# Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136 "2004-01-18T19:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/1 "2004-01-18T19:40:13Z")
Is it important to do a good deed even if no one knows it? Here’s the hypothetical situation: A terrorist is holding 100 students in a grade school hostage. If their lives could be spared by the sacrifice of yours, would you volunteer? What if no one knew what you did, so that your sacrifice was anonymous? However, what if you died to save the children, but people believed that you were evil or monstrous so that you were hated from then on? (Say they believed you to be a notorious pedophile and child murderer.) If you believe in heaven or some other afterlife, assume that the truth will be recognized after death but those on earth curse your name for decades. (Moderators: If IMHO would be a better forum, please move this.) ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/2 "2004-01-18T20:04:56Z")
One hell of a hypothetical. I’m half-expecting a, “No…but what if you had to choose between losing a limb to prevent the rape of your pregnant half-sister and dying to prevent the deaths of a stranger who might OR might not be the next Hitler.” Um…do the kids automatically die if you don’t give up your life? Or is there a chance that he might let a few go, or that the FBI/SWAT/CIA/whatever might get there in time, saving pretty much everyone? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/3 "2004-01-18T20:07:15Z")
The rational answer is, of course, to sacrifice yourself. No question, barring exotic circumstances. Anonymity and the like is irrelevant; I’ll be dead anyway. Now, if my cowardice would prevent me to perform such an action should the opportunity present itself… dunno. Hope not. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/4 "2004-01-19T06:46:53Z")
In the situation you have, sacrificing one’s self is most definitely the way to go. “Integrity is what a man does when nobody is looking.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/5 "2004-01-19T07:38:37Z")
What **Soup\_du\_jour** said. Anyone whose integrity varies by the number of spectators doesn’t have much to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/6 "2004-01-19T11:03:24Z")
Agreed. Ethics does not depend on an audience. In the example you describe I’m not ready to say I would sacrifice myself, I feel it comes across as meaningless words. I wouldn’t fault anyone for not sacrificing themselves. The cursing bit would bother me a lot but doing what is right is much more important. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/7 "2004-01-21T00:06:45Z")
Only one person needs to know what I did- me. And I’m selfish- I’d rather be dead than live the rest of my life knowing that 100 kids (or even one) died so I could live. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/8 "2004-01-21T01:33:53Z")
I don’t think the sacrifice is a rational action, regardless of who sees it or knows about it. Once I’m dead, I’m dead. I’m in the ground, and nothing will help or hinder me at that point. There is no me. So nothing that exists or fails to exist _after my death_ can have any value at all. So, I would be trading my life, something of great value to me, to the continued existence of 100 people from a point in time beginning with my death, which can be of no value to me because there is no “me” anymore. I didn’t put the kids in that situation, so I cannot be morally responsible for what happens to them. Should I allow the immoral acts of evil terrorists to impose upon _me_ an obligation to sacrifice my entire life? Should my failure to satisfy this supposed obligation, one that I played no part in creating, reflect upon _my_ moral stature? Surely not. Only _my_ actions can reflect _my_ moral character. If I went to Circuit City and pretended to be you, and purchased a computer on the installment plan, and then you failed to make the payments, would you be acting immorally? Of course not. You didn’t voluntarily accept the obligation, it was created by another without your consent, and so you are not morally required to satisfy that obligation. If I skip town with the computer and Circuit City is left with a $1000 hole in its inventory, it still isn’t your obligation. So why then can an evil terrorist create through his own actions a moral obligation in somebody else to make the _ultimate_ sacrifice? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/9 "2004-01-21T01:56:07Z")
OK, the original dilemma was poorly designed, in that the theist would know that he would be rewarded after death, and the atheist wouldn’t care what happens once he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/10 "2004-01-21T04:26:08Z")
It seems that people do heroic acts every day without the least bit of concern about notoriety. If you are ever near a building that just caught on fire, or an automobile accident that just happened, you will see what I mean. Now if it comes down to CERTAIN death for the hero, that’s a more difficult situation. I think there are very few people that would face certain death for any cause if they are unrelated (physically or emotionally) to the people they are saving. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/11 "2004-01-21T07:15:08Z")
