Poll: Moral Dilemma: Kill Which Father?

Recommended Videos

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Here's an age old dilemma. Often replicated for sake of conflict and tension in story arc, I've never really seen this idea from this angle, and I thought it would be an interesting ambiguously moral choice. To help put things into perspective, here's a quick story to increase the ambiguity as well as the sympathy for all characters involved:

Your name is Billy. You are a young boy and an only child. Your father, named Philip, often works far away from home. Throughout your life, you have rarely seen him each year due to being away for months at a time. He calls and writes when he can which isn't as often as you would like, but you love to hear from him no matter what. Although he is gone for so long, his work makes sure that your family is financially secure, and, when he is home, you always have a good time with him. Still, such a distant relationship with your dad doesn't substitute having a father that there for you at all times.

Your father's old and best friend, Daniel, is a familiar face to you. You can remember him as long as you can remember anything else about your life, making him a close friend of the family. Daniel has often come to your home during your father's long trips help around the house in ways your mother can't as well as teach you some cool things. If you've ever had a problem you had to deal with, you would often go to him when your father was on one of his trips.

One day, your mother gets a call saying that the plane your father was flying in had crashed, and it was certain that he was dead. Grief-stricken, your mother has no way to support you, and the possibility of losing your home is at high risk. Daniel, having always been there to help your father and family, lends his support to your family. It starts with a few charitable portions from his salary, keeping up his presence in helping out around the house as he always has. Eventually, it isn't enough, and he offers his home and hospitality to your family. He is more integrated in your life than ever, often serving as a mentor to you, teaching you the ways of life and ultimately helping you growth to maturity. A couple years go by, and your mother and Daniel seem to have taken to each other. Your mother has finally been able to move on in her life, and they soon marry.

However, (you all saw this coming) Philip is discovered to be alive and well, having lived through the crash and surviving as best he can. Upon his return, he is, naturally, shocked at what happened to his family. Your mother returns to her wrecked state, and Philip and Daniel are at a loss of words for each other. You yourself don't know what to make of the situation. Tensions are strained. Any time you see Philip now, he is drunk and spiteful. Daniel and your mother are almost always in a yelling match. Daniel and Philip have gotten into multiple wrestling matches, resulting in the two walking away angry, but not after cursing each other out a few more times. Philip is jealous. Daniel is paranoid. Nothing will ever be the same.

It all breaks one day. You hear screaming out in the backyard. Then a gunshot. You rush outside to see Daniel and Philip--battered, bloodied, and bruised--clawing at each others throats, ready to kill.

Philip, a father who was never there, mad with jealousy of what he feels he deserves by right, circumstances be damned.

Daniel, a suitor who usurped the role of "father figure" in his best friend's family, mad with paranoia of Philip's return taking away what he feels he earned.

A gun is at your feet as you watch the horrifying spectacle. There is no way of knowing who brought the gun into play, with the intention of death.

You pick up the gun and point it. You have to make a decision. Without your intervention, they will kill each other. Kill one so that the other may live. The choice is yours.
 

cairocat

New member
Oct 9, 2009
572
0
0
I call their attention to the weapon and threaten to shoot them both if they don't stop...

<__>

What?
 

Hader

New member
Jul 7, 2010
1,648
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
If you are going to really force me to kill one or the other...well, I would just toss a coin in that instance.

I would likely fire the gun into the air and get them to shut up. Then give one of those heart warming little speeches about how this isn't worth it and you both made mistakes and we should all just get along, etc etc etc...

I figured most people would say this though, and not want to shoot either person, so I flipped a coin like I said and the result is!...

wait for it...wait for it...tension building moment...cheese....PHILLIP DIES!
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,617
0
0
I'd kill Philip, your own father.

Yes, he's your dad and worked for you, but he had the nerve to stay hidden for several years after a plane crash!
 

skywalkerlion

New member
Jun 21, 2009
1,259
0
0
I have a feeling if I killed Philip to save Daniel, Philip would understand I need a father to support us, rather than a guy that I see every now and than. I'd still feel horrible for it though.
 

Numb1lp

New member
Jan 21, 2009
968
0
0
Wasn't there a movie Brothers, or something, that was basically this? Not so original, but it's hard to make a call when I haven't actually lived the situation.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
cairocat said:
I call their attention to the weapon and threaten to shoot them both if they don't stop...

<__>

What?
The choice falls to the point of the moral dilemma in question. Sorry, you only have the three options.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Numb1lp said:
Wasn't there a movie Brothers, or something, that was basically this? Not so original, but it's hard to make a call when I haven't actually lived the situation.
This is actually a common plot that I've seen many times, in literature and movies alike. It's still a good moral question to ask though.
 

