h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1) If you were able to certainly save a large group of people that included some that you care for, would you lay down your life?

um.... on the face of it: yes.
Now it gets sticky. What is going to kill them? Are my kids in there? My parents? My brother? My husband? If my parents and brother and husband (or any combination) were in there, but not my children, it's more doubtful. The Gruesome Twosome come first second and third for me in everything.

2) If that certainty was in doubt, would you do the same?

Probably not. Again, it depends on where the Gruesome Twosome are at the time. (and, of course, as they get older and less dependent on me...)

3) If your own life depended on it, would you kill?

In the blink of an eye. I'm also ex-military, I don't know if that has an effect on my answer here. I would, however, prefer to "shoot 'em in the leg" or somehow incapacitate. But if I only had a split second, or there was no other way: yep. I'd kill.

4) If that same large group of people was apparently in danger, would you kill?

Back to where the Gruesomes are. If they're in that group, and I honestly believed that to kill whoever was putting them in danger: yep. No worries. I'd hope that among the large group, however, some of them would be prepared to help out.

Interesting questions.

'No greater love is this...* I envy you'

I that was directed at me, then there nothing to envy. We broke-up sometime ago, but I'd still die or her.

I appreciate where you come from. I've been there with an ex-wife and the mother of my child.

But as to the queries, ... in my case, ... blood or familial relations really wouldn't make the difference. Still 4 times 'yes'. Hmmm, does that make me uncivilized? Or simply cold at heart?

It's an interesting set of questions. I've learned that by nature I'm the type to react without much regard for myself, if I believe it's the 'right' thing to do and I believe I have the power to help someone else. So I'm a really good person to have around in emergencies because I make immediately useful decisions and implement them effectively. That's something that comes from my chosen moral values, I guess.

However, if I had time to *think* about situations before bouncing on into them and being decisive I might make different decisions. It would depend on how much time I took to extrapolate potential outcomes before reacting. In theory I'm quite happy to let someone else take the lead, and I'm quite happy to be non-violent. It just seems as if when shit happens in my vicinity I'm either totally oblivious to it or I've already gotten myself involved. Once I'm engaged I don't worry about possible failure till it's all over, and then I have that mental "what were you THINKING" conversation with myself.

1) Yes, without a doubt in mind. In my body however, I'm not sure I'd be able to do it.
2) Doubt it
3) Yes
4) Almost certainly.
I don't think it's about being a hero, that certainly wouldn't be going through my mind, it'd be about protecting those I love.

I think this is one of those things thats in the blood - you either do it or you don't - and no ammount of rationalisation will change your nature.

I was only ever interested in the initial *fight or flight* response but the more people think about it it seems the more varied the answers. I suppose we can only guess at what would really happen (especially since there could be dozens of other things that could change that split second response).

There are certain rather frightening variations on Zoomer's questions:

1)if you were able to certainly save a large group of people that included some that you care for, would you accept a suicide mission to destroy the infrastructure that threatened your loved ones?

2)if that certainty was in doubt, would you do the same?

3) If your own life depended on it, would you kill?

4) If that same large group of people was apparently in danger, would you kill people you were convinced were a part of the danger?

When the questions are phrased as general theory, I think it may be easier to answer that you would like to think that you would do the altruist, noble thing. But, when the wording shifts a bit, does it still feel noble?

If you would lay down your life to save the ones you love, would you also strap on a suicide belt to blow up an invader's tank or drop bombs on a city? If you felt that the people of your country were threatened, would you improvise an explosive device or fire that 50mm cannon?

What I find to be the more troubleing underlying question is not 'would you kill or lay down your life?' but rather 'in what real-life situation would you be convinced that it were necessary? What would constitute a certain mortal threat to your loved ones? What would constitute an appropriate method of laying down ones life? Who would be your legitimate victim in what situation? What if the person you kill were convinced that she were your innocent victim? How much "colateral damage" would you find acceptable?'

I realize that it sounds like I'm harping on the same old crap, but, to me, killing is a moral pandora's box without bottom; there are an infinite number of thought experiments to be done on the subject, most of which will leave us paralyzed by indecision. I'm convinced that no mater how many times I run however many scenarios, I will never know until the dust settles and the blood dries how I will behave when push comes to shove. The little boy who will grow up to be a hero or a nazi has no advanced knowledge of what he will become.