> [@RexDart](#): > > So why then can an evil terrorist create through his own actions a moral obligation in somebody else to make the _ultimate_ sacrifice? Well, life sucks. Get used to it. If you’re in a situation where you can prevent the grief of the families of a hundred people and you don’t do it, then you’re doing something morally wrong. You’re causing more pain than you would if you chose the other option. Who created that situation is irrelevant. Sure, the evil terrorist has done something _more_ morally wrong, but that doesn’t absolve you. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/12 "2004-01-21T16:33:36Z")
**Priceguy** I’m not convinced of the moral wrongenss for failing to save lives is as great as you make it out to be. If it is somehow immoral to save your own life at the cost of two or more other lives, then we should all organise organ donations of our hearts, kidneys, etc. and then kill ourselves outside a major hospital. Such an act would save two or more lives. But it would be unreasonable to say that failing to carry out such an act is moraly wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hroeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@hroeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hroeder)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/13 "2004-01-21T16:41:00Z")
:eek: moral mental manipulation Let’s restate your original hypothesis: There are 100 kids held by a person about to kill them. Louis Pasteur is the only adult near and he can save all hundred children if he only gives up his own life. You’re trying to do “greater” or “Less” loss. Pasteur dies before his contributions and mankind’s loss if obviously greater. If my son is in that group of 100 kids I go in guns ablazin’. If your son is in that group, your choice. You’re able to convince me one of those kids is Jesus Christ, or Buddah, or Mohamed, or even Moses. . .then I’d probably take out the kidnapping son of a gangster. Relative. It’s all relative. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/14 "2004-01-21T17:08:23Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Well, life sucks. Get used to it. If you’re in a situation where you can prevent the grief of the families of a hundred people and you don’t do it, then you’re doing something morally wrong. You’re causing more pain than you would if you chose the other option. Who created that situation is irrelevant. Sure, the evil terrorist has done something _more_ morally wrong, but that doesn’t absolve you. Bullcrap! Not sacrificing your life is not morally wrong. If I refuse to give up my life for the kids, I am not killing them. The terrorist is. I have no responsibility to anyone to give up my life for theirs, whether it be one person or a thousand. Now, if the question is to _risk_ my life to try to save the 100 kids, that’s a different question with a different answer. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/15 "2004-01-21T18:22:56Z")
> [@Who\_me?](#): > > Bullcrap! Not sacrificing your life is not morally wrong. If I refuse to give up my life for the kids, I am not killing them. The terrorist is. I have no responsibility to anyone to give up my life for theirs, whether it be one person or a thousand. You’re causing their deaths. You have two choices; one leads to their deaths, the other doesn’t. There’s no way out of it. > [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > **Priceguy** I’m not convinced of the moral wrongenss for failing to save lives is as great as you make it out to be. If it is somehow immoral to save your own life at the cost of two or more other lives, then we should all organise organ donations of our hearts, kidneys, etc. and then kill ourselves outside a major hospital. > Such an act would save two or more lives. But it would be unreasonable to say that failing to carry out such an act is moraly wrong. I’m not so sure. However, I’d need to know who was getting my organs. After all, I’m causing a lot of people grief by dying, and there had better be a greater amount of pleasure for the people whose lives I’m saving and their acquaintances. But of course we can’t _all_ do this, for what I hope are obvious reasons. But to tone it down a bit, I am definitely saying it’s immoral to not be an organ donor. And if I were dying and someone needed my heart, I’d gladly die prematurely so that that person would live. The amount of grief is the same (I would have died anyway) but the amount of joy is greatly increased (someone survives that wouldn’t have). ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/16 "2004-01-21T19:11:07Z")
