posted
1. Would you ever sacrifice your life to do the right thing?
2. Would you ever sacrifice your child's life to do the right thing?
3. Would you ever sacrifice a stranger's life to do the right thing?
4. If you had a choice between the three of these, who's life would you be most willing to sacrifice? Least willing?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mine. Why force someone to do what I should do? I'd be least willing to sacrifice a child of mine if I had one.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this poll is going to produce a number of identical answers, most of which will not be true.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Your the guy who makes a train take certain tracks (I forgot what you call those guys). So, a train full of people is coming, but you spot that the track in which the people are planning to go has a gap. And if you switch it, you'll force the train to hit your child.
So would you kill the train full of people to save the human being on Earth that is the most precious to you, or would you kill your son in order to save the lives of about fifty strangers (this one being the "right thing")?
That's the way I took it as.
Anyway, I suppose it would have to do with how long I had to decide what was the wrong thing and what was the right thing. For instance, I would give my life to save others if, after some deliberation, I came to the conclusion that it was necessary, but I wouldn't give my life solely in hopes that it would save their lives - only if I was absolutely sure.
In the example of the train, I would hit my son in most circumstances. But if I knew that the train was full of criminals on their way to be executed, I would just let it crash.
posted
1. Unlikely, but possibly. 2. Unlikely, but possibly. 3. Probably. 4. Most willing to sacrifice stranger. Unable to decide between other two options without more information.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sincerely hope I'm never in the situation Da Goat outlined, but if I were I'm afraid I would probably save my child.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would sacrifice a stranger to save many strangers.
I would sacrifice a stranger to save myself or my wife.
I would sacrifice myself to save my wife, or possibly a huge number of strangers.
I would sacrifice my wife to save a staggering number of strangers, say, thousands or more.
I would let a train with fifty people on it crash to save my wife without batting an eye.
I would never sacrifice myself to save a single stranger, nor would I expect a stranger to sacrifice themselves for me.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, saying "doing the right thing" is a little vague, when I see someone pulled over on the side of the road with a flat tire, the "right thing" to do would be to pull over and help them replace it. Would I sacrifice my life to do the "right thing" there? No.
When it came to choosing to have my child (if I had one) myself, or 100 people I don't know die, I like to think I'd choose myself, but in all honesty, I know I'm selfish and while I'd hate living with myself either way if I chose for anyone else to die, I'd likly kill the strangers for the simple reason that I am selfish.
On the other hand I could totally see myself risking my life to save another. If I had to choose between one stranger certainly dying and me certainly living, and the 50/50 toss up that we both die or both live, I'd probably risk my life.
Again I don't know, I've never been in a situation like that, but I think that's how I'd act.
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Da_Goat, now there is more to work with.
I would definitely NOT sacrifice my son nor a stranger to save that train load of people. No human being should be sacrificed without his or her consent for the lives of others.
Would I sacrifice my own life? It depends. If I were the train's conductor, I would sacrifice my life because that is my job. If I am just an innocent bystander that has nothing to do with the accident, and that there is no one I know on the train, I probably would not sacrifice myself.
I know that sounds sad but that's the honest answer. When you watch CNN and see a terrible earth quake has taken hundreds of lives in China, you feel bad for those people. But do you say to yourself, "God, please take me instead"?
[ January 10, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the point at which my wife would probably hate me for choosing her over thousands of people.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, if you sacrificed a stranger/wife/child to save lives, you are still going to jail right?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably depends on the circumstances. I'd say in the train situation, you wouldn't go to jail, but the train inspector would for not reporting the gap.
quote: I think this poll is going to produce a number of identical answers, most of which will not be true.
Taking in to the account that that is probably true, I'm going to endeavor to make my answer one that would be by placing a few qualifications. A. If you define sacrifice as in trade as in a thought out decision, then my answer is never to 1-3 and no comment on 4. B. If it was not a matter os surety but of risk then I would try to consider all factors for the least risk, then choose. C. When I give my answers, it will be assuming that I am making a last second decision and that one us must definitely die beyond a shadow of a doubt. D. I'm taking the liberty to assume two more things in answering. One, that the death of one will nullify any need for the death of another, and two, that if the child does not die, he/she can reasonably expected to live a good life, and good in such a way that he/she will be able to propogate future generations that can in turn be reasonably expected to have good lives and so on. and yes I know that's quite an assumption .
