A moral dillema; Kill one to save 19? Kill no one, all 20 die?

[Spades_Neil]

Here's the story:

You're on vacation in a foreign nation somewhere in South America. There's a dictator in power who's been using fear and violence to keep his people under an iron fist rule, but you're a foreigner so you don't really matter all that much to his regime. One day you're walking through the jungle, when you stumble upon a group of heavily armed gunmen led by a man named Pedro. They've rounded up a village of people, about twenty, with men, women, children, and elderly alike.

Pedro approaches you. He tells you, "We have a tradition when a foreigner walks into something like this. We give you a gun and a choice. Kill one, and the other 19 including you will go free... or, you can walk away, and my men just kill them all like we were originally ordered." He puts a weathered but reliable pistol in your hand. Now it's your turn.


Terms of the discussion:
1. Just hypothetically say you know Pedro will be true to his word. He's serious about letting them go if you shoot one.
2. Believe it or not I'll allow race to be an issue here. Some villagers are Caucasian, some are Hispanic, some are of African descent.
2. No killing Pedro and his men like you're rambo. You have a pistol and one bullet. They have a whole arsenal and will kill you if you try anything retarded. (Unless dying is part of your plan.)

(The reason for the terms is to make you focus on the question, not the scenario.)


Now who would you shoot? Alternatively, would you walk away and let all 20 be killed? Explain why. Thread begin.

[Madcombat]

Shoot the Elderly, its a shitty situation but the Elderly has lived their life.  The truth to it is, would you kill potential growing life?  Or life that is close to death?

[Bl★ck Star]

Shoot the Elderly, its a shitty situation but the Elderly has lived their life.  The truth to it is, would you kill potential growing life?  Or life that is close to death?

Also my opinion.

[Knife_cz]

You can't really make such thread.
You can say whatever you want here, but you will never know what would you do in reality.
Also if you are some kind of tourist, why would you go for a walk to jungle, without any kind of guide?

[Dragon]

Stop, and process my thoughts. He's probably got an unmentioned part in his proposition.
He's given me a gun. If I kill them, the nineteen go away free. What about me? He never talked about my Freedom unless I walked away.
...

Yeah, I'd just turn around and walk away. Scoring a free pistol in the process. Call me sinister or sick minded, but I'm one for the survival of the fittest.

[Spades_Neil]

He's given me a gun. If I kill them, the nineteen go away free. What about me? He never talked about my Freedom unless I walked away.

Sorry, I missed one part. Yes, you'd go free too if you shot one.

As for the rest of your reply, as twisted as it is, perfectly valid. :P

You can't really make such thread.
You can say whatever you want here, but you will never know what would you do in reality.
Also if you are some kind of tourist, why would you go for a walk to jungle, without any kind of guide?

Tourists are retarded. :D Though that is also a response I've heard when I was first presented this question. "How could you ask such a thing? Unless you're in the moment you can't be sure it's really what you'd do." For now we'll just have to speculate, but this is a good retort.

[Blake.H]

Have sex with the men and children then walk away and let the lot of them be killed.

But in seriousness, Id choose five at random (even children) and request they were to be blindfolded and moved away from the group. Then shoot one at random, who are we to judge whos worthy of life or death? Everything would have to be random.

[INA7HAN]

Ask the group who would be willing to die to save the rest. That way you give them an option, if they don't volunteer then shoot an elderly person or sick person who would die soon anyway

[Kelse]

20 in a group, free pistol, kill one and the rest walk free? Shoot yourself, let the others live life as it was meant to be, you shouldn't be choosing which one were to die because then you're a terrible person yourself, the children are young, new to the world, the elders are old, wise, understanding, and helpful. Shooting yourself would be the the best option imo, they never said you couldn't kill yourself for the rest to walk free.

[Spades_Neil]

20 in a group, free pistol, kill one and the rest walk free? Shoot yourself, let the others live life as it was meant to be, you shouldn't be choosing which one were to die because then you're a terrible person yourself, the children are young, new to the world, the elders are old, wise, understanding, and helpful. Shooting yourself would be the the best option imo, they never said you couldn't kill yourself for the rest to walk free.

While I'm not sure that was an intended option by whomever the author of this moral dilemma is, that is none the less an interesting and noble response.

