No, I don’t see it. Why does XT’s response assume there is a zero sum game involved?
I was expecting Martin Fry et al on a killing spree (murder by poison arrow?)
Because the impression I am getting from it s/he is saying that C bearing any moral responsibility reduces the moral responsibility on A. And if it doesn’t, there are certainly situations within the OP where moral responsibility can lie with C as well. I think XT recognizes this when s/he discusses the idea of that person feeling guilt. Why would a person feel guilt for something for which they had no responsibility?
To cast it in its most extreme light, let’s say C goes every morning for coffee at one particular coffee shop. A tells him that if he does not go tomorrow, A will kill B. C wakes up and decides to go to a different coffee shop, despite the fact he prefers his normal shop. I’ll certainly say that while A’s moral responsibility is not lessened, C’s actions are morally questionable in this case.
If C was Kaiser Soze, he’d shoot B first.
Actually, I think TV shows and movies force people to make that choice all the time for dramatic effect, and they don’t cop out. ‘24’ did that so much it almost became a cliche’ on the show - Jack being forced to let the terrorists carry out an attack so he could get close to them, for example. But there was one scenario exactly as you describe - in one of the earlier seasons, Jack and his boss were told by some terrorists to come out to some industrial area, then when they go there the terrorists told Jack to have his boss kneel down. When he did, they told him to shoot him in the back of the head or they would carry out some nefarious deed.
It was one of the most uncomfortable scenes the show ever had, because they drew it out and made it very personal. The boss at first went along, thinking they’d find some way out of it or that Jack had something up his sleeve. As he realized that Jack was really boxed into a corner and was considering doing it, he started getting scared and pleading for his life. This was a recurring character that we had followed for an entire season - not just a red shirt parachuted in for the episode.
Jack shot him in the back of the head. Very well acted by Keifer Sutherland, and I think it was the incident that made his character go a little nuts for the rest of the series.
After that, there were many more scenes like that, but they usually involved random bystanders sacrificed for the ‘greater good’.
So, our own **Sammy Stone **is a fan of 24. Never would have guessed. Not in a million years. Nosir!
Can you quote the part of his post that gives you that impression? I just read it twice, and I’m not seeing it.
[QUOTE=villa]
It’s only a no brainer if you (mistakenly) think that there is a limited amount of moral responsibility to go round. Of course the responsibility for the actual act of killing is ultimately on A, but that doesn’t mean C is automatically in the clear morally. Moral responsibility isn’t a zero sum game.
[/QUOTE]
It IS a zero sum game in this case because only one person here has any control of the situation, and only one person decides the question of life or death…that’s the guy with the gun. What moral responsibility does C have for A’s actions based on the limited data we have in the OP?? None. A decides everything, makes the ultimate choices.
The only way C can have any moral responsibility in any of this is if C is somehow coercing A while A is holding B hostage. Or something equally convoluted.
I’m a ‘he’, for future reference. And it shouldn’t be an impression…I’m saying flat out that based on the limited data we have from the OP, C has zero moral responsibility. I agree with you that if C gets splashed on, moral responsibility wise in this confrontation it doesn’t lessen A’s moral responsibility (whatever that is).
Feeling guilt doesn’t mean that C ACTUALLY has moral responsibility, however…only that C might be wracked with guilt and second guesses as to what they could have or should have done if the outcome turns bad. People ALWAYS feel guilt in situations like this when someone is killed, even if in fact they couldn’t do a think for them. It’s human nature. But just because someone feels guilt doesn’t mean that they actually have moral responsibility for what happened.
Again, the only person who has actual responsibility is the one controlling the situation and making the decisions of whether to kill or not to kill. Unless you want to change the OP and provide more details as to how this situation is unfolding, and what part C is playing in all of this, and what exact action C is supposed to do for A to prevent him or her from wacking B. I’m sure there are all sorts of situation where you could make C look bad, or feel guilt, or feel responsible…but those are all FEELINGS. In fact, the person who pulls the trigger and makes the decision to pull the trigger is the only one responsible for what transpires.