A couple of simulposts there.

Very though provoking.
Laying down your own life without anyone else being involved is one thing. If you kill someone to save your loved ones - that someone will have been another person's loved one. If you can justify killing, could not someone else equally well justify the slaughter of your loved ones?

" there are an infinite number of thought experiments to be done on the subject, most of which will leave us paralyzed by indecision. "

So: shoot first, ponder imponderables later.

H.

>So: shoot first, ponder imponderables later.<
The only problem with that is that it's basically Bush's policy, Hoo. I certainly don't agree with it from him, or from my government, so I have to wonder if it's really the *best* solution on an individual level.

Does *believeing* that you're threatened, or that you're protecting those you care about justify initiating violence?

<< 1)if you were able to certainly save a large group of people that included some that you care for, would you accept a suicide mission to destroy the infrastructure that threatened your loved ones?:
It would depend on the nature of the mission - whether it would certainly kill a large number of 'the enemy' - probably not. Destroying plant, yes, possibly.

2)if that certainty was in doubt, would you do the same?
No.

3) If your own life depended on it, would you kill?
I like to think, no, I wouldn't. I've had that argument with people for years, and I've always said no, so, yes, I like to think that I wouldn't, not a chance.

4) If that same large group of people was apparently in danger, would you kill people you were convinced were a part of the danger?
It depends, really, and the key is that word 'apparently'. Id have to be sure that killing the other people really would save the ones in danger.



If you would lay down your life to save the ones you love, would you also strap on a suicide belt to blow up an invader's tank or drop bombs on a city?
No.
If you felt that the people of your country were threatened, would you improvise an explosive device or fire that 50mm cannon?
No.

What I find to be the more troubleing underlying question is not 'would you kill or lay down your life?' but rather 'in what real-life situation would you be convinced that it were necessary?
Wow, that's hard to answer. I'd have to know that any actions of mine would *certainly* save loved ones.
Who would be your legitimate victim in what situation?
Armed forces - i.e., people who had "signed up" for this.
How much "colateral damage" would you find acceptable?'
Little or none.

"Does *believeing* that you're threatened, or that you're protecting those you care about justify initiating violence?"

Yes, although that doesn't justify the belief.

If Herr Bush really believed that the USA was under threat of serious attack from Iraq then I would say it was his duty to prevent that, or at least seriously reduce the chances. But you'd have to be really ing stupid to believe something like that.

Of course, you'd have to be even more ing stupid to vote for someone who believed that the USA was under serious threat of attack from Iraq.

I really hope, although I don't totally expect, that my last post does not lead the thread to become a Bush-, Ossama-, U.S.-, Muslim-bashing fest. I tried to be fair and balanced in my examples because I personally believe that anyone who is faced with making someone dead is in an exceptionally unenviable position. And the examples I used are, sadly, situations that a great many people just like us find themselves in every day.

What would each of us do, I wonder? I don't like to think that I would be willing to drop bombs on Detroit, but somehow I could see myself improvising a little surprise for an occupier's patrol cruising down Whyte Avenue, a block from my home (and I don't like that I can see it).

Sorry, Anhanga. I wasn't trying to start an anti-Bush feeding frenzy. I made that example because I was thinking about the underlying principles more than the specifics. However, I *do* think that when the principles are correct, they'll apply across the board rather than just to isolated incidents. I'm still trying to come to terms with the idea that my natural reaction, which 'feels' right (and justifiable) to me, is not one I condone on a grander scale. Haven't sorted that out yet, though I'm leaning more and more towards the idea that my natural reaction is probably wrong, based on my value system.

I didn't mean that the drift to Bush-bashing had occured: I just was expressing the hope that it wouldn't.

There is a rather interesting example of a reaction to this in one of Phillip K. Dick's books... 'The Man in the High Castle' or somesuch? The one where the Axis won WWII. Anyway, a Buddhist there is attacked by two men who are trying to kill him, and he shoots them both dead. He then has a lot of stress trying to justify to himself ending two lives to save one.

'The one where the Axis won WWII'

That is 'the man in the high castle.'