Moral Questions: What would you do?

The Best Solution:

The best solution to this moral dilemma is to go in to the cell and shoot the prisoner in a place where death will be instant and painless..

You followed orders essentially. When questioned about not raping the prisoner the answer is either you were too pumped up and forgot, you are devoted to someone else but you didn't mind killing the bad guy, or that you couldn't get it up and suffer ridicule but essentially you can't be held for not following orders.

This solution makes the circumstance not a war crime because you are allowed to kill civilians under orders. It would also ensure your conscience was clear because; had you not killed the prisoner someone else would have anyway, so technically, the prisoner was already dead. It also means that the prisoner died scared, alone, but would not have gone through extreme trauma as a last thing before deaths embrace.
 
Last edited:
Khloriael said:
The Best Solution:

The best solution to this moral dilemma is to go in to the cell and shoot the prisoner in a place where death will be instant and painless..

You followed orders essentially. When questioned about not raping the prisoner the answer is either you were too pumped up and forgot, you are devoted to someone else but you didn't mind killing the bad guy, or that you couldn't get it up and suffer ridicule but essentially you can't be held for not following orders.

This solution makes the circumstance not a war crime because you are allowed to kill civilians under orders. It would also ensure your conscience was clear because; had you not killed the prisoner someone else would have anyway, so technically, the prisoner was already dead. It also means that the prisoner died scared, alone, but would not have gone through extreme trauma as a last thing before deaths embrace.
Click to expand...

Orders or no orders, you'd still kill innocent people. So no that is not the best solution
 
Sithious said:
Orders or no orders, you'd still kill innocent people. So no that is not the best solution
Click to expand...


In your opinion...

Also, if you are going to challange someone on their opinion, you really need to learn to base it on something... give it some ground.
Simply saying "you are wrong" will not do.
If I am wrong I will quite happily alter my view, however you have provided nothing to substantiate me being wrong, or provided an alternative "better" solution. I answered the dilemma with my moral standing and my opinions..

Anyway, the one piece of argument you gave regarding killing innocent people, I had already countered that argument by stating that, had I not done it, someone else would have... and probably in a way which was a lot less humane... including most likely having raped the innocent victim.

I was never denying that the situation is "wrong" as a whole, but you work with the tools you are given.

Answer this... You take the moral high ground and sacrifice yourself, meaning you disobey and get killed. The innocent then gets raped badly... really badly and then killed in a very slow painful way.

Let's imagine the question is this;
Once making that decision, you meet the innocent in a hypothetical "after-life". When greeted the innocent asks you why you didn't just kill them in one go and save them from such an ordeal. How do you answer?
 
Khloriael said:
In your opinion...

Also, if you are going to challange someone on their opinion, you really need to learn to base it on something... give it some ground.
Simply saying "you are wrong" will not do.
If I am wrong I will quite happily alter my view, however you have provided nothing to substantiate me being wrong, or provided an alternative "better" solution. I answered the dilemma with my moral standing and my opinions..

Anyway, the one piece of argument you gave regarding killing innocent people, I had already countered that argument by stating that, had I not done it, someone else would have... and probably in a way which was a lot less humane... including most likely having raped the innocent victim.

I was never denying that the situation is "wrong" as a whole, but you work with the tools you are given.

Answer this... You take the moral high ground and sacrifice yourself, meaning you disobey and get killed. The innocent then gets raped badly... really badly and then killed in a very slow painful way.

Let's imagine the question is this;
Once making that decision, you meet the innocent in a hypothetical "after-life". When greeted the innocent asks you why you didn't just kill them in one go and save them from such an ordeal. How do you answer?
Click to expand...

Everything you say regarding topics like these is in your opinion, thus you should have written in your opinion aswell if we we were living in a world filled with annoying nitpickers.

In other words, the first segment of your post is useless.

Regarding your actual post, my plan was to do everything in my power to save my self and the prisoners, if I died and met them in the afterlife what more could I have done than tried to save them?

Personally I could not have lived with myself If I killed them and did not try to save them, that's why, to me, your plan is useless
 
Last edited:
I'd pretend I was going to, then get out of there when no one was looking, using the excuse that the prisoner needed to be taken to see an officer or something.
Escape into the bush and make it to a civilised area before fleeing back to my home.
 
Sithious said:
Regarding your actual post, my plan was to do everything in my power to save my self and the prisoners, if I died and met them in the afterlife what more could I have done than tried to save them?
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I agree that is a good moral approach, though a bit fool hardy if you don;t mind me saying.

Personally I thought there would be tons of other soldiers and escape would be almost impossible. I felt that, because the innocent was going to die no matter what course of action I decided to take, being able to keep my own life would be the best approach. Seeing as I would then later be able to tell the my commanders boss what he had ordered me to do, thus making sure that commander could never order a soldier to do the things he/she asked me to do.
 
Last edited:
Khloriael said:
Hmmm, I agree that is a good moral approach, though a bit fool hardy if you don;t mind me saying.

Personally I thought there would be tons of other soldiers and escape would be almost impossible. I felt that, because the innocent was going to die no matter what course of action I decided to take, being able to keep my own life would be the best approach. Seeing as I would then later be able to tell the my commanders boss what he had ordered me to do, thus making sure that commander could never order a soldier to do the things he/she asked me to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, if we assume there's zero chance of survival then that is the best approach yes. But in real life there's always opportunities.

Although if you were given such an order, the commander most liklely wouldn't have told the prisoner was innocent.
 
