It depends on how long it takes for them to run out of bullets because there is no way that they will ever get me to feel guilty about the fact that THEY are murdering people. The responsibility lies with THEM, not me.
These type of people are going to kill people no matter what I do. So do they feed me or make me eat the bodies and drink blood to survive? That might be a factor, or maybe I’ll find its an acquired taste. Could I get a stove and some spices as well?
I am not an experienced cannibal!
It’s like the charity drives that we were talking about in another thread, where they donate $x to charity for every pancake breakfast you buy.
They were going to donate the money anyway, this is just to get people involved. Same with these murderers, except instead of trying to make you feel good about eating pancakes, they try to make you feel bad about not killing yourself.
Okay, so I kill myself. The next person on their list, instead of being shot, instead is placed into this room and given the same ultimatum. Did I do anyone any favors?
Now, in some extenuating circumstances, like where this is the mob and I know what I did to piss them off, then maybe I take some responsibility.
If you want to get a better idea of what someone thinks their life is worth, don’t make it passive. Put someone in a room where they have to press a button and watch someone get killed every 15 minutes or they die.
For the record, if I were, say, bitten by a werewolf and knew that come nightfall, I would go on a rampage and kill people, and there was no way to stop it as long as I was alive - then yes, I would probably shoot myself before I hurt anyone. But that would be my choice.
This.
Plus it’s a stupid hypothetical. Random people die all the time anyway. I have no reason to believe what they are saying. I am not responsible for the outcome of a scenario they created. If they want to or are able to kill me, they would.
So basically my answer is “no” because “fuck them” (the terrorists).
To apply a real world scenario, should Zelenskyy surrender so Putin stops lobbing missiles at Ukraine?
As already said, it’s a stupid scenario. We have a Big Bad who is able to capture and kill an essentially unlimited number of people for its own entertainment but will let one person (our subject) stop all this? Why?
Nobody able and willing to enact that scenario can be trusted about anything they say or do. Yes, they can pile bodies in the room with me to demonstrate they’ve been serious so far, but I have no reason to believe they would actually comply with the “deal” they forced upon me that my death stops the carnage.
As several upthread have said, I fight my way out or die trying. They are responsible for every drop of blood shed, be that blood from their goons, from me, or from their other victims known or unknown to me. I bear zero responsibility for anything beyond my own survival.
There are real world trolley problems = moral dilemmas where you or I face a moral choice between harming ourselves, harming people we know or love, or harming strangers.
This scenario is not one of them. As long as the Big Bad actor is a human or human organization this scenario cannot be transformed into a legit moral problem. It’s simply another instance of the eternal truth that gangsters, terrorists, or psychos cannot be negotiated with. Only killed in cold blood.
Wasn’t there a recent (as in past few months) movie like this - three people (I kind of think two brothers & a daughter/niece), had to kill one of the others or hundreds/thousands/millions would die & who would the three choose to kill. Saw the commercial & thought it was far-fetched so had no further interest in seeing it.
I’m going to go with others & not off myself. My death would be far more tragic to my loved ones than some number of random people would be to my loved ones.
There was a movie called The Box, based on a short story by Richard Matheson. It is about a couple who receive a box from a mysterious man who offers them one million dollars if they press the button sealed within the dome on top of the box, but tells them that, once the button has been pushed, someone they do not know will die.
I will immediately pick up the gun and shoot myself. I’m good with my life at the moment, I can die with no regrets about things I could have done before I die. Anything else I do will not improve my condition and surely make it worse. I probably won’t have any other opportunity to die in grace. So it’s the clear and obvious choice for me.
I saw trailers for it (on YouTube I think) and likewise had no interest in seeing it. No way I would kill myself or anyone in my family for some nut-job who claims the sacrifice would save the world!
If the voice is going to kill random people unless I kill myself, I assume they are either insane or lying.
And probably going to kill in any case.
So I don’t use the gun.
Spoiler for the version I saw on one of the Twilight Zone reboots:
Just remember, once you get receive your money, the box will be reset and given to someone you do not know.
Back to the OP, I agree with the vast majority of posters in this thread. The killing is entirely on the murderers. I will not participate. I’ll probably suffer from PTSD for the rest of my life, however short that might be, but I’m not going to do anything with that gun except try to escape.
Somebody brought up the trolley problem upthread. I once thought I’d be one to throw the switch, until I watched a video where Michael Stevens of Vsauce fame actually enacted the problem in real life with volunteers who didn’t know what they were getting into. After watching the subjects all struggle with that imposed dilemma, I am now firmly on the side of “leave that switch alone.” By acting, I’ve chosen to kill someone.