Poll: Moral Dilemma: Kill Which Father?

Recommended Videos

Lbsjr

New member
Dec 29, 2010
81
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
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. :)
Thats who I am and what I do. Hypothesis is the basis of learning. Without the question, there is no answer, nor desire to even find the answer, and no answers means no us, because the most basic question is "Who am I?" or even "What am I?"
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.
In that situation, I'd probably let them fight it out -- a third option that is actually allowed by your poll. Why have the blood on my hands, when it's not even a guarantee that a fistfight would lead to a death?
 

Kimarous

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,011
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.
You know what many of us have learned about ourselves based on this? That morality isn't black and white, and the grey gives us many methods of saving both without having to sacrifice the other.

What do you think you are, the Joker in "The Dark Knight"? If we don't pick the options you deign for us, you blow up both?
 

Blue_vision

Elite Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
41
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.
Horray for thought experiments! :D

btw, I enjoyed this
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
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."
Then your answer is your refusal to participate, standing apart from the choice I gave you.

You refuse to even acknowledge the question itself, denying the horror of the reality I presented you with.

That's something you can take away from this.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Kimarous said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.
You know what many of us have learned about ourselves based on this? That morality isn't black and white, and the grey gives us many methods of saving both without having to sacrifice the other.

What do you think you are, the Joker in "The Dark Knight"? If we don't pick the options you deign for us, you blow up both?

I'm glad you learned something about yourself. :)
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
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."
Then your answer is your refusal to participate, standing apart from the choice I gave you.

You refuse to even acknowledge the question itself, denying the horror of the reality I presented you with.

That's something you can take away from this.
But you gave us a real life situation, one that has way more than two options. A better moral question would be "what kind of person would shoot either individual, knowing that he has at least a chance of keeping them both alive?"
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Blue_vision said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.
Horray for thought experiments! :D

btw, I enjoyed this
Thanks for participating. :D
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Shoot both of em, then go find that skank of a mom and put her down, then walk out the door singing....



what? im a prick.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
But you gave us a real life situation, one that has way more than two options. A better moral question would be "what kind of person would shoot either individual, knowing that he has at least a chance of keeping them both alive?"
And that goes back to the point of this thread. The question being "Who do you want to live?", not "What would you do?"

You didn't answer the question. Instead you asked another question, a very good one at that. Care to answer your own question?
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
Numb1lp said:
Wasn't there a movie Brothers, or something, that was basically this?
I was going to say this. For anyone who wants to watch the entire movie in 2 and a half minutes.

 

Blue_vision

Elite Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
41
Owyn_Merrilin said:
But you gave us a real life situation, one that has way more than two options. A better moral question would be "what kind of person would shoot either individual, knowing that he has at least a chance of keeping them both alive?"
The point isn't to give a real life situation. It's to present you an uncompromisable situation in which you can explore your own views of morality or what's proper. You're not supposed to walk out of an exercise like this, prepared for the situation when you come to it. It's supposed to be a thought exercise, letting you work through logic (brain exercise ftw!) while also possibly discovering your own hidden moralities. You're totally skipping the point by going the "realistic path."
 

TWRule

New member
Dec 3, 2010
465
0
0
I have to echo the sentiments of others - there are far more choices than those presented, many of which may still have moral content. There is never a situation where you know the consequences with certainty before they happen, nor is there ever a situation where the only choices are kill someone or do nothing at all. Oversimplifying moral questions doesn't help us properly consider them.

That aside, I voted for "do nothing" (even though realistically I would do -something-) because I am never ethically justified in taking either of their lives, nor could I judge the situation by an unknowable chance that they might actually kill eachother. Regardless, it's not my place to decide that one of them should die.
 

emerald2142

New member
Oct 1, 2009
40
0
0
No matter what I pick "my" mother will be forever mentally scarred, probably breaking up with the survivor. If I kill Phillip, my mother will break up with Daniel because he fights and argues, if I kill Daniel, she will break up with Phillip because he's a drunken mess. Hell, even if I were able to shoot in the air/legs etc. they would hate each other forever and the problem would arise again, perhaps the next time they won't miss...

However, since a choice must be made, I choose to kill Phillip. My mother is with Daniel now, and they seem (relatively) happy together. Kinda a slap in the face to survive a plane crash and be killed by your own son though.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Canid117 said:
Numb1lp said:
Wasn't there a movie Brothers, or something, that was basically this?
I was going to say this. For anyone who wants to watch the entire movie in 2 and a half minutes.

I'm going to be honest. I saw like one commercial for this movie. Never saw it. Never even knew the entire detail of the plot.

The question I asked has come from an age old plot which I have seen many times. A lost father/husband comes home to a family that has already moved on. It was seen in Cast Away. Hell, I remember reading a short story for my literature class back in high school about a sailor that was put in the same exact situation.

Really, what caused me to ask this was I started reading the Walking Dead comic. Same situation, except it ends with the boy shooting the Daniel character. Seeing that kind of angle put on this recurring plot theme made me come to that question. I find it funny that I pretty much rehashed the script of an entire movie.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
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.

*- Fox Post! -*

Bull shit, my name is Kyle!

*- Fox Post! -*


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.
I'd tell them to stop and I'd demand them to freeze. I've got the gun, not them.
 

chuckman1

Cool
Jan 15, 2009
1,511
0
0
Out of only those options I would choose apathy and not get involved.
Although there would always be ways of getting out of this and I would try to save them both.