Tue 11 Sep 2007
The armchair philosopher and RBDN fan would likely have already discovered and enjoyed the Ethical Dilemmas in the RBDN fun section. Recently I stumbled across another problematic ethical thought experiment while reading an intriguing book (which book I’ll review soon.) Here’s how it went:
[A low-ranking soldier] had been ordered to first rape and then murder the prisoner, whom he knew to be no more than an innocent civilian from the wrong ethnic background. There was no doubt in his mind that this would be a gross injustice– a war crime, in fact. Yet quickly thinking it over he felt he had no choice but to go ahead. If he obeyed the order, he could make the ordeal as bearable as possible for the victim, making sure she suffered no more than was necessary. If he did not obey the order, he himself would be shot and the prisoner would still be violated and killed, but probably more violently. It was better for everyone if he went ahead.
What choice should the soldier make? (Which choice is the more moral?) It’s tempting to expand the thought experiment to allow for a third option: simply shooting the prisoner and them himself. That’s simply avoiding the question. “The whole point of fixing the dilemma this way is to force us to confront the moral problem head on, not think our way around it.”*
What would you do?
* ref: Julian Baggini
September 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
The prisoner dies either way. I would rather die with honor than live in disgrace.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Beau is describing something known as “moral self-indulgence.” He has a desire to be honorable and keep himself free from taint, yet in so doing the prisoner will arguably experience much more pain. Beau’s desire to be moral is actually immoral. It is an indulgence for which the prisoner will suffer.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am
We can take this a step further into the belief system. If you believe there is an afterlife and your decisions in this existance decide your rewards in another existance, or an afterlife, then you open up what that person may go through when she hits the afterlife and what you will go through depending on your actions.
However, if you don’t believe in an afterlife, and that when you die you just stop existing, you would probably do it and ease her suffering as much as you can, so you continue to live and she doesn’t suffer as much as she might with someone else doing the deed.
It’s a loaded question, and since I’m a bit fuzzy on the religion part of my life, I’d ask for forgiveness from her and try to keep her from suffering as much as I could.
Then I’d seek revenge on those that gave me the orders, but that’s a different ordeal.
My .02.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I don’t see how my response is immoral at all. There is a fixed outcome of this situation: her death. My interactions will not change it. If my acting has no effect, then why bother? Sure, my life hangs in the balance, but as I said, I would not want to live with the guilt of taking part of her torture and death, anyway.
Now if it was either me rape her or someone else kills her, then sure: rape her.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Shoot the officer. Problem solved. ^_^
September 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
If the prisoner were a man would that change peoples ‘ethics’ ? I think it would.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:05 am
[…] of all the IM chats and emails and chatter over yesterday’s moral dilemma thought experiment, I’ve decided to post another one from the yet to be reviewed book*: [A corrupt, yet never […]
September 14th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
It’s tempting to expand the thought experiment to allow for a third option: simply shooting the prisoner and them himself. That’s simply avoiding the question. “The whole point of fixing the dilemma this way is to force us to confront the moral problem head on, not think our way around it.”
This is a poor excuse for a “dilemma”. You are free to set the parameters of the situation, but there are no boundaries on “allowable” human behavior (except the laws of physics), but you are not free to dictate between two choices a person must make.
Even if a person were faced with a dilemma where a terrorist said “you have to choose one of these two things,” there will always be some MacGuyver who thinks “outside the box” and is able to find a way out of the dilemma without accepting either of the prescribed choices.
Noone would ever be forced to choose one of those two options. They could make some other choice. This isn’t “dodging the question” - it’s accepting reality. In this case, as Stroup has said, shoot the officer, problem solved.