I’m amused at the number of people who are willing to trust the word of a person who has already committed a violent felony and is threatening to commit another. There’s no reason to believe the Joker (or anyone) will actually refrain from murder if their demands are met. That’s what makes the “pacifist with a gun” case different - you’re not depending on the volition of the killer.
I disagree. The gunman is to blame for the killings, but the pacifist is to blame for not acting to save others. He didn’t even try to place himself between the gunman and the children. Failure to act in this case is also immoral even if it is not the same immorality as killing the children.
Absolutely it is a different hypothetical and apologies to the OP for clouding the waters.
You are right that in the Joker we are not dealing with a simple outcome, we just can’t trust that he’ll refrain from killing even if Batman complies. I put forward the second hypothetical to give us a scenario where we can be confident of the outcome just to see where that might take the thinking.
I brought it up more because I think it’s ridiculous to assign any sort of moral culpability to someone who refuses to cooperate with a terrorist/hostage taker, when there’s absolutely no reason to believe that the terrorist/hostage taker will actually keep their word.
Your hypothetical is more interesting IMHO.
I agree with that part, definitely. Someone in that position has a truely no-win situation.
but far, far messier to unpick. (maybe therein lies the interest?)
Why is it immoral to choose not to die for other people? Is it just immoral to choose to not die for children or is it for everyone? Are people obligated to die for anyone and everyone?
That wasn’t part of the hypothetical
I disagree.
It depends on the moral framework you choose to accept.
I have a framework that says me killing humans is always wrong - even in *self *defence, never mind defence of others. So within that framework, actively choosing not to kill in that situation is a moral good, never mind morally neutral. But that’s *my *framework.
No, it’ll always be contingent on the moral frameworks of the debaters.
You addressed the following hypothetical. It is certainly part of it.
As to the morality:
It’s not a clear cut case. I believe everyone has some moral responsibilities in a society because the survival of all of us depends on the sacrifice of others. It’s not a question of being required to give up your life to defend others, it’s a question of inaction, does pacifism justify allowing the murder of a group of school children. I think even a pacifist needs to act in this case. I don’t think inaction is a crime, we’ve had a thread on that subject, but morality is a different matter. That pacifist must certainly owe some debt to society for his survival unless he was born and lived his whole life in some unknown cave. To not act in the great interest of society is a problem, I don’t want him to throw himself in front of the gunman, I want him to act and kill the gunman. But if he does hold his pacifist principles in such high regard that he wouldn’t harm someone else to save them then he should willing to maintain those principals and try to save those children even with the sacrifice of his own life. Otherwise he is just selfish and his principles are corrupt.
There’s nothing in there about him jumping in front of the gunman. The only thing addressed is his failure to shoot. So that’s what I addressed.
Personally, it wouldn’t be against my principles to, for instance, grab him from behind and wrestle him to the ground. So I’m not arguing for complete inaction. Just not killing him.
I agree.
I also believe the ultimate, long-term survival of us as a society and species depends on us all embracing not killing each other, before and way above any local or temporary survival for a select few.
In the hypothetical, the sacrifice* for society’s survival* is that of the children. Or do you only approve when it is adults being sacrificed?
I forget, *which *part of the hypothetical spoke of the magic gun that is going to run out of bullets after one pacifist is mowed down, thereby saving the children?
It’s amazing, I don’t think I’ve been in *one *of these threads where pacifists weren’t exposed to this sort of abuse, without us calling the morals of killers into question…
Apologies, It was me that used the words “pacifist nature” but it was meant in the small “p” sense of the word rather than a coherent political position.
It was a less wordy way of saying that the person was not typically given to violence and wouldn’t relish the thought of killing under ordinary circumstances. Someone who, if they did kill someone, would feel bad about it. Basically just your average person in the street really (so I should have used that phrase instead)