That’s total crap. I am in no way causing their death by not sacrificing my life. It won’t be me pulling the trigger (or whatever), it won’t be me causingf their death. In a kidnapping, a note says pay 1 million dollars or this person dies. If the money isn’t paid, is the person who decided not to pay guilty if the kidnapper(s) kill their victim? Never mind… I’ll answer this… OF COURSE NOT!!! The murderers are responsible for the death, no one else. It’s the same in this case. Just because a murderer tries to make you responsible for them killing someone, doesn’t mean you are. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/17 "2004-01-21T19:40:59Z")
If I could save 100 people and didn’t, I think that would weigh on me for the rest of my life. I’d do it, regardless of the consequences to my reputation after my death. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/18 "2004-01-22T04:20:47Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Well, life sucks. Get used to it. If you’re in a situation where you can prevent the grief of the families of a hundred people and you don’t do it, then you’re doing something morally wrong. You’re causing more pain than you would if you chose the other option. Who created that situation is irrelevant. Sure, the evil terrorist has done something _more_ morally wrong, but that doesn’t absolve you. Well, if that’s so then pinpoint for me the origin of my obligation to sacrifice my life for this endeavor. Tell me where it comes from, with specificity. What causes it to arise? Why does it arise, and from what conditions? You can’t just magically hand-wave it into existence _ex nihilo_, nor can you just say “well everybody agrees you should sacrifice your life” because quite obviously everybody _doesn’t_ agree, and that wouldn’t make it any more correct anyways. Then tell me the math on this. Is there a set number of schoolchildren below which it’s **not** required for me to sacrifice my life? What if it’s only one kid? What if the kid has terminal cancer and will be dead in a few months anyways, but I would otherwise live for decades? What if the terrorist is only threatening to maim the children? I simply do not see how an obligation can arise that morally binds _me_ when I myself was not a proximate cause of the situation in question. Nor do I accept that by declining to sacrifice myself I would have “caused” those deaths. The terrorist who kills them will have caused the deaths. He acted, I merely chose not to act. If you can’t make that distinction, then go join Peter Singer in selling off all of your goods that rise above the barest subsistence and give it all to the poor, because clearly your omission of that potential act is murdering starving African children. That’s where your argument eventually leads. It seems absurd, but I can’t find a threshold at which to draw the line once you start down that road. Myself, I feel perfectly fine in a moral sense denying the existence of all involuntary positive obligations. If it came down to _my_ life, I guarantee you I wouldn’t sacrifice it for _anything_. I wouldn’t sacrifice my own life to save the lives of a _billion_ people, because I’m under no obligation to do so. I feel just fine with that because I don’t see any logical reason why I _should_ sacrifice my total existence. (I suppose if I had hard evidence of an afterlife in which personal identity was maintained, I might come to a different conclusion, as it would not in fact be the end of my total existence. But I’m skeptical even of the logical possibility of maintaining personal identity in an immaterial form, let alone whether such a thing actually exists even if it is logically possible.) ---
**Author:** ![blasphmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@blasphmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blasphmer)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/19 "2004-01-22T04:58:06Z")
Guns don’t kill people, People kill People. But it’d depend on who is in the group of 100. IF IF IF and only IF one of a VERY select few friends and even fewer family members were of the 100 then yes. Otherwise my time is too valuable and I haven’t lived my life enough yet to throw it away for a faceless entity. And think of this: There are tons of people in Africa (or wherever) dying everyday for malnutrition. Do I see any of you donating all your savings. Yep, thought so. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136/20 "2004-01-22T07:36:15Z")
> [@Who\_me?](#): > > That’s total crap. I am in no way causing their death by not sacrificing my life. It won’t be me pulling the trigger (or whatever), it won’t be me causingf their death. > > In a kidnapping, a note says pay 1 million dollars or this person dies. If the money isn’t paid, is the person who decided not to pay guilty if the kidnapper(s) kill their victim? Never mind… I’ll answer this… OF COURSE NOT!!! The murderers are responsible for the death, no one else. It’s the same in this case. Just because a murderer tries to make you responsible for them killing someone, doesn’t mean you are. The nonpayer isn’t legally responsible, of course, but still made a choice that resulted in a person’s death. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-ethical-dilemma/225136.md?page=2)