-XT
Indeed, often the heroes make morally questionable choices in trying to avoid the dillemma.
In “The Rock,” a pack of rogue Marines hold a hundred or so hostages on Alcatraz Island and further threaten to fire chemical weapons into San Francisco, killing tens of thousands, if they are not given money. It’s apparent the U.S. government has the capability to incinerate the island and kill everyone there, which would kill the hostages but save the city. Instead, in an effort to do both, they send a commando team to the island, thereby significantly increasing the chance that the chemical weapons will be used on the city. Had they simply blown the island apart to start with the hostages would die but the horrifying mass murders of tens of thousands of people would be avoided; by sending the commandos they risk tens of thousands of lives.
Quoth villa:
OK, and what if C gives A the stick of gum, and C still goes ahead and kills B anyway? If A’s crazy enough to kill over a stick of gum, then he’s crazy enough that there’s no telling what he’ll do. And of course, if you give in to the first demand, A’s still got his gun and his hostage, and has no reason to stop issuing demands.
And Sam Stone, what you describe isn’t an example of a character facing a difficult choice; it’s an example of Jack Bauer being an evil psychopath. The difference between the two is neither subtle nor difficult to grasp.
After sleeping on it, I would agree with you. When viewed from C’s PoV, the situation is akin to the Nuremberg Defense, isn’t it ? “I did what I was ordered to, or else”. And a bit of a catch-22: if C does what A says, he’s guilty of whatever horrible shit A wanted him to do. If C doesn’t, then he does have blood on his hands indirectly - he could have saved B, only he didn’t.
In either case there’s no denying A is a sumbitch, but I don’t think that lets C off the hook unilaterally. One could well describe C taking the guilt to save B as a noble act. I suppose my opinion depends a lot on what A orders C to do. If it’s “gimme your wallet” and C doesn’t, then he’s a sumbitch too. If it’s “go kill D”, then it’s more of a conundrum.
I was going to say exactly this. Someone crazy enough to threaten to kill someone over something trivial likely unreasonable enough that one can’t expect them to hold their word. And, in fact, this would hold true for any act worth less than a human life. So there’s no reason to give any weight to the request because there’s no reason to believe they won’t still kill them afterward, or won’t force you to continue to do things under that threat.
And, obviously, it makes even less sense to do it when the act is worth more than a human life, like if they want you to blow up a building and kill hundreds of people to save someone you love. Not only do you have the same problem as above, not having any reason to believe they won’t still do it or coerce you again, but now you actually DO have some moral responsibility if you follow through because you just did something worse than what he was threatening to do.
So, in the end, whether they’re asking for something utterly trivial all the way to genocide, there simply isn’t a reason to do anything they ask. I might feel personal guilt if they do kill someone I love, especially over something trivial, but once the realization that they would kill over something so stupid sets in, I don’t see how I could continue to blame myself.
C has no moral responsibility for refusing to harm others. C has some moral responsibility if the demand is for a stick of gum. No one is hurt by C giving A the stick of gum. And it might prevent B from being harmed. The problem will come when the demand may seem to involve less harm than killing B. For instance if B is a loved one of C, and the demand is to kill D who rapes and murders children. I think most people in C’s position would go ahead and kill the rapist, just on the chance that B would be spared. I know there are a lot of alternatives people might attempt first, but assuming its only a choice between killing B and killing D, I’d pick killing D.
I agree with villa here. If A is holding B at gunpoint, you believe either
a) A is going to shoot B regardless
b) A is never going to shoot B
c) A is totally unpredictable
d) If I agree to C’s demands, C will not harm B (or myself)
In the first three cases, it doesn’t matter what you do and you can tell A to take a hike.
But in the off chance that it is d), and the demand is something relatively innocuous (e.g. give me that stick of gum, or scream “Death to the USA”), then C should hand over the stick of gum. You never know, A might consider the transaction complete and let you both go. When A’s demands become obnoxious, e.g. kick that little girl in the face, is the time when you start saying no.
