Poll: Moral Dilemma: Kill Which Father?

[The3rdEye]

It can't really be a moral dilemma if there are only three options, morality being something based on non-linear individual decisions and experience, so imo this decision is more rational than moral, not to mention very unrealistic. I can see the intent, "work the mind" and whatnot, but... I don't know. A situation where your control is limited by an outside power seems kind of pointless... which now that I think of it brings up all sorts of accusations regarding "god" and "fate".

My answer (screw the box):
I turn the gun on myself, saying that if anyone's blood gets spilled, it will start with mine.

Either they stop fighting and actually deal with their situation, or I paint the walls a shade of gray and it's not my problem anyway. Either the situation resolves in all our favors or I don't have to live with the consequences.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Well, I would let them kill each other since neither one has enough respect for my mother, myself, or the other to care for how they are tearing the family apart. *sage nod*

 

[Mr.Napier]

why are you forcing us to make such a young child commit murder? I think that's the more importation question.

 

[Xero Scythe]

While I hate guns and would not take a life, I would not be against kicking around Daniel. I couldn't hurt my biological father,'and because Philip was still alive, the marriage will soon be annulled for it is void. Also, I'm nit entirely sure, but isn't there a 7 year period between missing and presumed dead?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

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.

Agreed entirely. Moral oversimplifications and relativism aside, I have a hard time believing either man could off the other bare-handed to begin with. My dad was never stated to be Bruce Lee and his buddy wasn't Kratos, so this is flawed reasoning to begin with.

All that being said and done, decision forced SOME how, First I wonder when my life turned into "The Scarlet Letter"...

Then I put the gun to either mom's temple or my own and ask quite loudly if the two loving men want me to finish her off for them, or would they like to keep killing our family with their selfishness themselves.

 

[SkyeNeko]

Hmmm.. answering what's provided, id shoot Philip, just because he is now a drunk and my moms moved past that. imagine having your old dad come in and try to kiss your mom again?

If i could though, id put the gun to my head and threaten to kill myself if they dont stop. then the kneecap shots 8D

EDIT: we need more of these kind of threads
EDITx2: Aw boo someone already suggested that =( 0 points for an unoriginal idea T-T

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

Agreed entirely. Moral oversimplifications and relativism aside, I have a hard time believing either man could off the other bare-handed to begin with. My dad was never stated to be Bruce Lee and his buddy wasn't Kratos, so this is flawed reasoning to begin with.

All that being said and done, decision forced SOME how, First I wonder when my life turned into "The Scarlet Letter"...

Then I put the gun to either mom's temple or my own and ask quite loudly if the two loving men want me to finish her off for them, or would they like to keep killing our family with their selfishness themselves.

There are thousands of ways ordinary men can kill with their bare hands.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

Shoot both of them in the foot for being morons, then call an ambulance.

 

[Risingblade]

Daniel gets it twice in the head

 

[WanderingFool]

Pick up gun and yell at them both so they look at me... and the gun in my mouth. Tell them to grow the fuck up or they can say good buy to their "son". Either it works and they stop the fighting, or... yeah...

Since the poll has three options, and I made two more possibles, there still stands a 6th possible.

Pray to *Insert baddass action hero* showing up and telling them to knock that shit off.

Oh, and I chose do nothing for the poll.

 

[The_Echo]

Where's the option to call the cops and get the whole thing settled in a civil manner? You know, the rational and logical decision.

Jesus, man. Violence is not the answer.

 

[Leg End]

Simple, kill them both.

If they want to kill the other without thinking they both can be a father, without thinking of the grief it could cause to you, just to satisfy a personal desire, they should both die.

It is the best choice and I am sad to see there is not an option for this.

[sub]Fairly serious about this. Opinions welcome. Yes, I grew up without a father. No, I should not have mentioned that. [/sub]

[sub][sub][sub]I like pie.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

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.

Agreed entirely. Moral oversimplifications and relativism aside, I have a hard time believing either man could off the other bare-handed to begin with. My dad was never stated to be Bruce Lee and his buddy wasn't Kratos, so this is flawed reasoning to begin with.

All that being said and done, decision forced SOME how, First I wonder when my life turned into "The Scarlet Letter"...

Then I put the gun to either mom's temple or my own and ask quite loudly if the two loving men want me to finish her off for them, or would they like to keep killing our family with their selfishness themselves.

There are thousands of ways ordinary men can kill with their bare hands.

