Lesser of the Two Evils Senario

[veritasseeker90]

This thought had occured to me recently, and I've wondered what others would say in response: In a situation how can you morally/ethically decide the lesser of the two evils? Or would you?

I know, it's one of the big questions of humanity, but yet it's an interesting one that commands some thought.

Here's a random senario for your consideration:

You're an officer with the nearby police force. And you get a call saying that this guy had kidnapped 25 people and he'll start killing them unless you kill a certain person. He leaves no loopholes so that you could willingly give your life for any of these 25 people. The only thing he will accept is that you murder this ONE person the way he commands.

How would you decide that? What steps would you take to reach a decision?

[morganlbusse]

Here's what I think: no matter what, I would never choose to murder that one individual. If the villain chooses to kill the 25, their blood is on his hands, not mine. Instead, I would be doing everything in my power to get that bad guy before he can accomplish his threat.

Another thing, when a person is already threatening to murder, what makes you think he's going to keep his word and free the 25? He's proven he has no morals and therefore there is no trust.

The hard thing would be if my family were amongst the 25. The emotional response to that would be hard... it would probably fuel me even more to find a way to save them. But in the end, I still would not give in to the villain's threat and murder.

[dizzyjam]

Well, first of all, we're assuming a lot here based on a phone call.

It reminds me of the time a manager at McDonald's (and this occurred more than once in more than one city) received a phone call saying that the caller was an officer of the law and that a certain employee that worked for the store was under investigation for drug use and that the manager needed to bring her into the office. After several more instructions, the male manager had the girl naked and tied up to the chair waiting for the officer to arrive at the store. Of course the officer never came because this was a fraudulent call and I can't really remember how things got resolved, but I saw it all on Dateline I think it was, including the video of what the manager had done to the girl - all on the basis of a phone call. Law & Order even made an episode about it, I think that was the one where Robin Williams was the villain.

So, I think most police forces are knowledgeable enough about these kinds of calls that just because an officer gets a call like what you described that they won't just hang up and go kill someone because of it.

So, what to do? First off, where was the phone call received? Did I get this in the middle of the night while at home? Or did I get this at the station while I'm on duty? He'll start killing them? Does that mean one by one, or will he start the process to kill all of them at once? If I say "No" to him on the phone is he prepared to have a freshly dead body show up outside the building I'm receiving the call in? What proof does he offer that he has these 25 people? Does he say that he will call back at a certain time?

Let's take the position that he calls while I'm at the station. While on the phone with him, I'll just signal another officer to get on the phone and listen in - don't assume he'll know someone has picked up the phone, there are ways to listen in without the microphone working to produce sounds for the other person to hear - and they will start tracing the call. Then you got to wonder just how knowledgeable the caller is on tracing calls and whether he will hang up at just the right time or not?

Then if I'm receiving the call at home, once I get off the phone with him I'd contact someone at the station to come out and hook up tracing equipment to my phone line so if he calls again I can find out where he's at.

Then on the question of killing off the 25, if they get killed all at once, then they die and there's nothing else that can be done. But if they are killed off one by one, does the killer call back between each death to give me another chance to kill the person he wants me to kill, or does he just proceed with killing them all one at a time until they are all dead?

Then once the 25 are killed off, does he have a further plan?

Your scenario leaves waaaay too many questions unanswered and assumes too much for any kind of immediate answer on just what I would do if I was in that situation.

[lexkx]

I'm with morwena. More because I harbor a lot of antipathy towards hostage situations, but killing one person because a criminal will kill people if I don't isn't going to fly.

Of course, take the criminal element out and it's different. There's an old, old story of a girl who stowed away on a space ship to visit her her brother on a distant station. The pilot and two crew members only had enough air, fuel, and food to last the three of them. Letting her stay meant they would die en route. If memory serves, their destination had been quarantined and they were bringing vaccines to the isolated colonists. The girl's brother was one of the colonists, and she had come because he was sick and she wanted to take care of him. No other ships were going there, so she stowed away on the medical ship. They were nice people, who would be sympathetic to her good intentions, right?

Making the right decision can really stick in your craw.

[Christian Soldier]

Snipers. Several of them.

[Spokane Flyboy]

Jul 9, 2009 12:56:48 GMT -5 Christian Soldier said:

Snipers. Several of them.

I'm along the lines of CS, though I'd go more Russian-style. Gas grenades, lots of them, then storm the building. Though, I'm suddenly recalling that tactic didn't go so well the last time it was used.

[Divides the Waters]

I think that moral questions like this are fascinating. There was a discussion not too long ago about whether lying to save a life is justified. I think that the bottom line is always going to be the question, "Do the ends ever justify the means?" To which, in my mind, the answer is a resounding "yes." But certainly not always, and one must always weigh each situation with extreme caution.

[veritasseeker90]

Very interesting thoughts. And I did leave more to the imagination than I meant too. Oops. But I was more curious as to whether anyone believe in taking the route of the lesser evil or not. And this was the first thing that popped in my mind.

[dizzyjam]

Just for the record, if I didn't make it clear enough in my first reply, I wouldn't just go and kill someone no matter what and I would try everything I could to find this insane person that called me up about it.

[torainfor]

You are not responsible for another's actions, only your own. You can certainly choose to try to resolve the situation according to worldly philosophy ("Needs of the many..."), but when it comes to sin and holiness and God and His standards? You're responsible for your actions.

I think part of our emotional response to this comes out of our feelings toward death. But I think God views sin much more seriously than death.