Rupert Murdoch. No sweat. Tie him to a tree and shoot him with a blunderbuss loaded with his own shite.
This is similar to a thought/reason problem (game) I came across in the early 70s.
Remember, in the 60s we had bomb shelters here in Florida because of Cuba. There is still one behind my family home. We were braced for nuclear war.
Anyhow, the problem went like this. Nuclear war had started. You have a shelter which will get you through the war and into the safe time BUT there might not be anyone left. (Remember those ‘last people on Earth’ scenarios?) You have a problem. You have too many people for the shelter. One or more will have to remain outside to die. There is a selection of people and you have to choose among them, yourself included, as to who will be the most needed for survival when it becomes all clear.
Some people used to get instantly angry at the test, called it stupid and refused to take it. (I found that interesting.) Others put a lot of thought into it and while there was supposed to be only one solution, people often arrived at more that I considered quite good.
For those who would not go in the shelter, death would be by radiation poisoning and/or disease or suicide. Their options were not explored.
Now, back to the OP. I would take the Son of Sam, Gacy, Manson and that other goofy looking serial killer (I forgot his name) who are currently enjoying notoriety in prison, position them against a stone wall – secured by chains – and give them a bit of ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ A designated set of shooters would use a high powered rifle and shoot their knees out, followed by their elbows – with a few minutes set in between so they could enjoy the resulting pain and reflect upon the agony they put their victims through.
Manson, I figure should get another shot in the thigh, the others, head shots. Then Manson could get his head shot.
Their bodies should be burned to ashes in the prison incinerator and NOT released to their families but the ashes scattered in some septic tank so no one can go to their grave sites and memorialize them.
John Franco…Death by hanging curveball!
I understand your choice, Glitch.
I hope I don’t get an opportunity to change my mind, since I really hate pain. I choose me, as well. I don’t want to live as a murderer, even with a magical get out of hell free card. It’s wrong. Making it clean and neat, and socially beneficial doesn’t make it right, it just makes it comfortable.
I think your knight errant quest for the week is just the heroic stance I expected from you. Kind of like the legendary finger death, by fiat. You get a week to find someone to use it on, and if you can’t find one, you have to suffer the consequences. Yeah, I’ll go looking for child molesters too. But I agree, aside from actually finding one, in the act, and having him actually fail to believe that I am about to eliminate his entire existence without a trace, it ain’t happening. Using a fantasy God Gun to accomplish murder is still murder. I pass.
I won’t participate in it, and the fact that refusing to participate results in my death doesn’t make me willing to play.
Tris
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.
Little Nemo: Suicidal? No. To use the words of Mr. Miyagi from The Next Karate Kid “… respect for all life is not stupid.”
To kill somebody in the defense of another (or myself) is ethical. It is akin to the concept of triage (combat medicine where a combat doctor has to decide who he can treat and who he can’t knowing that he cannot possibly treat everybody and that some will die because he ignores them). In this case, either the criminal or myself will die, and it is the criminal who has put our lives on the balance. It is ethical for me to decide that my contribution to society is greater than that which the violent criminal contributes (for example, there are other ways of making the weighing but they all come out the same). Therefore, if one of us must die it should be him.
So, to kill in defense is okay, but to decide that another life is worth less than your own. Granted I am not a vegan and so that makes me a hypocrite in that sense, in that I do not respect ALL life, but I do hold human life even that which is vile in some regard as not being trivially taken.
Now, one could try to argue that by killing a serial murderer I would be killing in defense. After all it is my life on the line. And doesn’t the similar concept above apply here (i.e. my life weighing heavier than their’s on the balance). The answer, IMO, is no. In this case, it isn’t the serial killer who has put my life and his on the balance, it would be me. That is, IMO, wrong. That is exactly akin to the criminal who breaks into my house whether I am there or not. He puts my life on the balance for selfless gain.
