What would you do?
The hypothetical is one of the greatest tools humanity has at its disposal. The great ‘what ifs’ in life let us ponder and learn things outside of the limitation of reality. When I was younger, my mind would wander to these philosophical manifestations by instinct and really formed the basis for my knack for questioning things. What I want to talk about today is one of my favorite old ‘what ifs’.
Here is the situation.
On an average high school day, you find yourself in a very scary predicament. Armed robbers have taken over your school. Teachers, students, staff all are gathered into the auditorium, and they have an announcement to make. They declare that they do mean to harm people, and that there is no way they are going to change their minds. They explain that money, fame, or bloodlust is of no consequence to them, they simply want to perform an experiment. They will need one volunteer. No one raises a hand. So instead, the lead gunman walks up to the bleachers and selects the first person that caught his fancy. He selects you.
He escorts you to the auditorium floor and sits you in a chair, where he begins to explain the experiment. You are to choose a path that will affect everyone in this room. You are to survive the experiment, but you must make a choice. The gunman explains:
“One of two things will happen over the next hour. Everyone in this room will die (excluding you), or one person in this room will die. The catch being, you would have to commit the single murder.”
That is the premise of the ‘what if’ and it usually takes a few more statements before the person is ready to answer the question. Can you kill yourself? No. Can you succeed in killing the gunmen? No. Can you try? No. What happens if you don’t believe them? They demonstrate their resolve. Who would I have to kill? A randomly selected person. Ad nausea.
A morbid mind I have, I know, but that’s the situation, and I liked to put certain people under the hot seat with it. The results are what surprised me. The most upsetting answer was the non-answer. This being “It’s a hypothetical so no matter what I would say is moot because you never know what you are going to do until you are actually in the situation.” True you don’t know what you would do, but I am asking what you think you would do. And that would give some indication as to what you are likely to actually do in the situation. Besides, to avoid the hypothetical because they have yet to materialize is akin to leaving an umbrella at home despite the weatherman’s prediction of rain. You can plan for the future before it becomes the present.
The second answer, the one I assumed 90% of people would choose, was that you shoot the person. That was the answer that I always thought made sense, and had always held that as my personal choice. Unfortunately, very few seemed to share this viewpoint.
But the surprise came in the third, and most popular, answer. You let the men kill everyone. The reason being, you do not commit a sin to prevent a ‘greater’ sin. The blood would be on the hand of the gunmen if everyone were to die, and while you may feel guilty, you did not commit any acts of violence.
This thought experiment hints that there are two types of people, those that are practical and those that are idealistic. The practical person tends to believe the end justifies the means, and the idealist that immoral means will corrupt any end. I know longer have the same conviction that I would pull the trigger as when I originally dreamt up this situation, but I still believe that is the answer.
The reason this ‘hypothetical’ has floated back in to mind, is tied to the Israel/Gaza conflict and the fact that hard decisions are made every day. When you consider a President ordering an air strike against a town, a city, a group of terrorists, they are making that choice in the auditorium. They are committing acts of violence to prevent greater acts of violence, and those initial acts of aggression are not always against the ‘bad guy’. The ‘moral corruption’ has made me wary of most of the professions that I feel most talented to do. My potential talent as a lawyer was pushed aside because I did not want to decide the judgment of my fellow man. I squirmed at the idea of pursuing public policy or politics because eventually I would have to make decisions that make a direct impact on others, good and bad.
But I am now entering a phase where I define morality as more than what was taught to us in Bible school or social interactions. Morality now seems more complicated than, though shall not kill or treat others as you wish to be treated, and it makes the world a much scarier place.
Here is the situation.
On an average high school day, you find yourself in a very scary predicament. Armed robbers have taken over your school. Teachers, students, staff all are gathered into the auditorium, and they have an announcement to make. They declare that they do mean to harm people, and that there is no way they are going to change their minds. They explain that money, fame, or bloodlust is of no consequence to them, they simply want to perform an experiment. They will need one volunteer. No one raises a hand. So instead, the lead gunman walks up to the bleachers and selects the first person that caught his fancy. He selects you.
