Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

  • Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date
In summary, there are two boats with explosives and 1000 and 500 people respectively. Each boat has a detonator to the other boat's bomb and will be blown up in one hour unless one boat blows the other up first. The question is raised if it would be immoral for the captain on the boat with 1000 people to not blow up the other boat. Some argue that it is selfish not to blow up the other boat, as it would save 1000 lives in the process. Others argue that it is the responsibility of the perpetrator who took the people hostage and that taking any action would make the captain a murderer. Ultimately, it is acknowledged that this is a theoretical situation and that regular morality may not necessarily apply
  • #176
Sorry! said:
This situation is different though. Because I have a means to contain you and attempt to stop you. As well there has been no reason to suspect you of actually carrying out these thoughts. Like from reading your posts ect. you seem intelligent and not ill-natured so if you had came to me and said that I would probably laugh and buy you a couple drinks or something. ;)
So, it's not a purely black & white scenario. This is what I'm sayin'.

Sorry! said:
I think the major difference in the situations though is that the madman has ALREADY set his plans into motion (he has somehow hijacked 2 boats and placed explosives on them, we think, and has everything set up) so it kind of gives him more credibility to doing the deed or at least expecting something to come out of it. And the madman in question is the Joker and we all know his character :P
If we're going to go on the Joker's character then I propose two even more likely outcomes:
1] he blows up our boat anyway, just for giggles
2] he wires up our trigger to blow up our boat, again, just for giggles.

This last one is particularly ironic, as it would punish those who are most selfish in preserving their own lives.
 
Back
Top