SO, to #1. yes #2. no #3. yes, assuming that that stranger is not a child and see (D). 4. My own, because it is mine; (duh)
Actually, after the fact, I think we'd have to define 'child' as someone of reasonably young age who it is reasonable to assume that he/she is a fundamentally ethical person (non-psychopath, non amoral), who has not yet reached his/her full potential.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[derail] Ooh! Wasn't this in Spiderman? But he saved both the people and his girlfriend! [/derail]
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the situation arises, I'll make the decision then. I think it depends on the situation and the chances of outcomes. I'm fairly sure that self-presevation, in a time of peril would probably be formost in my mind, but whether I would be able to overcome that will remain to be seen if I ever have to make such a decision.
What a terrible decision.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Funny, in the comics Spiderman was faced with the same dilema in the movie, but it was with Gwen Stacey, not Mary Jane. The result...he saved the strangers but couldn't get to Gwen in time to save her as well.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some ways, this is like the Laws of Robotics in Asimov's stories. First and foremost, a robot must not harm a human or through inaction allow a human to come to harm. However, in some cases the robot might have to choose who to save. This leads to some very interesting dilemmas (and often, non-functional robots). In one story, a robot is programmed to choose who to save based on certain merits. I don't want to give the end of the story away, but this leads to some unexpected behavior from the robots.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Amazing Spider-Man 121, the Green Goblin drops Gwen Stacy from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge. There are no other people to save; no dilemma. Peter catches Gwen before she hits the water, but she has already died from the shock of falling that distance.
Regarding the topic: There is a Kurt Vonnegut short story where a military officer, his family, and several soldiers are captured by a warlord in southeast asia. The Warlord offers them freedom if the Officer plays a game of live chess (this was way before Harry Potter). At first, the officer attempts to use his soldiers for dangerous moves, and each time he loses one, they are pulled off the board and executed. Finally the officer sees that if he sacrifices his son, he will win the game, so he does. His wife refuses to see that this was the best option (if he had lost, everyone would have died).
To rephrase the question: If I had the choice where the sacrifice of myself, my child, or a stranger would save the lives of fifty strangers, no doubt I would sacrifice the stranger first, myself second, but not my child if I could help it. The only way I could see sacrificing my child is in a case where either s/he dies, or we all die, as above.
In a real life situation, however: My son once got into a questioning mode about what to do if there was a fire in our house. I tried to explain the different options, starting with just leaving his room and walking outside, and finally opening a window and jumping to the ground. He wanted to know what he should do about his little sister who shared his room at the time. I told him that if I could get her out I would, but he should just leave her, she wasn't his responsibility (He was four years old, she was less than one).
Where I used to work we would get the news every few years that someone had asphyxiated. This was an occupational hazard, and we were all trained to avoid confined spaces and inert atmospheres.
Often, in these cases, more than one person died because when one person passed out, others would go in to try to rescue them. Even though we knew the risk of entering an inert atmosphere, the same thing kept happening. I often felt that managment should tell the employees this: "Let them die. Even if you feel that it's your fault they're in there, don't go in after them, all you'll do is kill yourself too. We know this is dangerous, accidents happen. So we give you permission to let them die."
This could have saved lives. However, the company's official policy was "Safety is a condition of your employment," and "All accidents are avoidable." As far as I could tell, this policy only led to people covering things up, rather than dealing with the problems, because they were afraid for their jobs.
So I gave my son permission to allow his sister to die. He was too young to take responsibility for someone else, and if he survived, I would want him to know that he bore no guilt for leaving her there. All in all it seemed like a wierd exercise in "what if?" but what do you tell your child when he asks the question?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'd let an inquisition starve my baby before I'd denounce my faith. Is that what you mean? I'd have a really hard time maintaining a Christian attitude, though.