He escorts you to the auditorium floor and sits you in a chair, where he begins to explain the experiment. You are to choose a path that will affect everyone in this room. You are to survive the experiment, but you must make a choice. The gunman explains:
“One of two things will happen over the next hour. Everyone in this room will die (excluding you), or one person in this room will die. The catch being, you would have to commit the single murder.”
That is the premise of the ‘what if’ and it usually takes a few more statements before the person is ready to answer the question. Can you kill yourself? No. Can you succeed in killing the gunmen? No. Can you try? No. What happens if you don’t believe them? They demonstrate their resolve. Who would I have to kill? A randomly selected person. Ad nausea.
A morbid mind I have, I know, but that’s the situation, and I liked to put certain people under the hot seat with it. The results are what surprised me. The most upsetting answer was the non-answer. This being “It’s a hypothetical so no matter what I would say is moot because you never know what you are going to do until you are actually in the situation.” True you don’t know what you would do, but I am asking what you think you would do. And that would give some indication as to what you are likely to actually do in the situation. Besides, to avoid the hypothetical because they have yet to materialize is akin to leaving an umbrella at home despite the weatherman’s prediction of rain. You can plan for the future before it becomes the present.
The second answer, the one I assumed 90% of people would choose, was that you shoot the person. That was the answer that I always thought made sense, and had always held that as my personal choice. Unfortunately, very few seemed to share this viewpoint.
But the surprise came in the third, and most popular, answer. You let the men kill everyone. The reason being, you do not commit a sin to prevent a ‘greater’ sin. The blood would be on the hand of the gunmen if everyone were to die, and while you may feel guilty, you did not commit any acts of violence.
This thought experiment hints that there are two types of people, those that are practical and those that are idealistic. The practical person tends to believe the end justifies the means, and the idealist that immoral means will corrupt any end. I know longer have the same conviction that I would pull the trigger as when I originally dreamt up this situation, but I still believe that is the answer.
The reason this ‘hypothetical’ has floated back in to mind, is tied to the Israel/Gaza conflict and the fact that hard decisions are made every day. When you consider a President ordering an air strike against a town, a city, a group of terrorists, they are making that choice in the auditorium. They are committing acts of violence to prevent greater acts of violence, and those initial acts of aggression are not always against the ‘bad guy’. The ‘moral corruption’ has made me wary of most of the professions that I feel most talented to do. My potential talent as a lawyer was pushed aside because I did not want to decide the judgment of my fellow man. I squirmed at the idea of pursuing public policy or politics because eventually I would have to make decisions that make a direct impact on others, good and bad.
But I am now entering a phase where I define morality as more than what was taught to us in Bible school or social interactions. Morality now seems more complicated than, though shall not kill or treat others as you wish to be treated, and it makes the world a much scarier place.
posted by Anthony Jackson at 4:12 AM
6 Comments:
In reality I would probably try to kill the gunmen and get shot myself...so yeah...I would end up dead that way but believe I did the right thing.
before anyone else gets the idea of making up their own solution. the choice is between you killing the person or letting the 'bad guys' kill the people. if you need a visual, imagine you are strapped to a chair and you only have the movement of one button. that button is to kill the individual. you can push it, or you can let the hour expire and let the men do their deed.
'of one button' should be, of one finger which controls one button.
Tony, give me something I can use. You're in a different country and you're plying me with crazy hypothetical situations. Tell me about your adventures. Your hopes, fears and self-discoveries! Blast! I would email you, but I'm avoiding someone on Gchat. Oh, also, did you ever get the package I sent you?
Tatamwari, it's called going invisible, lifesaver :D
This is interesting. I'd shoot the one person. I just look at the numbers and figure, less people dead. A similar hypothetical is the one where you either have everyone dead except you, or you choose to have yourself killed. But that doesn't really apply to the Gaza fighting, so nevermind.
I agree with Oogie. Without thought, I'd pick one person (it's high school, there's more than one person you'd love to see dead.)
Post a Comment
<< Home