Poll: Moral Dilemma: Kill Which Father?

[Jaime_Wolf]

Phillip without a moment's hesitation. Nice of Phillip to write and provide for the family, but, from your description, Daniel didn't "usurp" the father role (knocking someone up and sending some money doesn't make you a father), he was the ONLY father. Phillip came back demanding something that he never had and never earned and likely ruined a family over it. It was understandable selfishness, but still selfishness.

And for all of you people who think you're somehow clever because you've realised that there's some way to keep them both alive or because you know that "morality isn't just black and white", do you really think the OP doesn't realise this? The point of it is to choose, not to defeat the puzzle. You're not clever, you're not original, you're just annoying.

I could understand if you had a particularly interesting or entertaining way of ending the fight without killing anyone, but just saying "THIS IS UNFAIR. I WOULDN'T HAVE TO CHOOSE. MORALITY ISN'T BLACK AND WHITE" makes you sound like a nine-year-old who just discovered moral ambiguity.

It's really easy to "solve" a Rubik's cube if you just peel off the stickers and rearrange them, but that completely defeats the purpose of the puzzle. So, yes, you guys "solved" the problem here, but you learned nothing -- you just peeled off the stickers.

You accuse those of us who said the question was flawed and showed that there were a great many ways to solve this without killing anyone of doing it to think we're clever? If anything, the OP is the one who's trying to appear clever, and acting like a child going "it's not fair, the rules of my hypothetical situation don't allow for any other answer, you can't take a third option!" It's not trying to appear clever, it's stating what we believe to be the morally and logically correct answer to the situation.

Frankly, killing either one of them is morally black, and saving both of them is morally white; the morally gray area is killing one to save the other, except it's not really gray, because we've demonstrated quite a number of ways that both individuals could walk out of this alive. Who's the one with the 9 year old's understanding of moral ambiguity again?

The nine-year-old bit is about discovering grey morality and racing to apply it because you think it will make you sound like you're figured out some secret the OP didn't know about. The stupid part is in attacking the question. It's safe to assume that the OP knows that you would try to save both and that it would likely be possible. Assuming otherwise is just being a jackass. If this were a real life situation, obviously you would try to save them both. But it isn't. It's a hypothetical question and you gain nothing by attacking the question itself.

Put another way, it's like the OP asked "what do you think life would be like if people had three arms" and you responded "but they don't".

Not really. The OP gave us a real life situation in a real life context, and then asked us to apply a very artificial sense of morality. If he had worded it in such a way that, say, both were dying of a snake bite, you were in the wilderness, and you only had enough antivenin to save one of them, then he might have recieved better answers. Unfortunately, there's too many options with the question as worded.

Edit: I can't take credit for the hypothetical in my post. I remember reading it in a book called "The book of questions," which is an entire book devoted to exactly the sort of moral dilemmas the OP is talking about.

There are three options from the way the question was worded. Precisely three. They were given AS PART OF THE QUESTION. You were even told that they're your only options. By providing an answer that isn't one of those answers, you AREN'T answering the question, you're just rejecting the question entirely. And building a "better" hypothetical like the snakebite doesn't help at all. There are a number of things I could do to try to save two people from a snakebite without antivenom, but that's not the question, that's just me being a dick to show you that I "thought of something you didn't". Except I'm sure you could think of ways too, so it's even more pointless.

When you say "that's not fair, you could save both", you're not adding anything of value to the conversation. We know you could potentially save both, that's not what's at issue here. We know that the choice is artificial, the point is which artificial option you'd choose.

You're essentially rejecting a hypothetical for being hypothetical. It isn't as obvious here as in the three-arm case for instance because the hypothetical is closer to being plausible, but that doesn't change what you're doing.

Okay, so what exactly are we supposed to learn about our personal morality from a question with such artificial options? Because that was ostensibly the point of the thread, to have an introspective look at what what we would do in such a situation. Those of us who rejected the given answers didn't do so simply because they were hypothetical, we did so because we considered them the wrong answers to the hypothetical. As someone else mentioned above, oversimplifying a moral quandary just to get an answer really doesn't tell us much about our own morals, unless maybe we were the ones doing the oversimplifying.