Sithious said:
Yes, if we assume there's zero chance of survival then that is the best approach yes. But in real life there's always opportunities.

Although if you were given such an order, the commander most liklely wouldn't have told the prisoner was innocent.
Click to expand...



I had assumed zero chance survival rate if a break out was attempted. I love action movies but hey... I'd never be able to pull anything like that off :D

Innocent or not, rape is always wrong. I would have reported it to his superiors.
 
If the only choices were to kill or be killed (with the innocent people still being killed), then I would follow orders.

Yeah, I would feel like crap. I would hate myself. But reality is, I'd be able to do those innocent people more good by trying to make it as painless as possible. This stuff happens in real life -- I'd much rather have control over how they die than allowing some other psychopath to get off on rape/torture.

Send me to hell, but I'm not going to abandon the suffering, even if that means just trying to make it so they suffer less. You can't save everyone, but I'd rather help ease what I can if I'm able to.
 
I would definitely be trying to devise an escape plan or die trying. It sounds like I would also be a prisoner essentially if I was being forced to commit such an act on fear of death.

I would probably have several escape plans in mind. If I'm responsible to kill the prisoner, this suggests I am armed. I would watch for an opportunity to take advantage of that fact to simply break the prisoner out before the required rape scenario. I would play along until my opportunity arrived, and if I couldn't do it before the required rape, I would be in an intimate enough position with the prisoner to whisper to them it would be a fake rape and that I was trying to break them out, so please play along. I suspect I could take out a few guards before that instance, but during that part, it is likely the guards would have a natural psychological distraction to either be looking the other way or to be intrigued by the supposed sexual act. That might actually be the best moment to turn the gun on the guards since it would be the most unexpected moment.
 
It seems those that do the evil will of others often become victims themselves.
 
just me said:
It seems those that do the evil will of others often become victims themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree. The person in the moral dilemma is also a prisoner. The difference is that they are armed. :m105:

I realize there actually are situations where there is no escape, but when backed into a corner, the best chance for escape is to allow all the instincts to take over, and become obsessed with the single goal of escape. By not accepting the trap, it increases the possibility of finding that rare, unexpected escape route. One has to think the way an animal thinks in such a scenario.

There is also an added question: what if many of your fellow guards feel equally trapped, but are following along because they assume isolation and powerlessness as well? Sometimes taking the stand in the short term is the way to draw out the resources one needs to overcome the source of oppression. I think I would have to explore all those possibilities before accepting such a fate.
 
Shai Gar said:
I don't understand why you people make your decisions based on the way the statement/question is set out. Add new options, create them with your mind. The only rules or laws that exist are those of science. Anything else is a shared delusion and should be put aside if it doesn't advantage us.
Click to expand...

This. You're all mostly sheep.
 
I'd just rape the commander and then off myself, but frame him for murder.
 
Hell, I'd whip the machine gun out of my ass and kill those sons of bitches!
 
Bank error in your favor?

Ok here's a new scenerio, less dramatic than the previous one but still with something to think about.

When Richard went to the ATM, he got a very pleasant surprise. He requested 100 dollars with a receipt. What he got was $10,000 with a receipt-for $100.

When he got home, he checked his account online and found that, sure enough, his account had been debited by only $100. He put the money in a safe place, fully expecting the bank swiftly to spot the mistake and ask for it back. But the weeks passed and nobody called.

After two months, Richard concluded that no one was going to ask for the money. So he headed off to the BMW dealership with the hefty down payment in his pocket.

On the way, however, he did feel a twinge of guilt. Wasn't this stealing? He quickly managed to convince himself it wasno such thing. He had not deliberately taken the money, it had just been given to him. And he hadn't taken it from anyone else, so on one had been robbed. As for the bank, this was a drop in the ocean for them, and anyway, they would be insured against such eventualities. And it was their fault they had lost the money- they should have had safer systems. No, this wasn't theft. It was the biggest stroke of luck he had ever had.

What do you guys think?
 
Last Dawn said:
Ok here's a new scenerio, less dramatic than the previous one but still with something to think about.

When Richard went to the ATM, he got a very pleasant surprise. He requested 100 dollars with a receipt. What he got was $10,000 with a receipt-for $100.

When he got home, he checked his account online and found that, sure enough, his account had been debited by only $100. He put the money in a safe place, fully expecting the bank swiftly to spot the mistake and ask for it back. But the weeks passed and nobody called.

After two months, Richard concluded that no one was going to ask for the money. So he headed off to the BMW dealership with the hefty down payment in his pocket.

On the way, however, he did feel a twinge of guilt. Wasn't this stealing? He quickly managed to convince himself it wasno such thing. He had not deliberately taken the money, it had just been given to him. And he hadn't taken it from anyone else, so on one had been robbed. As for the bank, this was a drop in the ocean for them, and anyway, they would be insured against such eventualities. And it was their fault they had lost the money- they should have had safer systems. No, this wasn't theft. It was the biggest stroke of luck he had ever had.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
No guilt whatsoever. I'll feel guilty about gouging a massive corporation when they feel guilty about gouging me, their consumer.
 
I'd return it. No question in my mind. It's not my money.

If I for some reason happened to have 10,000 dollars, I definitely wouldn't use it on a down payment for a BMW. That's just a dent in the cost of a BMW. I'd have to hope to find a lot more money to afford that car.
 
Shai Gar said:
This. You're all mostly sheep.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the exercise is thinking inside the box, it's a moral exercise not a creative one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top