Same thing if there is no B involved, and it’s just A and C. Assume I’m C. If a guy pulls a gun on me and says “give me your wallet”, I could tell him to get lost and go to my grave knowing that A is at fault, but the better solution is to give A the wallet with the hope that he’ll go away. Giving him the wallet seems on its face value to be the action with the highest probability of me surviving the encounter.
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I was going to say exactly this. Someone crazy enough to threaten to kill someone over something trivial likely unreasonable enough that one can’t expect them to hold their word. And, in fact, this would hold true for any act worth less than a human life. So there’s no reason to give any weight to the request because there’s no reason to believe they won’t still kill them afterward, or won’t force you to continue to do things under that threat.
And, obviously, it makes even less sense to do it when the act is worth more than a human life, like if they want you to blow up a building and kill hundreds of people to save someone you love. Not only do you have the same problem as above, not having any reason to believe they won’t still do it or coerce you again, but now you actually DO have some moral responsibility if you follow through because you just did something worse than what he was threatening to do.
So, in the end, whether they’re asking for something utterly trivial all the way to genocide, there simply isn’t a reason to do anything they ask. I might feel personal guilt if they do kill someone I love, especially over something trivial, but once the realization that they would kill over something so stupid sets in, I don’t see how I could continue to blame myself.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I’m baffled by how anyone could try and put ‘moral responsibility’ on C for anything that A does. A is the one with the gun. A decides what s/he is going to do. A CHOOSES to kill or not kill based solely on A’s desire to kill or not kill. C’s actions are incidental and might or might not affect the actual outcome. Granted, if B gets killed from some action or non-action C THINKS s/he has done, they are going to feel some level of guilt. And granted, there will be plenty of Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are second guessing C’s actions and telling him or her what they SHOULD have done to prevent it all from happening, blah blah blah. But the ‘moral responsibility’ for any action taken is going to be squarely on A, since that’s the person with the gun, and the person who is choosing or not choosing to pull the trigger.
-XT
I think the difference between our views comes from how we are looking at this. You seem to be viewing it as an individual event, where as I am looking at it as two separate decisions, each with its own morality involved.
A’s actions towards both B and C are without a doubt (barring some bizarre hypo) wrong and morally blameworthy.
Viewing C’s actions alone, however, I don’t see it as necessarily so clear. C is present with a choice. Perform the required action and B lives, or refuse to perform the action, and B dies. When viewed in that light, I think C’s choice can be morally questionable. Let’s say, instead of A’s actions, C is walking down the street, and sees B unconscious on the ground, with a dagger teetering dangerously over B’s throat. C is faced with a choice - move the dagger, and B survives, or leave it there, and B dies. I think C would be morally blameworthy if he chose to carry on walking down the street and simply let the dagger fall, resulting in B’s death.
Now, if you agree on that, why does it make a fundamental difference if A has placed B under the dagger, set it up to fall, and sent a text message to C saying “if you don’t move the dagger, B will die”?
If you think there isn’t a fundamental difference, I also don’t see a fundamental difference if the text message says “move the dagger” or “give me a stick of Juicy Fruit.”
As to the comment on guilt earlier, I can see what you are saying - initially I thought you were referring to some kind of “deserved” guilt (without wanting to get too much into the definition of that) rather than the second guessing you refer to here.
Nothing C does will diminish A’s responsibility. But C does not know what A will do, and should do anything that A requests that could reasonably be interpreted as harmless. If A kills B because C didn’t give him a stick of gum, C has moral responsibility also for failing to take harmless trivial action that might have saved B. If C gives A the stick, and more demands follow, C can start making judgements about the value of trivial cooperation.
Before you’re all fire sure about your answer, make sure you’ve considered yourself under both circumstances of being C and a loved one is B, and also if you are B.
[QUOTE=villa]
I think the difference between our views comes from how we are looking at this. You seem to be viewing it as an individual event, where as I am looking at it as two separate decisions, each with its own morality involved.
[/QUOTE]
Since we are given no details as to why A is threatening B, nor details as to what action A is requiring of C, I’m viewing this as simply as possible…A is threatening to kill B unless C does some unspecified action. Whether C does the action or doesn’t do the action, the choice to kill firmly resides on A…so any ‘moral responsibility’ resides on A for actions A chooses to do.