RoboDude: Of course, those names mean something to me. Realize that this joy of these questions isn’t necessarily to put a lot of thought into them. It isn’t about finding the perfect answer. It is about answering what is in your heart, what quickly comes to mind and then taking a look inside to see what exactly that means.
Tris: Interesting. There is one phrase that is truly wonderful.
“and having him actually fail to believe that I am about to eliminate his entire existence without a trace”
I find it great that you would give him a chance to cease his ways. As with my reply to Robo above, I think this says volumes about you. Personally, I wouldn’t, but that is just me.
the first person that comes to mind is my ex, the crapomatic. but i’m sure there’s somebody more deserving than he is… then again, maybe not.
“Organs gross me out. That’s organs, not orgasms.”
-the wallster
Glitch, Tris, reread the OP. It didn’t ask "If you had the power to kill one person would you use it? it said “Someone’s going to die. You get to pick who it is.” So forget about the moral qualms of murder. You’re not killing anybody. The issue is whose life do you feel is worth the least.
Let’s look at Saddam Hussein. He’s a dictator. He’s caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people and created suffering for millions. And in whatever time he has left, he will undoubtedly cause more death and suffering. So can you honestly say you would be willing to be tortured to death in order to save the life of Saddam Hussein? If Saddam doesn’t pull your trigger, how about Arthur Shawcross, a man who raped and tortured a number of young women before he strangled them and thre their bodies in a river; would you sacrifice your life for him? How about some other serial killer who’s committing the same crimes but hasn’t been caught yet; are you willing to die so he can go on claiming more victims?
All I’m saying is that morals shouldn’t be divorced from intelligence and common sense.
A president who does somethine illegal, lies about it, covers it up, destroys evidence, lies some more, and is hardly investigated.
That’s right: George Bush!
Second choice: anyone who feels the need to make the same post three times.
No, I have heard this argument before. It is not quite the same thing, to refuse to name the person who is to die, even though I will dies because some external force has so decreed. That is not my act. I have refused to choose, because choosing another is my act of evil, and I reject it.
I would choose the most deserving soul I could and insist that they die of a hundred years of joyful life, but that would be called niggling. I would choose the person most suffering from this life, and insist that they die in their sleep, untroubled by pain, but I cannot determine who that is. I am not God. Whoever has this power, and has given me this choice is trying very hard to make me choose the most poignant sort of hatred and make it all right by assuring me that it will have no consequences.
It will have consequences. Aside from the sad look on my Savior’s face, which would be sufficient hell for me, there would be the consequence of my own knowledge of my heart. I would be a murderer. Plain and simple, no different than anyone who kills for selfish reasons. I cannot claim that I could stand in the fire, and not curse the one who put me there, but I know that killing someone simply because I believe that they are not as worthy as I am is a path I will not choose.
So, I die. And having thought about the temptation I would face wandering around with a loaded death finger looking for “evildoers” to strike down, I have decided to forgo the week of pederast hunting. I am not made of the stuff of heroes, I would end up shooting down some asshole for having the bad luck to piss me off on just the wrong day.
Tris
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.
Okay then Tris, how about this one.
You are offered a slightly different choice. You are told that you can pick someone to die. You are specifically told you cannot pick yourself. However, if you do not make a pick, five random people will die instead. What do you do now?
Posted by Sentinel
John Wayne Gacy is already dead. Just a clarification.
“You don’t have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die.” --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally!
A Jesusfied sig: Next time I covet thine opinion, I’ll ask for it!
How interesting. Considering the posts I just made in the pit and the response in the post above I will have to say:
Mark Serlin and all his sock-puppets, of which, Sentinel is one.
How would he die? Let’s see, something long, drawn out, painful. Terminal hemorrhoids is my vote, since he IS one. Yes, terminal hemorrhoids, that swell up so painfully he can no longer spew his shit on this board and he just explodes.
Wow! Anyone in favor of him living? Discuss.
How about Louis Farakhan? I think he’s a real good candidate for an ultra-painful long-term death scenario carried out by “Evil Jews” and a white man or two just to help out.