A fair point. A forced decision may not tell you much about yourself, but rejecting the question CERTAINLY doesn't tell you anything new. Saving both men is the obvious answer that nearly anyone would choose in a heartbeat. It's so obvious and strong that you rejected the question entirely so you could answer with it. The hypothetical requires abstraction, asking you to imagine that these are your only choices even if the situation doesn't otherwise demand that be the case, but I think it can still be meaningful. If they truly WERE your only options, which would you choose? Arguing that they're not your only options is just begging the question and it gets you precisely nowhere whereas answering the question MIGHT get you somewhere.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Not really. The OP gave us a real life situation in a real life context, and then asked us to apply a very artificial sense of morality. If he had worded it in such a way that, say, both were dying of a snake bite, you were in the wilderness, and you only had enough antivenin to save one of them, then he might have recieved better answers. Unfortunately, there's too many options with the question as worded.

The aggression the fathers had for each other is key to the reason why I had the reader kill one themselves. While I simplified the question into a "who lives and who dies" choice, the drama from the story adds an element that the snake bite couldn't. It was commonly received that I was asking which one do you, Billy, love more, which, to a certain degree, it was. But I added something more that wouldn't necessarily be a game changer, but just add more possibilities for contemplation: the idea that you're not just choosing who lives, you're also choosing who to kill. The snake bite only goes so far, in that you're choosing who dies. I went for the more direct approach considering that the story I built up made it clear. You pull the trigger. You make the judgment. You were basically saving one man from the other, setting up the antagonist. It wasn't clear who the real aggressor was, who pulled the gun first. Did you save one because you hated the other? Did you kill Philip because of his absence during your childhood or because he became a spiteful drunk? Did Daniel die because of the you felt he moved his way into your mother's bed or because you believe blood is more important? I'm not here to teach you something you didn't know that only I knew. Each answer is ambiguous. There is no black or white.

Choose an option. You might take your time to contemplate, but ultimately you press the button and decide the fate of both the men and yourself. Now ask yourself why you chose that option. Was it to save or kill? How does that reflect on you as a person? What does your choice say about your priorities when it comes to your moral consciousness?

Also, I didn't want to discourage people from choosing apathy, since by doing nothing, the snake venom would kill them both. In my scenario, one will kill the other, the decision is just taken away from you.

See, that's even worse. It doesn't make me someone choosing to sacrifice one to save the other; it makes me a murderer. The question is pretty much worded so that the only moral choice is apathy.

 

[Knusper]

I would probably miss and accidentally soot myslf in the foot.

In all seriousness, I really am not sure, but I think I might call for their attention as I point the gun. I think they would stop... OK, if that isn't an option, I'd shoot Phillip. It is likely that I have grown too attached to Daniel over the years anyway.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Not really. The OP gave us a real life situation in a real life context, and then asked us to apply a very artificial sense of morality. If he had worded it in such a way that, say, both were dying of a snake bite, you were in the wilderness, and you only had enough antivenin to save one of them, then he might have recieved better answers. Unfortunately, there's too many options with the question as worded.

The aggression the fathers had for each other is key to the reason why I had the reader kill one themselves. While I simplified the question into a "who lives and who dies" choice, the drama from the story adds an element that the snake bite couldn't. It was commonly received that I was asking which one do you, Billy, love more, which, to a certain degree, it was. But I added something more that wouldn't necessarily be a game changer, but just add more possibilities for contemplation: the idea that you're not just choosing who lives, you're also choosing who to kill. The snake bite only goes so far, in that you're choosing who dies. I went for the more direct approach considering that the story I built up made it clear. You pull the trigger. You make the judgment. You were basically saving one man from the other, setting up the antagonist. It wasn't clear who the real aggressor was, who pulled the gun first. Did you save one because you hated the other? Did you kill Philip because of his absence during your childhood or because he became a spiteful drunk? Did Daniel die because of the you felt he moved his way into your mother's bed or because you believe blood is more important? I'm not here to teach you something you didn't know that only I knew. Each answer is ambiguous. There is no black or white.

