A little thought experiment

housemap

You are participating in a gathering of many persons, a terrorist group
invades gathering and holds all hostage. They make demands threatening an
execution of a hostage if demands are not met. The demands are not met,
the terrorists sporting a wicked sense of humour seperate 6 people from the
group, you and five others, they give you a revolver with one bullet in it and
tell you you must kill one of the other five within 5 minutes or you and all five
will be executed, you cannot ask any questions of the other five. You
examine the other five, four of the five are generic and do not sport anything
distinguishing. The fifth is obviously a religious person. Who do you kill ?

I would kill the religious person as in their world view they will be going to a better place, I can't say this about anyone else.

strobe

housemap wrote: »

You are participating in a gathering of many persons, a terrorist group
invades gathering and holds all hostage. They make demands threatening an
execution of a hostage if demands are not met. The demands are not met,
the terrorists sporting a wicked sense of humour seperate 6 people from the
group, you and five others, they give you a revolver with one bullet in it and
tell you you must kill one of the other five within 5 minutes or you and all five
will be executed, you cannot ask any questions of the other five. You
examine the other five, four of the five are generic and do not sport anything
distinguishing. The fifth is obviously a religious person. Who do you kill ?

I would kill the religious person as in their world view they will be going to a better place, I can't say this about anyone else.

LOL. Talk about a loaded question.

I'd break down, collapse to my knees and start sobbing, then cry out "oh god, I can't do it, please let us go" then when one of the terrorists walked back into the room I would shoot him in the face. If they are that fukked up they are probably going to kill all of us eventually anyways, regardless of weather we play their games or not. Might as well make them pay for their assholeness. Peace out.

Goduznt Xzst

I'd shoot myself...


nah, only joking. Nobody would do that.

I'd choose some arbitrary criteria then shoot a person based on that. For instance, I'd ask them to choose a number between 1 and 4, whoever chooses 3, lets say, gets killed.

Therefore I am neither choosing a person to be killed, and they are not volunteering to be killed. It's up to pure chance.

That or spin the barrel and play some russian roulette.

Shooting someone based on a personal prejudice or some asinine reason like "they believe they are going to heaven" is moronic. It doesn't matter what they believe at that particular moment in time. Nobody wants to die, regardless of what they believe will happen to them posthumously.

chucken1

housemap wrote: »

You are participating in a gathering of many persons, a terrorist group
invades gathering and holds all hostage. They make demands threatening an
execution of a hostage if demands are not met. The demands are not met,
the terrorists sporting a wicked sense of humour seperate 6 people from the
group, you and five others, they give you a revolver with one bullet in it and
tell you you must kill one of the other five within 5 minutes or you and all five
will be executed, you cannot ask any questions of the other five. You
examine the other five, four of the five are generic and do not sport anything
distinguishing. The fifth is obviously a religious person. Who do you kill ?

I would kill the religious person as in their world view they will be going to a better place, I can't say this about anyone else.

Good for you.Question answered then!

Über Micro PCs

Agree with Goduznt Xzst.
housemap I dont know if you call yourself an atheist or agnostic.
Their beliefs to mind mind are irrelevant,if you dont believe in god you must assume they are delusional,so you are picking them because they are delusional?
What they think before they die doesnt matter they are still going into the ground just like any of the others.

chucken1

Does ANYONE EVER read the question??

Über Micro PCs

?
I missed the point?
I agreed with Goduznt Xzst,get them to draw straws,pick a card etc.....

silent sage

I know this has little to do with the original post, but this thread has been an undoubted reminder of a video I just watched tonight that will probably haunt me for many an insecure moment; Members of the Iraqi insurgency began taking foreign civilian hostages in 2004, one of these were a US man Eugene Armstrong, a contractor for the construction firm Gulf Supplies Commercial Services of the United Arab Emirates. He was beheaded (which is the video I've just watched), and several others were scheduled for beheadings (which ultimately came to pass) unless the US met their demands to free all women prisoners in Iraqi jails.

I would say that the following video is NSFW, but that is an understatement. I don't think it should be viewed by anyone. I hope you watch at <<snip>>*. *Ignoring bordering advertisements, this was first viewed on a site which required you to pay for repeat viewings.

I realize that this is old news, and maybe many of you have seen this before, but when the act of execution is presented in front of me, it brings a variety of thoughts and emotions to the forefront. To be specific to the forum, if there is a god in/up there, he is one heartless cunt of an entity which deserves worship/respect from only the deluded/blind observer to the world we live in. Mods feel free to delete/edit this post, I just found it an appropriate place to vent my disturbing experience.

/drunken rant.