I've already decided that if a person takes one of my kids hostage, it's not going to help them.
I'm not sure how sacrificing a stranger would ever help anything. In all the train scenarios, I don't think it's ever worth an act (crime) of commission. Well, that's not true, I would have assassinated Hitler if I'd had the opportunity.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What type of sacrifice are we talking about? I mean, do I get to use one of those wicked-sharp wavy-bladed daggers with a dragon's body for the hilt? And tie up the naked victim on a rough-hewn stone altar?
posted
I would only sacrifice myself. I don't think I could stand to be alive if I had to sacrifice anyone else. Living with that knowledge would be too much. Much easier to just sacrifice myself.
I don't think I have the right to sacrifice a stranger - however, if the sacrifice of the stranger meant saving the life of my child, well . . . let's be honest - the stranger goes. Heck, I'd rather cry over the grave of someone I know than my son.
My life? Expendable. My will's in place. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it's an entirely fair question. Everyone sitting here and answering, myself included, are not undergoing the stress and agony of making such a decision in real life.
I would love to say that I would sacrifice myself first before anyone else. But I really don't know. Sitting here I know that I would want to let myself die in exchange of a spouse, a child, or even a large group of strangers. But at the same time, I don't want to die. In a situation in which I am confronted with death or the deaths of others, I really don't know which side of me would win out.
And I hope that no one on this board nor myself ever have to find out that answer for themselves.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Would you ever sacrifice your life to do the right thing?
I don't think that choosing to end my one's life is ever the right thing to do. There are many instances where death is a possibility but not a certainty, ie. soldiering and law enforcement. In these I see a choice to take the risk but also a belief that your living actions, rather than your death will ensure the greater good. Most other scenarios seem too Hollywood to be something one could or should anticipate and be sure that what you're doing is "the right thing". If by sacrifice you mean denying your own needs for the greater good, then absolutely.
quote: 2. Would you ever sacrifice your child's life to do the right thing?
Every fiber of my being says that nothing is worth more than my children. I've always had a beef with Abraham and his ability to sacrifice Isaac. In Abraham's position I would have chosen to deny a God who would be so petty. And though it may sound like sacrilege, I don't buy that God sacrificed His Son in the same way He was asking Abraham to make a sacrifice. I am thankful to Jesus who went through the pain and fear of dying. But God... He knew that Jesus would suffer only a short time then come home to see Him face to face. Not the same thing at all in my book.
quote: 3. Would you ever sacrifice a stranger's life to do the right thing?
posted
I was thinking he was leading into a big debate about whether we should be over in Iraq, sacrificing our friends/children/spouses/parents for what is purported to be a humanitarian mission to "save" Iraq from Saddam Hussein. As the death toll nears 500 there, how many Iraqi lives are worth the American lives we're "sacrificing"? But, maybe I'm being too political... Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that I would sacrifice Tresopax for eternal youth, or a really cool car.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: And though it may sound like sacrilege, I don't buy that God sacrificed His Son in the same way He was asking Abraham to make a sacrifice.
I think Abraham knew that such a sacrifice would bring only temporary separation. But going home to his wife...
Seriously, though, I wonder on whether it is possible for Jesus' mission to have failed. So sending Him to be born was the more relevant sacrifice for His Father. The importance of this question is that if it weren't possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation, if He were God to that extent, then how can He be our exemplar?
I used to think I would never have an abortion, even if it would certainly cost me my life. But now that I have other children, it would be a tougher call.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The importance of this question is that if it weren't possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation, if He were God to that extent, then how can He be our exemplar?
Interesting thought. It makes me wonder if temptation is a purely corporal condition.
In any case, we'll never know whether it took Him more or less effort than the average Joe to live a life of grace. I think the example for us is in His actions and is more about what to say, "Yes" to than what to say, "No" to.
quote:Seriously, though, I wonder on whether it is possible for Jesus' mission to have failed. So sending Him to be born was the more relevant sacrifice for His Father. The importance of this question is that if it weren't possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation, if He were God to that extent, then how can He be our exemplar?