If the action required by A for C to do is trivial or profound is, to me, irrelevant in calculating ‘moral responsibility’ wrt the simple scenario…because the one choosing to act or not act is A. A can CHOOSE to act if C does what is required…or A can CHOOSE to act if C does not do what is required. Or A can CHOOSE not to act in either case. A is the one with the gun after all, and really the only one that is making the fundamental choice of life or death. C’s actions MIGHT influence A’s actions…or it might not. That’s going to be up to A.
Obviously you could craft this with more detail, like your chewing gum example. Yeah, in that case, C should just chew the gum, or hand over the stick of gum or whatever other trivial thing A is asking for…and in most cases C is going to comply with something trivial. But whether C does or doesn’t comply may impact C’s judgement (or lack), the ultimate MORAL responsibility is always on the person who has the gun and chooses to use it…or chooses not to. If A is an automaton or robot or something then it would be different…then we are back to the person being responsible as being the one who pulled the trigger, and in that case C WOULD be ‘morally responsible’. But if A is a free agent, acting on his or her own, even if they are insane, the ultimate responsibility for this entire situation is squarely on A’s shoulders.
In that case A=automaton/robot/item that has no will of it’s own. That changes the equation slightly, though the overwhelming ‘moral responsibility’ will then be on whoever set up the knife to kill B. If it’s by chance somehow and no one set it up, then I suppose C WILL be responsible for B’s life, since all the choices will devolve onto C. But that is a complete change, taking A out of the equation and moving from more complex equation to a binary equation.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. For me, C is in this situation not of his or her own choosing…no more than B is. They are being forced or coerced into doing something they don’t want to do. In one case dying, in the other doing some act or having another person die. The only really free agent here is A, since it’s entirely up to them whether to act or not to act. How can someone be morally responsible for someone elses actions?? If I force you to commit a crime, does that mean you are morally responsible for the crime committed? You have no choice and have to do what I say. Am I to blame or are you? You committed the crime, after all, not me…I merely forced you to do it against your will.
That’s what it boils down to, again for me…who is able to make a choice and who is forced to make a choice they don’t want to make? Who has some level of free will in the situation…and who doesn’t and is in a situation not of their choosing and being coerced into making a choice they otherwise wouldn’t have made or had to make? Ultimately, the person with the gun is the one with all the choices that really matter.
The fundamental difference is that in your example there is no A…no self willed entity who is making a choice based on his or her own criteria (i.e. if C performs action, kill/don’t kill B, if C doesn’t perform action kill/don’t kill B, kill B and C based on whim, kill/don’t kill C, B and A based on whim, etc etc). What A is asking C to do is, for me, immaterial as to ‘moral responsibility’…that rests squarely on the person who makes the actual life or death decision and chooses to act or does not choose to act. In your example, there is no A, so whatever ‘moral responsibility’ exists is on the one person who can make a choice…C. In the OPs example, the only one who is truly free to choose is A. C can make a coerced choice that may or may not result in the death of B. But C’s choice, regardless of what it is, is not an automatic death sentence for B, since ultimate choice to kill or not to kill (that being the question) resides all on A’s shoulders.
-XT
Interesting thing is that criminals (person A) or criminals-in-training aka students tend to blame their actions on person C. “If you gave me what I wanted, they would still be alive so it’s your fault.”
With the precarious dagger example, C does have some moral responsibility for moving the dagger, because doing so will protect the life of B. But in the original hypothetical, we have no reason for thinking that’s true. Yeah, we might be in the situation where A genuinely will kill B if C doesn’t comply and genuinely won’t if C does, but for all we know, we might also be in the exact opposite situation, where A will kill B iff C does comply.
Now, if C were an accomplished martial artist (trained in action movie-fu) and could reliably disarm A before A could take the shot, or something like that, then you could argue that C has a moral responsibility to do so. There’s a connection between C’s action and B’s fate in that case. But if it’s just the villain saying “do this or else”, there’s no connection.