I know, I know, I know I should be posting my opinions rather than something new. But, due to heavy workload, my brain is dead. Can't really focus, and forget about think straight.
The "God" Series is over for now. This is something new.
Thought Experiment 6: When no one wins
Private Sacks was about to do a terrible thing. He had been ordered to first rape and then murder the prisoner, whom he knew to be no more than an innocent civilian from the wrong ethnic background. There was no doubt in his mind that this would be a gross injustice - a war crime, in fact.
Yet quickly thinking it over he felt he had no choice but to go ahead. If he obeyed the order, he could make the ordeal as bearable as possible for the victim, making sure she suffered no more than necessary. If he did not obey the order, he himself would be shot and the prisoner would still be violated and killed, but probably more violently. It was better for everyone if he went ahead.
His reasoning seemed clear enough, but of course it gave him no peace of mind. How could it be that he was both going to do the best he could in the circumstances and also terrible wrong?
We all know the "If I don't do it somebody else will" saying doesn't work generally. It is really a weak justification for wrongdoing. But in this case, it is subtly different. Usually, it would seemed perfectly moral to do what you can do to prevent as much harm as possible. Yet, this reasoning leads him to take part in rape and murder, and surely is not the morally right thing to do.
The temptation to imagine the third possibility - just shooting the prisoner and himself is hard to resist. But we must, since in a thought experiment, we must control the variables. The whole point of creating the dilemma is to confront the moral problem head on rather than thing our way around it.
Taken from "The Pig that wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Placing myself into this dilemma, I would be faced with the decision to (a) rape and murder the prisoner or (b) be shot, and almost definitely killed. Of course, the question would be whether we can accept the moral decision to rape and murder an individual in order to preserve one's life. Before going into deeper analysis, I'll answer the question first, as Justin surely prefers. I'm left with the ultimate decision to "rape and kill or die", but there is another decision: kill, but not rape. This is for a couple of reasons: (1) this prevents any further defilement and suffering of the prisoner and moral crime of rape (2) this is not murder, since this is done under duress and most importantly (3) gives sufficient reason for the commanding officer NOT to shoot me, since I've more or less did what he ordered and to do otherwise would not benefit his stature or that of his squad, and otherwise (4) if he DOES shoot me regardless, the prisoner would not continue to suffer. This is hardly a "If I don't do it somebody else will" argument as justification for this crime; I know that the crime is not mine, it is the officer's, but I would do the deed since I would say "better me than anyone else".
A significant part of this dilemma hinges on the conditioning and training of the private, the squad, and the officer. If discipline is strong, the private would not likely be facing this scenario; but if it does happen, the officer likely loses the respect of his troops, which weakens discipline. If discipline is weak, then there would be little to stop me from drawing my own firearm and shooting the officer before he has the chance to do the same.
But regardless, one this is certain. I would shoot the prisoner, a swift death. If I survive, I would ensure that the officer dies from a "stray" bullet in the near future...
Shoot but not kill is definitely an option. However, if the CO require you to rape first. And kill with bare hands. In such a case, you would be able to kill the prisoner without notice, since fire arms are available. And do notice on the scenario restrictions, you are under gun point.
And as for discipline, if the discipline was indeed good, no dilemma would happen, since you would just obey your order, and rape and kill.
Quick sidenote that I find funny because I like to say;
"I AM, therefore I think."
Concerning your moral dilema, I'm of a different frame of mind entirely. To begin with, the soldier is already on the wrong side of life as who we follow is who we are.
Perhaps some of you remember hearing this commandment.
"THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER"
The 'Art of the Warrior' is NOT TO KILL but to destroy the forces of Evil, thus showing there is a strong difference between being a soldier and being a warrior. (which I highlight here)
Someone like Jesus, Ghandi, or Buddha might feel completely differently than most of your audience and say it is better to die than to kill.
That might be because they possess the understanding that it is by YOUR actions alone that shall determine whether or not your name be written in the 'Book of Life'.
When you come before the final judge and try to say you were only following orders, you will be reminded that GOD gave a few orders of His own to be followed.
You will also be reminded that Jesus said to LOVE your enemies.
Who YOU chose to follow in life shall be determined by your actions, not by what you say of yourself.
I hope this helps.
your humble servant,
ancient clown
Post a Comment