He was only perfect. I say if it was possible for Adam to succumb to temptation, it was possible for Jesus' to succumb to temptation. The only difference is he didn't. I don't have a very clear understanding of other religions, but I know that in my religion, it's taught that Jesus didn't even know about being the son of God 'til his thirtieth year or so. Until that time, and even afterwards, God knew there was just as much a chance that Jesus wouldn't hold under pressure. After all, Satan was able to tempt other angels, so why not Jesus, especially when he was in a very accessible human form?
Anyway, that's the last time you'll hear a religious thing from me 'til I say another. (Duh-urr)
Now back to ethics.
Would you guys give your legs, or something else in which the absence thereof would not allow you to walk, and all five of your senses, if it meant it would save somebody else's life? I don't know where that would come up, but just if. In other words, do you think the ejoyment and use of one life is more or less important than the existence of another?
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have a very clear understanding of other religions, but I know that in my religion, it's taught that Jesus didn't even know about being the son of God 'til his thirtieth year or so.
Really? Can you point me to where it shows that in the Bible? I've read of apocrypha that say otherwise, but I've never heard of it actually stating in the Bible when he became aware of being the Son of God, he just seemed to know it in every account I can think of.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just wondering if Tres has a particular reason for asking these questions.
No, not really, besides wanting to see what people's views on sacrificing lives were. I assumed most people would give very similar answers, but I was mainly interested in what reasons would be given. It was partially inspired by the war on terror, and the idea I've heard from some that they don't care if the government is doing something wrong, as long as it protects the lives of their kids. And at the same time you've got these terrorists willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of others entirely for what they believe is right.
My answer to this is somewhat trivial, because I almost never believe sacrificing anyone is the right thing to do. The exception would be a train-tracks sort of situation where someone is going to die for certain - I just decide who and how many. I'm assuming I've got time to think it over, because who knows what I'd do in a panic. In fact, to be honest, I have no idea what I'd do for sure, even with time to think. So, instead, I'll just speculate on what I'd want me to do. And in that case, I think I'd want me to sacrifice myself, a stranger, or my child to do the right thing. Given a choice between the three, I'd probably sacrifice the stranger first, then myself, then the kid last.
But a lot of people seem to be content with the idea of saving themselves or their child, and allowing something wrong to happen. Presumably, this would mean something worse than they or their child dying (such as lots of people dying.) I'm not so much concerned about those that think they just would do that in the heat of the moment - I'm interested in those that think they SHOULD act this way, and would be mistaken to do otherwise. After all, how is it possible for you to believe what you believe is right to be the wrong thing to do? It seems like a contradiction.
Then there's the question of selfishness. Some would argue it would be selfish to kill someone (especially one's own child) just based on your OPINION of what is right and wrong. I would argue the opposite - that your views of right and wrong should be based on unselfishness, and therefore ignoring them would have to be the selfish thing to do - refusing to take on the pain of having to kill someone, especially a loved one.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, in the case of the train one, its not a case of right vs wrong, unless you are the one who would be killed. It's a case of two wrongs, and being forced to decide which is the lesser wrong. Because it's wrong to use a person as a means to an end. And it's wrong to take away a person's life, even for a good cause without their consent. It's like the nazi scientists with their experiments on the jews. The information has saved lives-but their methods of obtaining the information were still wrong. With the train-it's wrong to decide to sacrifice someone without their consent to save a bunch of other people. But then, it's also a lot more utilitarian to sacrifice the one to save the many. So you're left deciding between principles and utilitarianism, knowing that whichever you chose, it will be wrong in either one way or the other. I would sacrifice myself (i hope) but i don't think i could ever let a child die like that. It might be more utilitarian, but i don't think i could do it. and a stranger-i don't know. maybe.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was young, I'd have sacrificed myself for others, or a good cause. I think that's because I hated my life, and Martyrdom appealed as a way to give my life meaning.
I'd give my life for my family, now, and very little else. It would have to be something big, something that if I didn't do it it would be worse for my kids than being motherless.
I mean, I'd give my life to prevent world-wide nuclear war or something, but only to save those I love. Mostly, the world can hang.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