DOC09UNAM

i would shoot the oldest looking person, for all you know the other four are also religious.

that or, i'd try be the hero and shoot as many terrorists as i can, if there's more than six, shoot the terrorist and steal his gun and kill the other 5 throw the gun at number 7 and rugby tackle his ass, then Pick up a gun off one of the dudes on the ground, and go john mclane on their asses with the help of the other 5 folks.

Shenshen

housemap wrote: »

You are participating in a gathering of many persons, a terrorist group
invades gathering and holds all hostage. They make demands threatening an
execution of a hostage if demands are not met. The demands are not met,
the terrorists sporting a wicked sense of humour seperate 6 people from the
group, you and five others, they give you a revolver with one bullet in it and
tell you you must kill one of the other five within 5 minutes or you and all five
will be executed, you cannot ask any questions of the other five. You
examine the other five, four of the five are generic and do not sport anything
distinguishing. The fifth is obviously a religious person. Who do you kill ?

I would kill the religious person as in their world view they will be going to a better place, I can't say this about anyone else.

Since I firmly believe that the only life I can possibly make such a decision about is my own, I would kill myself.

MagicMarker

Yep, I'd probably kill myself, or attempt to kill one of the terrorists for the craic.

Shooting the religious person because they think they're going to heaven is a bit dumb.

MagicMarker

silent sage wrote: »

I know this has little to do with the original post, but this thread has been an undoubted reminder of a video I just watched tonight that will probably haunt me for many an insecure moment; Members of the Iraqi insurgency began taking foreign civilian hostages in 2004, one of these were a US man Eugene Armstrong, a contractor for the construction firm Gulf Supplies Commercial Services of the United Arab Emirates. He was beheaded (which is the video I've just watched), and several others were scheduled for beheadings (which ultimately came to pass) unless the US met their demands to free all women prisoners in Iraqi jails.

I would say that the following video is NSFW, but that is an understatement. I don't think it should be viewed by anyone. I hope you watch at <<snip>>*. *Ignoring bordering advertisements, this was first viewed on a site which required you to pay for repeat viewings.

I realize that this is old news, and maybe many of you have seen this before, but when the act of execution is presented in front of me, it brings a variety of thoughts and emotions to the forefront. To be specific to the forum, if there is a god in/up there, he is one heartless cunt of an entity which deserves worship/respect from only the deluded/blind observer to the world we live in. Mods feel free to delete/edit this post, I just found it an appropriate place to vent my disturbing experience.

/drunken rant.

So we can't post porn but we can post beheadings?

Shenshen

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we can't post porn but we can post beheadings?

Dunno about you, but I'd prefer the p0rn...

silent sage

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we can't post porn but we can post beheadings?

I'd imagine we can't post either, but it was that or be left with the images of brutal murder in my solitude mind. Some things need to be vented. :pac:

StompToWork

TBH, I find the OP's question to be quite disturbing. I hope I am never in a situation as described with OP, incase he gets the gun, and I look vaguely religious. Take, for example, at the moment, I am wearing a black shirt and black slacks! To him, would I look like a priest whos dog-collar was in the wash??

In a situation like that, neither Race, religious beliefs, sexual preference or the color of someone's hair should make one blind bit of difference in your decision.

I would like to think that if I was offered the gun by the f**kwit in charge, I wouldn't even take it. I would use force against anyone trying to put it in my hand, and if that leads to me being shot, then so be it.

However, we never really now how we are going to act in a situation like that, until we are in it. I would probably soil myself while blubbering like a little girl and screaming for my mother. Who knows?

Dades

silent sage wrote: »

Some things need to be vented. :pac:

Not vented here, they don't.

Not having that crap linked to from here.
What has been seen - cannot be unseen, so if people want to watch that stuff they can find it somewhere else.

silent sage

Dades wrote: »

Not vented here, they don't.

Not having that crap linked to from here.
What has been seen - cannot be unseen, so if people want to watch that stuff they can find it somewhere else.

I should have said there are some things that I needed to vent. I was deeply disturbed by that video. Wrong forum I'm sure, sorry for bringing the discussion off the original post.

Kill myself or attempt to go for a terrorist. No way I could take someone else's life like that, religious or otherwise.
Silly question :pac:

antiskeptic

housemap wrote: »

I would kill the religious person as in their world view they will be going to a better place, I can't say this about anyone else.

Few religions offer unqualified assurance to their adherants that they are off to a better place. Given that they could very well worry about going to a worse place for all eternity you'd be better off shooting someone else - someone who thinks there's going to be nothing after this. The atheist for instance

If I was in the group I'd resolve your dilemma for you by requesting you shoot me. My 'religion' does happen to give me unqualified assurance regarding my afterlife whereabouts.