Ah, yes, I've played Mortal Kombat too. Seriously? The two men might beat each other retarded, but they're not going to kill each other going happy-slaps. Two drunk men going punchers over a girl, yes? *snofts* I've been privvy to enough drunken testosterone dripping bar fighters wailing away on each other with bottles, table legs, chairs, bricks, boot-knives even, bare hand deaths isn't the stuff of civilian-level fact, it's video-game grade fiction, Hollywood hype for fanboys. Pro boxers wail away at each other to ridiculous lengths and there have been HOW many recorded fatalities in the history of the sport? You never stated one was a green beret combat vet and the other a ninja and even if you did, sorry, not buyin' it.

Besides which, my entire point is this isn't morality, it's selective elitism. It's a tragic situation, yes, and it's easy to feel for wither man's position, but not a moral choice by any means. One's my "dad" one's my "father" neither give a snit about mom's feelings or mine, so who cares? They obviously don't.
It's not a "learning experience" to force people to choose by your rules in a situation which has such an open-end to it.

 

[Dfskelleton]

2 options (1 makes perfect sense and is morally acceptable, the other not as much):

1: Call the freaking police.

2: Freeze them both with your nifty freeze ray, then heal their wounds in your secret laboratory made of plastic. As soon as they recover, give them each weapons of ultimate badassery, cover them in armor, and send them into an arena where they can respawn infinitely if they die. Let them fight for an hour, and whoever kills the other more lives, while the other is unworthy and must live in exile on the moon forever.

 

[Bloodstain]

I'd either do nothing or shoot Daniel.
If I was Philip, I'd feel pretty betrayed as well.

Also, to me, love is something so very important, that if you decide to marry someone, you shouldn't stop loving and missing him ever, even if he died. (of course that's not how reality is, that's why I think everyone should be given the right to divorce)
But I'm too tired to elaborate.

 

[EboMan7x]

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.

Gonna go with caircoat on this one.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I would leave and get a girlfriend for emotional support. If the dumbasses want to shoot each other, they can.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Ah, yes, I've played Mortal Kombat too. Seriously? The two men might beat each other retarded, but they're not going to kill each other going happy-slaps. Two drunk men going punchers over a girl, yes? *snofts* I've been privvy to enough drunken testosterone dripping bar fighters wailing away on each other with bottles, table legs, chairs, bricks, boot-knives even, bare hand deaths isn't the stuff of civilian-level fact, it's video-game grade fiction, Hollywood hype for fanboys. Pro boxers wail away at each other to ridiculous lengths and there have been HOW many recorded fatalities in the history of the sport? You never stated one was a green beret combat vet and the other a ninja and even if you did, sorry, not buyin' it.

Besides which, my entire point is this isn't morality, it's selective elitism. It's a tragic situation, yes, and it's easy to feel for wither man's position, but not a moral choice by any means. One's my "dad" one's my "father" neither give a snit about mom's feelings or mine, so who cares? They obviously don't.
It's not a "learning experience" to force people to choose by your rules in a situation which has such an open-end to it.

Exhibit A:

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Man-who-choked-woman-to-death-to-serve-12-25-years/4VuiOSgRnkiPcIrg0HVlcQ.cspx

Exhibit B:

Daniel and Philip--battered, bloodied, and bruised--clawing at each others throats, ready to kill.

A real life occurrence that anyone can perform. Never once did my mind hearken back a one-on-one fist fighting event with shouriukens and fatalities. The fact that you didn't even consider this most basic and obvious of pure rage-induced killing methods in favor of what you only saw in fighting games says more about you and your video-game grade fiction than it does about me. And it's not even the half of it. Have you any idea of the amount of civilian-related assaults that result in the term "beaten to death" occur in everyday life? It's more than just possible. It happens. Unlike in fighting games, people don't stop after they've gotten a KO.

Also, if you didn't like my attempt to provoke deep thought, then that's you're own opinion. Can't say much else.

 

[Nabirius]

Does anyone remember the part of hunterxhunter "Who would you save?" and the "correct" answer was to stay silent. I would have responded to save one of them "because if I don't save one they will both die". In other words the only choice I see as entirely immoral is to do nothing.

That said I would probably save Daniel, as much as Philip has the right to be angry after he works for years to support the family and then finds them gone, Daniel made the same sacrifices and was there for the family in a time of desperate need. Philip realize that as hard an unfair as it is his family had to move on.

 

[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.