RATIONALIZATION: Because we will not be rescued for many months, we must kill one person in order for the rest of us to survive. AGREEMENT AND CONSENT
RATIONALIZATION: In order to be fair, it will be determined by lot who will be killed. Whoever draws the shortest straw will be killed. AGREEMENT AND CONSENT
One of you draws the shortest straw.
Scenario A: You are killed according to the second agreement.
Scenario B: You kill the person attempting to carry out the second agreement.
JUSTIFICATION for Scenario A: You gave consent to the second agreement.
JUSTIFICATION for Scenario B: You gave consent to the first agreement.
The original scenario was that after drawing the shortest straw, the person would try backing out of the agreement. In fact, the agreement was not as well defined. It was basically we must kill someone and we will decide by drawing straws. The main argument was that the drawing of the straw binded the agreement. There was the understanding that they would draw straws and the person who drew the shortest straw must be killed. There was also the knowledge that they must kill one person. Since it was a binding agreement, no one could back out. I had problems with seeing the whole perspective. I couldn’t see the big picture. Because it was undefined, it was very vague. So I figured out how to make the situation clearer.
I argue that the first rationalization is a higher rationalization. It is a higher rationalization then the second. And when there was a change in conditions after scenario B, the second rationalization no longer applied. Someone else I was debating with stated that all agreements must be kept. He said it would be wrong for someone to back out of the agreement just as it would be wrong to kill the person attempting to carry out the agreement. Again, nothing was yet this defined.
Which rationalization is more important? Would it be rational to kill the person who attempted to carry out the second agreement? Or would it be rational to kill the person who carried out the first agreement? There they would be accusing the man, who would have been killed, of murder.
Which scenario is just? I argue the second scenario because it adheres to a higher rationalization. You realize there are two agreements and you circumvented the lower agreement in a rational way because you think the agreements over.
Which agreement is more important? And what happens to the person who drew the second straw and killed the person attempting to carry out the second agreement? Does he need to be killed, too? The first rationalization was that we must kill someone in order for the rest of us to survive. They agreed to that rationalization. Someone was killed! What on earth would be the rationalization for killing the second person? If the first agreement were fulfilled, why would the second agreement need to be fullfilled?
What justification is right? Who was right in their actions? Which murder was just? The murder in scenario A or the murder in scenario B? Why?
Yes, but with a fundamental change. In scenario B, you kill the person attempting to carry out the second agreement. Analyse the airtight logic I presented. I want you to give me your best, for and against. This is happening right here in SDMB! Fellow Dopers, you are in scenario A or scenario B.
I would say that the first agreement was not binding and not justifiable in the first place. You should wait for someone to croak on their own before you eat them. Even if a person has previously agreed to this, he still has a right to change his mind at any moment and to kill in self-defense.
I agree with Diogenes the Cynic that the agreement is illegal, because it’s a conspiracy to commit murder. The only justification for the killing would be necessity, and I’m not sure that the law would accept that argument.
The problem with the scenario is that is almost any case it’s going to be impossible to make a calculation on how long it will take to be rescued, and on how long any given number will survive. Therefore, you would have great difficulty proving the necessity of an otherwisde unlawful agreement.
So any killing done as a result of the agreement is murder, and resisting such killing is justifiable self-defence.
The more people they kill, the less resources* they require; the only sensible and moral choice is for everyone to be killed, thus preserving resources indefinitely; with indefinite resources, no matter how long it takes, everyone will eventually be safely rescued.
*(breathable air, water, food in the form of Kendall Mint Cake they may happen to have carried in with them).
The flaw in the OP is the assumption that, having set upon a course of action, a satisfactory outcome is at all achievable. Some courses of action simply don’t permit that possibility.
I’ve come up with a better version. I will post it tonight.
To GD mods: I would like to lock this thread. I will post another OP. I have a better, more defined question. NOT which muder is just …but a more philosophical question.
Magngetout, I hope to hear from you later. **Diogenes **, thank you good sir.
I’ll be here; looking for ward to your next thread.
IANAModerator (and I don’t even want to play junior mod), but I don’t see any reason to lock this thread; if people still have something to say about it, it’s good that they can; if they don’t, it will just sink off the page.
Lock the thread when I start a new thread. Until then a preview. There are six questions answered in the dialogue format of Plato. They are very substantive questions so be prepared. It’s none of that gobble-gook I put down originally but it’s still as challenging to mow through.
btw, “the Cave” is technically a Conjunctive Syllogism.