Canis Lupus

Being an atheist I'd kill the obviously religious person first then I'd start bludgeoning the others to death with the gun just to be sure like.

magicbastarder

Shenshen wrote: »

I would kill myself.

not trying to impugn your morals, but i suspect your sense of self-preservation is stronger than you think.

AudreyHepburn

I don't believe any of us has the right to decide if some-one else lives or dies, we can only decide for ourselves.

So I would kill myself. I couldn't turn a gun on an innocent person, even if my life could be saved by doing so. That to me would be selfish.

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't believe any of us has the right to decide if some-one else lives or dies, we can only decide for ourselves.

So I would kill myself. I couldn't turn a gun on an innocent person, even if my life could be saved by doing so. That to me would be selfish.

The OP points out that your doing so will ensure the death of all the others. By shooting 1 other you save 4 others and yourself. It'd be selfish to duck the situation by shooting yourself.

AudreyHepburn

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP points out that your doing so will ensure the death of all the others. By shooting 1 other you save 4 others and yourself. It'd be selfish to duck the situation by shooting yourself.

But what gives me the right to take an innocent person's life?

Tbh in that type of situation I think the terrorists would have no problem killing everyone anyway whether I shot myself or not.

dvpower

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe

... simpliest solution.

dvpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But what gives me the right to take an innocent person's life?

Tbh in that type of situation I think the terrorists would have no problem killing everyone anyway whether I shot myself or not.

Its a thought experiment; its against the rules to second guess what the terrorists might do.

AudreyHepburn

dvpower wrote: »

Its a thought experiment; its against the rules to second guess what the terrorists might do.

Sorry I didn't realise, my bad .

Doesn't change my answer though.

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Sorry I didn't realise, my bad .

Doesn't change my answer though.

Your choice kills those other 5 people. Isn't that selfish?

Zillah

I would, without hesitation or doubt, shoot the ugliest person.

liamw

Zillah wrote: »

I would, without hesitation or doubt, shoot the ugliest person.

Shooting yourself would be selfish

Zillah

I'm pretty on the inside.

and the outside, and I would like to keep my insides inside, re; the bullet

As for the OP's contention that one should shoot the religious person because they believe in heaven...a religious person is perfectly capable of thinking they're going to go to Hell. Especially if they experienced such thoughts as "oh God pick someone else to die, not me! Anyone but me!" moments before death.

AudreyHepburn

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your choice kills those other 5 people. Isn't that selfish?

Maybe. But I don't think I have the right to take another innocent person's life to save my own.

That's just as selfish imo.

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maybe.

Not maybe. Certainly.

But I don't think I have the right to take another innocent person's life to save my own. That's just as selfish imo.

The thought experiment doesn't limit your motivation for killing one person to self-preservation. It permits your considering the preservation of others lives at cost to yourself by way of a torturous decision (which is a self-less thing).

Your decision doesn't appear to take account of that second element.

Zillah

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Maybe. But I don't think I have the right to take another innocent person's life to save my own.

How about to take one life to save several?

You have two options, one that results in one death, the other than results in many deaths. Which choice is the moral one? I would contend that you're being a coward, that you are going to let several people die for your own squimishness.

AudreyHepburn

Zillah wrote: »

How about to take one life to save several?

You have two options, one that results in one death, the other than results in many deaths. Which choice is the moral one? I would contend that you're being a coward, that you are going to let several people die for your own squimishness.

If I were a coward I would kill an innocent person to save my own skin.

Put yourself in the position of the person at whom I'm pointing the gun. Would you honestly rather I killed you to save myself?

I know I might save others but it isn't guarenteed.

Think about this honestly.

AudreyHepburn

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not maybe. Certainly.



The thought experiment doesn't limit your motivation for killing one person to self-preservation. It permits your considering the preservation of others lives at cost to yourself by way of a torturous decision (which is a self-less thing).

Your decision doesn't appear to take account of that second element.

Ok but even if I do shot that one person there's no guarentee that the terrorists would actually spare anyone else.

They're only making me make this choice to amuse themselves after all, not to give us a chance to live.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your choice kills those other 5 people. Isn't that selfish?

Wait what? I re-read the OP but I didn't see it say "if you kill yourself they die"
in that case I have absolutely no idea what I would do

antiskeptic

bluewolf wrote: »

Wait what? I re-read the OP but I didn't see it say "if you kill yourself they die"

It doesn't say that but thought experiements limit you to doing that which is made available to you. You can't add options that aren't available to you such a saying you'll "take your chances on being rescued in the next 5 minutes"

The OP says that:

"and tell you you must kill one of the other five within 5 minutes or you and all five will be executed."