[Lucky Pig]

Ask the group who would be willing to die to save the rest. That way you give them an option, if they don't volunteer then shoot an elderly person or sick person who would die soon anyway

Assuming you can speak their language and that you can distinguish who is sick and who is not. And what if the sick or elder person is the leader of the village?

20 in a group, free pistol, kill one and the rest walk free? Shoot yourself, let the others live life as it was meant to be, you shouldn't be choosing which one were to die because then you're a terrible person yourself, the children are young, new to the world, the elders are old, wise, understanding, and helpful. Shooting yourself would be the the best option imo, they never said you couldn't kill yourself for the rest to walk free.

How would you be terrible if you save 19 people from death? And as for shooting yourself... Well good luck pulling the trigger. My guess is it wont be that easy, as the choice is so sudden.

[Zstan]

20 in a group, free pistol, kill one and the rest walk free? Shoot yourself, let the others live life as it was meant to be, you shouldn't be choosing which one were to die because then you're a terrible person yourself, the children are young, new to the world, the elders are old, wise, understanding, and helpful. Shooting yourself would be the the best option imo, they never said you couldn't kill yourself for the rest to walk free.

You're such a beta nerd.


If you were a man like me, you would kill Pedro.
(It's pirate law that when you kill their leader you instantly become the new leader)

[Kelse]

I am p. beta, as for the nerd comment, thanks for the compliment  8)

[Spades_Neil]

Kill Pedro.

Yea.

Good job.

Now you have no bullets. All the other gunmen shoot you. Now you're dead. They kill the villagers anyway. You just made a needless sacrifice.

Told you that wasn't an option. :|

Also, please, be serious or I gotta delete posts that derail the thread. Had to remove three of them that started making silly S.T.A.L.K.E.R. roleplay references about when people powergame. Also pirates. Continued nonsense will also get forum strikes. Take this as your warning and save it for the GVC.

[Tom]

For someone who is against all the censorship laws you sure do it a lot.

As for the moral dilima, why go out in the woods alone in the first place. I am being 100% serious with both statements.

It also doesn't state anywhere that you have just one bullet.

Then again you could turn this into a standoff and take one of the gunman hostage

[Iam333]

What happens if I would miss?
Would I get another bullet to try again?

EDIT:
What if that shot wouldnt be mortal, but lets say just scratch?

[ThY]

I would shoot the eldest or illest, with much guilt and sorrow.

[Overwatch]

I'd hate to sound like the resident asshole.
But a chance to murder, without the chance of it chasing you, I'd have to be the least bit experimental.

I'd have Pedro and his men organize a neater line, then see how many one round took out.

[Spades_Neil]

For someone who is against all the censorship laws you sure do it a lot.

Because acting like an idiot and acting like this is the GVC is totally free speech and not trolling or derailing the thread.

You want me to give you the posts? Because they were going completely off track from the topic, so they got removed. Isn't that what a moderator is supposed to do?


In case you haven't noticed, I don't delete posts that oppose my opinion. I delete posts that have nothing to do with the discussion. That's like going to an Occupy event and saying I'm "infringing on the right to free speech" by ignoring the Tea Party guy who came to crash the party.

Now we're derailing the thread again, so let's end the discussion here or make a new thread about it. This thread is about another topic. Where I come from, that's called keeping things organized.

What happens if I would miss?
Would I get another bullet to try again?

EDIT:
What if that shot wouldnt be mortal, but lets say just scratch?

If you miss or fail to kill them you'd be probably given another bullet. The example is supposed to focus on the idea that you must kill one to save 19, or you choose not to participate in this sick game and all 20 die. Try not to focus on the technicalities of it.

[Redbark]

I'd kill one. It'd be bad to do that but why let twenty die when you can let 1 die?

[Wolfie]

I'd ask if I can get anything for shooting them all.

[Steven :D]

Shoot pedro because he said kill somebody and he never said you couldn't shoot him. His men will understand.

[Spades_Neil]

Shoot pedro because he said kill somebody and he never said you couldn't shoot him. His men will understand.

Yes. They understand. They understand best with bullets. Enjoy dying.

[Klapman]

kill everyone yourself and become part of the new regime, obviously

[Ulitimo]

Especially if the person deciding was Batman. His only rule is to not kill, generally. There has been exceptions, but I am sure he can figure a way to save everyone.