Kimarous

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,011
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
cairocat said:
I call their attention to the weapon and threaten to shoot them both if they don't stop...

<__>

What?
The choice falls to the point of the moral dilemma in question. Sorry, you only have the three options.
The dilemma is faulty because there are other legitimate courses of action to take but you refuse to accept them for no reason than "it's against the rules." Hence, why should we participate in your fixed experiment?
 

Aureliano

New member
Mar 5, 2009
604
0
0
I think I'd go with 'subdue them both'. Like, time for a blackjack, a heavy stick, whatever. I doubt shooting any number of one's dads is morally justifiable.

The classic argument: my two dads are fighting. I take a gun and shoot one of them. I've now killed one of them. On the other hand, my two dads are fighting. I don't shoot them, and a moment later they make up and never fight again without me having to do anything. Or they go to counseling.

Moral of this story: unless your dad is coming at you with a knife and the intent to kill you, don't shoot your dad.
 

Gruevy

New member
Jan 7, 2011
111
0
0
Let the best man win! The victor wins a bullet in the head.

...Just kidding! But I still won't do anything, because it's my belief that to participate in and consciously commit murder is worse than not doing anything and letting things take their natural course. This only applies in cases like this though.
 

Lbsjr

New member
Dec 29, 2010
81
0
0
In the choice situation, apathy. In real life situation, run, tackle, slap both of them, call them retarded, and talk to both of them. Give them your reasons for why you love each of them, and figure out the truly best scenario. Or, if that fails, side with blood first because thats who I am. My dad was both before he died. Hardly home until I was about.... 10 or so, and then I spent every day with him when I wasn't at school. Both were needed exactly as they came.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Kimarous said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
cairocat said:
I call their attention to the weapon and threaten to shoot them both if they don't stop...

<__>

What?
The choice falls to the point of the moral dilemma in question. Sorry, you only have the three options.
The dilemma is faulty because there are other legitimate courses of action to take but you refuse to accept them for no reason than "it's against the rules." Hence, why should we participate in your fixed experiment?
The point of the dilemma is that it is based around the participant's morality, not his logic. It's not fixed. The answer you give is basically who would you rather live, who you would want. The addition of the gun gives the choice entirely to the participant, you're choosing who you would rather live creating a story with full involvement. The question stands. Out of the two, who do you want to live?
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Why use the gun in the first place? I'd call the neighbors over and pull the combatants apart or, failing that, call 911 -- they're fighting hand to hand, and I have the only weapon in question, so they aren't likely to kill one another before I can get someone out there to break up the fight.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Lbsjr said:
In the choice situation, apathy. In real life situation, run, tackle, slap both of them, call them retarded, and talk to both of them. Give them your reasons for why you love each of them, and figure out the truly best scenario. Or, if that fails, side with blood first because thats who I am. My dad was both before he died. Hardly home until I was about.... 10 or so, and then I spent every day with him when I wasn't at school. Both were needed exactly as they came.
I'm glad you came to your own realization through adapting the choice to your real life. I feel like when we consider these type of hypothetical situations, it helps us grow as people. :)
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Kimarous said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
cairocat said:
I call their attention to the weapon and threaten to shoot them both if they don't stop...

<__>

What?
The choice falls to the point of the moral dilemma in question. Sorry, you only have the three options.
The dilemma is faulty because there are other legitimate courses of action to take but you refuse to accept them for no reason than "it's against the rules." Hence, why should we participate in your fixed experiment?
The point of the dilemma is that it is based around the participant's morality, not his logic. It's not fixed. The answer you give is basically who would you rather live, who you would want. The addition of the gun gives the choice entirely to the participant, you're choosing who you would rather live creating a story with full involvement. The question stands. Out of the two, who do you want to live?
To quote Captain Kirk, "I don't believe in a no win situation."
 

Blue_vision

Elite Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
41
Interesting predicament. I'd say that it depends on the circumstances. Is Philip neglecting his family, being away at home but still getting the bread (i.e. some sort of agent/high profile businessman,) or is he working far from home to keep his family alive (due to a lack of options at home?) while deeply caring for them? Is it a combination of both? If Philip isn't seeing his family simply because of apathy towards them, then kill Philip for sure. Blood relations are meaningless without any real care (if that's the crux of this dilemma.)

But if Philip actually cares, but is just having a hard time providing for his family (especially because of competition from Daniel,) then I'd probably kill Daniel.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Why use the gun in the first place? I'd call the neighbors over and pull the combatants apart or, failing that, call 911 -- they're fighting hand to hand, and I have the only weapon in question, so they aren't likely to kill one another before I can get someone out there to break up the fight.
That's what you would do in real life. It's a very logical option, in fact. But this is supposed to question your morality. By answering, you might learn something about yourself. Maybe not. The whole point is growth through consideration.