Choose an option. You might take your time to contemplate, but ultimately you press the button and decide the fate of both the men and yourself. Now ask yourself why you chose that option. Was it to save or kill? How does that reflect on you as a person? What does your choice say about your priorities when it comes to your moral consciousness?

Also, I didn't want to discourage people from choosing apathy, since by doing nothing, the snake venom would kill them both. In my scenario, one will kill the other, the decision is just taken away from you.

See, that's even worse. It doesn't make me someone choosing to sacrifice one to save the other; it makes me a murderer. The question is pretty much worded so that the only moral choice is apathy.

So, you see it as murder and not saving someone. Why is that? That's a good opportunity for contemplation.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

Why do you have to kill one of them or do nothing? Firing the gun into the ground would probably startle them into stopping the fight, and maybe you could convince them to stop trying to kill each other and explain things to them logically, or threaten to kill yourself if they decide not to stop fighting. Alternatively you could call the police who can probably lower the chances of a fatality occuring.

I guess given the three completely limited choices I would do nothing.

 

[tthor]

people of the Escapist tend to be strongly logic-oriented, and thus tend to view every situation as a sort of mathematics problem, where answer X > answer Y. I've come to realize that this is not the case. In many situations in life, there is no "right answer". hell, there often even isn't a "better answer". life is not 2dimensional, with situation #1 being greater than situation #2. every situation, every answer, has it's up sides, it's down sides, and its neutral sides.
In short, there often is no such thing as a right answer, especially with problems like this. Either way, you will lose.

But if I had that gun, and I was forced to kill one to save the other, i would simply point the gun and the 2 fighting men, close my eyes, and fire, killing one of the 2 at random.

 

[Wintermoot]

cant I resolve this peacefully? IE shoot somebody in the foot? or knock one of the out if I was FORCED to kill somebody it would have been Philip we got allong peacefully without him

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

People often use the term "they stay crispy in milk" too, but my cereal still gets soggy.

And you can bring up whatever "obvious" newspaper article you want, but unless Phillip is a woman and Daniel is a bit ...confused... and has an accomplice... you didn't even pick a relevant article to support your point.

You're seriously still on this? And trying to accuse me of your magick-fiction logic no less? *chuckles* Sorry dude, but no. I care how angry your "fatal fighters" are, they're not killing anyone, and even if they could... *laughs* Not morality, you ain't getting what I'm saying, and my choice stands. Your "daddies" are jealous boys, fighting over who "gets the girl", little more, you're cheeking on "The Scarlet Letter" more than you are "The Walking Dead" and this entire falacy is just getting rude and pointless. You wanna be right, go be right, duder. Get down with your bad self...

*claps hands* I'm out.

If that's the way you want it. Just wanted to clarify the commonplace of unarmed domestic disputes resulting in death. I'm still not sure why you're so offended by someone trying to provide a thought-provoking question. If you're choice was to not take it seriously, then that's just the way you perceived my question. If you can't take that, there's not much else I can do. Since you came to a conclusion anyway, I'd say it was a success. The fact you put that much time and thought into this is kind of the fuel of the thread, so glad you got something out of this.

Whatever, kid. Ta.

 

[mcpop9]

to quote an old indian saying
"Bone of my bone"
"Blood of my Blood"
phillip stays

 

[loc978]

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.

That would be the problem with formula "moral dilemma" questions.
There's always a better option.

Need I call attention to the fact that in this scenario, you're a child who may or may not know one end of a firearm from the other, and even if you've had some small amount of firearms training you're unlikely to hit what you're aiming at? Even a trained marksman would have difficulty hitting one man in a close wrestling match.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I would probably kill Phillip. I think Daniel has helped far more than Phillip has, and he has actually seen me grow from a tender young boy in a young man. He has helped my mother move on in her life and he has been closer to me than Phillip ever has. Phillip on the other hand was almost never around, he occasionally wrote to me but of course it is not a substitute for a real father, also Phillip wouldn't no me at all, he might know he has a wife and son but he never sees us so he would not know who we are really. I could also picture that if Daniel was killed and Phillip resumed his position as father, he would still almost never be around and if he did get a new job or something and got to know his family, he wouldn't know who we are at all it would probably end up in Phillip divorcing my mother, Phillip drinking himself half to death each night, my mother committing suicide and me an emotionally distraught teenager on the cusp of man hood left to fend for myself.

