Personal ethics...

[hadespussercats]

I normally wouldn't have sex in exchange for money, but I'd do it if I needed to keep my family sheltered, clothed, and fed, and there was no better option available. In fact, I'd probably do research into what kind of sex services make the most money in the least amount of time, which were the safest, in terms of volatile customers, etc., etc. I'd do this even though I suspect J would prefer we all starve.

I'd join the military if I had to, for the same reasons. Which I guess means I'd kill to keep my family sheltered and fed.

In some ways, the former seems a more attractive option. But I know I'd kill to protect my son, or J, or my immediate family-- which already taints my pacifist leanings.

[FBM]

I doubt I'd kill an otherwise innocent and peaceful person to survive, but I wouldn't blink over taking out some asshat, in self defense or otherwise, to get my hands on his bacon.

[Clinton Huxley]

I would have no qualms in taking my elephant gun to any of the great unwashed who tried to enter my bunker.

[Drewish]

In some ways, the former seems a more attractive option. But I know I'd kill to protect my son, or J, or my immediate family-- which already taints my pacifist leanings.

There's nothing wrong with admitting to yourself that your own child is more important to you than a stranger. There is nothing wrong with defending the people you care about from violent aggressors. It's the people who would kill for nothing and then expect mercy from others, or who demand that you have as much empathy and compassion for a violent thug as your own child, that are at fault.

[Seth]

Reminds me of the trolley problem in ethics:

A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The problem with this ethical "conundrum" is that it is a false dilemma fallacy that fails on the unstated premise that you have a moral obligation to take any action at all, and that the people tied to the tracks are innocent victims who are not simply suffering the consequences of their own actions.

Sometimes the problem is stated as the five people being drunks reveling on the tracks versus a child wandering unknowing into danger, but that answer is too easy, so it's modified to be more of a "Sophie's Choice" or "double bind."

But the ethical dilemma only applies if the individual who is in control of the choice has some moral obligation to act one way or another and may not simply refuse to act at all.

Let's say that you are the trolly driver, however, and through no fault of your own a mechanical failure makes it impossible for you to do other than take one track or another. In one case one person will die, in the other, five will die.

The answer is perfectly obvious: you, as the person who has accepted responsibility for the safety of persons on and in the trolly, must choose. You are not allowed ethically to do nothing, and the logical, moral and ethical choice is ALWAYS to minimize death and injury to innocent persons to the maximum extent possible. That's why, for example, faced with running head-on into a school bus that has crossed the centerline and mowing down a bicyclist or pedestrian, I have made the rational choice to take out the bicyclist or pedestrian, thereby minimizing overall harm, and inculcated this reasoning in my driving habits, so I don't have to think about the choice if it happens.

[Santa_Claus]

I would kill every one of you - simply because I was bored.

But I iz wayyyyyyyyy too lazy.

[floppit]

This thread kind of reminds me of the polarity of stories of survival, some dark, some heroic, some compassionate just for it's own sake and others cruel equally just for it's own sake. It makes me think about people that shelter those who're being hunted, putting themselves, family and community in harm's way - but it happens.

I haven't a clue, I'm not sure any experience of life without mortal fear as a daily routine could really tell me what I'd do. I hope that whatever I did it'd be remembered as ok - sort of back to the stories I've heard, I'd rather be the protagonist of the nice ones, the one's aiming to preserve life and show compassion - but who knows, hopefully not me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't know who you will kill until you're faced with the decision. I know.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would you give up in order to survive? How far would you go, and would it be 'worth' it?

I think, ultimately, I would have to say I would go pretty darn far.

To survive - like if my life depended on it?

Would I lie? Yes. I can apologize later.
Steal? Yes. I can pay them back.
Commit adultery? Yes, I think so. I would feel guilty, but I would think that SWMBO'd would rather I do that than die...as much as I don't want to share SWMBO'd, I think I'd prefer she cheat than die.

Kill..... I think it depends who it is. If it was like, a pedophile rapist, then maybe I could handle being the executioner. If it was just some random person, I would like to think I wouldn't do it. I wonder what I would do if I was under that pressure, though. It's kind of hard to imagine. That might be my limit, but I don't think even there I would know until I was put in that situation, and a lot would depend on the circumstances.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would have no qualms in taking my elephant gun to any of the great unwashed who tried to enter my bunker.

Unwashed? There you go, taking a stab at the French again....

And, you have a bunker? Cool.

[Coito ergo sum]

Reminds me of the trolley problem in ethics:

A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If that's all the information you have, then my solution has always been that the answer is to flip the switch. 5 vs. 1, all else being equal. Inaction is a choice. It might as well be that you have to affirmatively choose either the 5 or the 1 or all 6 get killed. Which do you choose, when you HAVE to choose. I'd choose the 5 to survive, absent some additional knowledge that militates against that.

[Coito ergo sum]

I normally wouldn't have sex in exchange for money, but I'd do it if I needed to keep my family sheltered, clothed, and fed, and there was no better option available..

I would normally, but nobody is offering to pay!

[Audley Strange]

Rather than dying by betraying my "principles", I consider them functional contingencies rather than set in stone moral or ethical laws. What works on a Street in Glasgow does not work when a rebel Militia are shoving a gun into your face, or your family are starving, or you are pursued by a hungry lion. Of course under such extreme duress our brain floods, no one properly knows how they would act in such extreme situations, there is a good chance, dare I say it, that you would not be in a rational state of mind.

[Cormac]

Kill the five. After all, the other person is already tied to the tracks and so you could easily go back and do them in.

Then you could steal all their money, jewellery, and gold teeth.

Good times!

[Audley Strange]

Mind if I throw a cat in amongst the pigeons? I just wondered if anyone thought that given a belief in obligatory objective morality, those who are deeply religious may have an advantage in retaining their principles under such extreme duress, even to their detriment, because it is often hard-wired into their behaviour?