You may wish to reconsider the logic behind this. Who is doing the killing is only important from the perspective that it could make more than one person a killer at the end of this little exercise, but none-the-less deciding who is going to die is without a doubt being involved in the process that leads to that person’s death. Whether or not I do the actual killing is irrelevent.
Suppose I can choose from Person A or Person B to die. There is no doubt that if I choose Person A then Person A will die and Person B will live and vice versa. It is my decision even if it isn’t my power that is causally related to their death.
As to your scenario: I would choose somebody who I knew was guilty of a violent crime rather than see 5 people put to death. Off the top of my head, I heard of this guy who shot a police officer to death. He would be my choice.
From the OP:
Little Nemo, why do you suppose Revtim included this clause? I mean if this isn’t a question that has some element of morality to it, why include the option to choose yourself? Who would do so in a ex-moral situation? I certainly didn’t pick myself for the fun of it. I picked myself because outside of defense I would not wish to be a party to killing.
Perhaps you are thinking that the question is “Name the one person who most deserves to die , in your opinion.” This is a question without a moral context because nobody is going to be killed as a cause of you naming them.
The choice is much clearer, in this example, and the answer much easier. I choose not to participate in the evil of selecting others to die. This is the logic of abusers. “Look what you made me do!” It is the plea of the bully, and the mass murderer, for an accomplice. It is the first demand for power from the terrorist.
Next you take out your gun, and show me that I must choose whom you will kill before my eyes, “The wino, or the priest?” Then I get to choose between the idiot and the genius, and then the Christian and the Jew, and then the blond and the redhead. I choose not to be manipulated. The desire to kill is not mine, it is the choice of the killer.
If I have the ability to save a life, and must choose to save it, or not save it, the choice is to act to do what is right, and the difficulty and consequences measure my dedication to the thing I think is right. Choosing murder is always wrong. In the scenario, some evil power tries to force me to embrace evil. I decline to be so forced. Refusing to be an accomplice does not make your act my act.
Tris
Imagine my signature begins five spaces to the right of center.
Quite frankly, Glitch, I have no idea why Revtim included that clause. I’m a fairly average person and quite frankly I can’t imagine that anyone would choose me as the most deserving person on Earth to die. But even if I was an extraordinarily bad person, I still can’t imagine picking myself.
As for the morality, keep in mind there are people who are virtually certain to kill other people in their lifetimes. By sacrificing yourself in the place of these people, you are also sacrificing their future victims.
So let’s say you are asked to make the choice of which of two people will die; Little Nemo or Joe Axmurderer. I flatter myself perhaps, but I think virtually everyone would decide it’s better for me to live and Joe to die. Why shouldn’t I make the same rational choice?
Are we limited to only one?!? I’d kill lots of people. Why do people hold human life in higher regard than animal life? People are animals and some of them more so than others.
Tris: The idiot and the wino are both leeches on society - they must go. The idiot can go easy ‘cause it’s not his fault, but the wino’s gonna’ have to suffer for being such a loser. Does that make me evil? I don’t think so.
Chelas:
Chelas, since you’re obviously new, I’m going to inform you rather than flame you:
This message board is sometimes not properly responsive. When it returns a time-out, people often hit the “Submit” button additional times, not having any idea that their post actually got through.
It should be obvious that multiposting is almost always (if not always) an honest mistake and/or systems error.
I’ve been on this board for over a year, and have been complimented by quite a few folks for my extreme patience with impolite people. You’re seeing it on display now. Don’t push it, newbie.
As for your completely unsubstantiated Bush allegations, I have no comment at all.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Tris, I disagree with your morality on this issue. I feels it’s immoral to allow five people to die just so my personal “account” remains pure. In fact, I think the situation I describe is illustrative of many real life moral decisions. You have to consider a number of choices, none of which is morally “pure”, and decide which of them is the least immoral. Refusing to participate is a choice, and may not be the most moral one.