So in conclusion I would kill Phillip. Hope that helped, it was a tough one.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

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.

That would be the problem with formula "moral dilemma" questions.
There's always a better option.

Need I call attention to the fact that in this scenario, you're a child who may or may not know one end of a firearm from the other, and even if you've had some small amount of firearms training you're unlikely to hit what you're aiming at? Even a trained marksman would have difficulty hitting one man in a close wrestling match.

That is completely irrelevant to the question. The poster said that you have to kill one of them and he just added in the gun as the weapon. It doesn't matter if you are proficient with a gun or not, the question really falls down to who you would kill. They could both be fighting out in space at one point as an Alien approached you with intent to kill everyone on board, you have to press the button to activate one of two air locks, both will kill the Alien but one air lock is behind Phillip and one behind Daniel, who do you kill?

I really don't understand why so many people have to complicate the scenario with frivolous details.

 

[magnuslion]

I kill them both. they are equally douchey.

 

[loc978]

That is completely irrelevant to the question. The poster said that you have to kill one of them and he just added in the gun as the weapon. It doesn't matter if you are proficient with a gun or not, the question really falls down to who you would kill. They could both be fighting out in space at one point as an Alien approached you with intent to kill everyone on board, you have to press the button to activate one of two air locks, both will kill the Alien but one air lock is behind Phillip and one behind Daniel, who do you kill?

I really don't understand why so many people have to complicate the scenario with frivolous details.

What can I say? If the devil's in the details, I'm a Satanist.

Honestly, to my way of thinking, the question itself is irrelevant... and the way it is presented lacks any intellectual value.

 

[Divinegon]

I'd go for the choice that doesn't get me into -jail-.

 

[Jedoro]

Both men have a legitimate, legal reason to be pissed at the other, so I refuse to kill either one. Their actions may not be all that good, but if they're about to kill each other the survivor is perfectly capable of defending himself in court under self-defense.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

That is completely irrelevant to the question. The poster said that you have to kill one of them and he just added in the gun as the weapon. It doesn't matter if you are proficient with a gun or not, the question really falls down to who you would kill. They could both be fighting out in space at one point as an Alien approached you with intent to kill everyone on board, you have to press the button to activate one of two air locks, both will kill the Alien but one air lock is behind Phillip and one behind Daniel, who do you kill?

I really don't understand why so many people have to complicate the scenario with frivolous details.

The problem is that the OP is making you pick a sub-optimal course of action, if it had been kept simple then it would have been a binary choice but by over complicating it he's ruined any chance of actually putting ourselves in that situation.

If he'd have asked which of the two to kill and said one had to die then we'd have picked based on loyalties. But by asking us which to shoot we are faced with other options. With a simple scenario we'd have empathised and projected, but with this more complex scenario it's impossible to ignore the other, more sensible situation. How can I ask myself whether to kill my father or my stapfather if at the back of my mind I'm thinking:

"I don't have to kill either, this is stupid!"

By artificially preventing us from making the logical choice he's asking us to ignore our gut intuition, our logical process and our life experience. I can't say what I'd actually do because I'm not allowed to do what I'd actually do. Not only is there a situation in which we could win this scenario...but insultingly enough it's actually the first option most people would think of.

You may as well write a highly realistic lead up to a mugging, setting each detail carefully across a page and then, right at the end, ask "would you leap up the side of the nearest building or summon a dragon?"

It's pretty easy to just put that part out of your mind and still make the decision based on loyalty. Almost everyone else did it, and the fact that there might be a better way of going through with the plan that was overlooked may slightly break the mood and immersion but it is still easy to put that out of mind and judge both people on their characteristics as people.