still refusing to kill the other hostage. Besides, if you are dealing with a twisted people like that, you can be pretty sure they are not going to keep their word anyway.

[WampusCat]

And Jesus said that hating another person was the moral equivalent of killing him.

Personally, I would only take life to save life. So does this mean I would be willing to kill one hostage to save more? No, I would only kill the killer or potential killer in self-defense (or more accurately, other-defense).

I refuse to be used as a weapon by a killer.

[Nin]

I hope I would take the gun and kill myself. If the terrorist wants a dead hostage, why can it not be me?

I also sincerely hope myself unable to kill under whatever circumstances.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

What is the moral standard being used here?

The standard of each person answering the question. I'm just trying to get an interesting discussion going, and it looks like I succeeded.