If you don't kill on of the other five (which you won't be able to do if you kill yourself) then the condition promised is assumed to be fulfilled.

in that case I have absolutely no idea what I would do

You have 5 minutes to decide. And counting..

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok but even if I do shot that one person there's no guarentee that the terrorists would actually spare anyone else.

A thought experiment doesn't require you to speculate about the situation outside the thought experiement. You might be all shot, you might not be. It does require you to deal with the situation as you find it and pick from the options made available.

They're only making me make this choice to amuse themselves after all, not to give us a chance to live.

There's a simpler way to deal with the experiment that finding a myriad of ways not to take part. It's to simply not take part.

Pushtrak

antiskeptic wrote: »

A thought experiment doesn't require you to speculate about the situation outside the thought experiement.

It doesn't? To me, a thought experiment is as such if you are able to consider potential consequences of certain actions, or inaction. What would one consider as the thought experiment if not such factors? Or in other words, what, to you, does a thought experiment require?

Shenshen

magicbastarder wrote: »

not trying to impugn your morals, but i suspect your sense of self-preservation is stronger than you think.

It might. I have to admit that until I actually am in that situation, I cannot say with 100% certainty.
But I do think I can say with near 100% certainty that I wouldn't be able to kill anybody else...

antiskeptic

Pushtrak wrote: »

It doesn't? To me, a thought experiment is as such if you are able to consider potential consequences of certain actions, or inaction. What would one consider as the thought experiment if not such factors? Or in other words, what, to you, does a thought experiment require?

I think there's a differentiation to be found between those possibilities which would derive from the set up of the experiment and that which is completely spurious. For instance, there isn't anything in the set up of this experiment which leaves open the option of holding out in case the terrorists are bluffing.

To say you'd take that option is to step outside the implicit boundaries of the experiment. That's what AudreyHep's doing in supposing the terrorists would shoot everyone anyway.

AudreyHepburn

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think there's a differentiation to be found between those possibilities which would derive from the set up of the experiment and that which is completely spurious. For instance, there isn't anything in the set up of this experiment which leaves open the option of holding out in case the terrorists are bluffing.

To say you'd take that option is to step outside the implicit boundaries of the experiment. That's what AudreyHep's doing in supposing the terrorists would shoot everyone anyway.

But where were those boundries laid out?

I don't think the OP said we couldn't speculate on other possible outcomes based on our choice

CosmicCrusader

I'm tempted to be one of those people who say they'd shoot themselves to save the others, but that's pure BS! In a situation like that you'd do anything to save yourself. It's our survival instict! . . . I would do 1 of 2 things, I would probably shoot the oldest looking person as they have lead the longest life. However, if all 4 were around the same age then I'd just play russian roulette. Spin the barrel and whoever is unlucky enough gets shot.

P.S. This is a horrible question. I personally couldn't live with myself if I killed someone. It would haunt me!

magicbastarder

find out which of them have kids. eliminate them (in the sense that you won't shoot them, of course).
it's an easy one, the widower with terminal cancer will volunteer cos he's got nothing to live for anyway.

AudreyHepburn

CosmicCrusader wrote: »

P.S. This is a horrible question. I personally couldn't live with myself if I killed someone. It would haunt me!

I think what the issue is here is that some are saying that one person's death is worth it to save yourselve and the other 4 hostages, whether you personally could live with it or not.

Personally though I agree with you. I could never forgive myself.

Dades

housemap wrote: »

You examine the other five, four of the five are generic and do not sport anything distinguishing.

If four of the five are generic, I'd just shoot one of them, as there's three of that generic person left.

Probably the closest one as I've never fired a handgun before.

King Mob

Well personally I carry several bullets of various calibres for just such an occasion.
I would then use these bullets to shoot any terrorists not standing near windows, thus giving the police snipers cause to fire at the ones they can see, therefore ending the situation with a minimum of casualties.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

You have 5 minutes to decide. And counting..

Yeah, I still duno, I'd have to be in the situation. Which hopefully I won't ever be.

magicbastarder wrote: »

find out which of them have kids.

Can't ask them anything, says in OP

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But where were those boundries laid out?

I don't think the OP said we couldn't speculate on other possible outcomes based on our choice

Given that "Christian" can involve meaning anything you decide it means, I can't say I'm surprised at your approach here.

The OP didn't say you couldn't speculate on other possible outcomes. What worth to the experiment though if you speculate that God will strike those big, bad terrorists down before the 5 minutes will have elapsed.

sensibleken

why dont you shoot one of the terrorists, grab his gun and then shoot the other terrorists, preferably while jumping through the air.

its what John McClane would have wanted