Doing 'evil' To Prevent A Greater 'evil'

[Hir]

Not quite sure where this came from, something bubbled up whilst reading the Asian Millionaire to join BNP thread.

I've seen better examples given of this but the way my mind works can I fookin remember them can I shite! So, I'll have to make one up.

Some deviant, hostile has planted bombs in a small community. He has you as hostage and wants to deal with you, if you shoot a small child he will surrender to you and give you the trigger device to the bombs, if you don't shoot the child he will explode the bombs killing many hundreds, you have 10 seconds, 9,8 .... what do you do.

I really don't know. My first reaction when I though about the above example is you must shoot the child. But then play acting the thing in my head I really can't see my self with the gun in my hand being able to kill the child even though, in the mind model. I know this will mean the deaths of hundreds.

Don't get stuck in the crap example I've given, just the general principle. Real life example, Coventration is a term that came into being because bombing of the Coventry in the second world war. Half the city was flattened, I was at Lancester Poly(now Cov Uni) in the 1980's within a mile of the centre there is very little that is pre 1950/1960's architecture.

Now our military, because we had cracked the enigma code, knew that Coventry was the target of a massive blitz and could have averted the level of destruction by meeting the bombers much earlier, in numbers, but this would have alerted the Germans that we had crack their code, so a high level decision to abandon Coventry to it's fate was made. 75% of factories where destroyed, 4,300 homes and maybe as many as a thousand civilians where killed.

Commit an evil to stop a greater evil, pragmatically possibly right but what about morally, ethically and philosophically? Not at all sure.

[Putrid]

Not quite sure where this came from, something bubbled up whilst reading the Asian Millionaire to join BNP thread.

I've seen better examples given of this but the way my mind works can I fookin remember them can I shite! So, I'll have to make one up.

Some deviant, hostile has planted bombs in a small community. He has you as hostage and wants to deal with you, if you shoot a small child he will surrender to you and give you the trigger device to the bombs, if you don't shoot the child he will explode the bombs killing many hundreds, you have 10 seconds, 9,8 .... what do you do.

alot would depend on what community

[Comrade Stoker]

My first reaction (On the basis of counting down from 10) is that I would shoot the child.

E2A And more onto your point about the evil to stop more evil, yes I would do something evil in order to stop a bigger evil.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Lake Palmer

[Felix Dzerzhinsky]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

[Archangel]

Well i am very sure. Its a princeable the human race has always abided by and will have to in the future with growing population and resource problems.

The Iraq war/slaughter is a perfect example.

I have a special ability to turn off my humanity and look at things from outside of my being, this doesnt make me human anymore, and could easily lead me to become the deviant.

Rest withnailed as it concerns logic not love.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Archangel

[Comrade Stoker]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

Yep, maybe with a comedy element like "Look mate, Easthead is behind you", then when he looks round shoot the fucker, then see if he has a packet of ciggies on him, if he does then light one up, stand back and admire your handy work.

[Guest grandad]

what ever happened next would not be my responability, i would sooner shoot myself and not know the ending, but i'd never hurt a child.

[Hir]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

Okay, assuming the circumstance in the model is perfect, ie you haven't got the choice to kill him, for what ever reason, he is in another room and you are chained by one hand to a radiator (Possibly being played by Michael Caine as Harry Palmer)

[Comrade Stoker]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

Okay, assuming the circumstance in the model is perfect, ie you haven't got the choice to kill him, for what ever reason, he is in another room and you are chained by one hand to a radiator (Possibly being played by Michael Caine as Harry Palmer)

Is there any chance of someone delivering us a cake with a saw inside it, then we scoff the cake, saw through the radiators and save the day?

[dogzilla]

That example is horrible, not in subject but generally. Nothing is clear cut and black and white like that

But moving on, I get your example of Coventry very well and I'm sure there were many scenarios where we had the firepower to defend but tactically it wasn't the right choice. However it's not really us doing evil, it's more about managing losses and doing the right thing tactically in that situation.

A better example might be say animal testing... (where only animal testing is viable) to help save human lives.

Or culling an overdominant species to help the rest of the ecosystem.

Or locking up a criminal of some sort for the rest of his life regardless of rehabilitation on the off-chance he will offend again.

[Hir]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

Okay, assuming the circumstance in the model is perfect, ie you haven't got the choice to kill him, for what ever reason, he is in another room and you are chained by one hand to a radiator (Possibly being played by Michael Caine as Harry Palmer)

Is there any chance of someone delivering us a cake with a saw inside it, then we scoff the cake, saw through the radiators and save the day?

7,6,5,4 ...

No, if it's harry palmer chained to the radiator and British postal service, I'd have to say that is a no.

[Herbal Kint]

What about turning the gun on the terrorist and capping him

Okay, assuming the circumstance in the model is perfect, ie you haven't got the choice to kill him, for what ever reason, he is in another room and you are chained by one hand to a radiator (Possibly being played by Michael Caine as Harry Palmer)

Is there any chance of someone delivering us a cake with a saw inside it, then we scoff the cake, saw through the radiators and save the day?

There is a chance,but they put the wrong saw inside ,this un is for wood So i chop your foot with it and ambush the terorist with it and save the day :wink:

Just a fine example of Doing 'evil' To Prevent A Greater 'evil' ,ta ta Lakes foot

[DANZIG]

In law there is the defence of necessity which can be used in court, however this defence is not available for murder (or cannabis)

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273. The defendants and a cabin boy were cast adrift in a boat following a shipwreck. The defendants agreed that as the cabin boy was already weak, and looked likely to die soon, they would kill him and eat him for as long as they could, in the hope that they would be rescued before they themselves died of starvation. A few days after the killing they were rescued and then charged with murder. The judges of the Queen's Bench Division held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was commuted to six months' imprisonment.

I wouldn't do it, the sort of sick fuck who would put you in such a situation could never be trusted to give himself up and disarm the bombs anyway

[Hir]

That example is horrible, not in subject but generally. Nothing is clear cut and black and white like that :wink:

But moving on, I get your example of Coventry very well and I'm sure there were many scenarios where we had the firepower to defend but tactically it wasn't the right choice. However it's not really us doing evil, it's more about managing losses and doing the right thing tactically in that situation.

I went to a philosophy forum using google and looking for evil to prevent greater evil and found a thread debating pretty much the same question. Some responses took a similar attitude to what you have said. Don't see it as evil but as an action for the greater good. Still can see me with that gun in my hand though, when I actually put myself there.

Here is the exact question they are debating which is essentially the example I gave.

" I suppose I could imagine a scenario that would meet the above. Consider a situation where you are trapped by a psychotic sadist. Before you are two children. He tells you that if you kill one of the children he will let the other one go. However, if you decline to kill either of the children he will murder both of them,and you believe him when he says this. What do you do? If you kill either child you are surely committing a terrible deed. But to decline from killing either child will mean that two innocent children die instead of one.

In a situation like this I think that most people's intuition about morality would make them say that killing one of the children isn't to do something that is right. Rather it is the lesser of two evils. "

[Boojum]

I guess it is entirely situational, you can't weigh up the evil of inaction (or whatever evil action you must take) against the good it will ultimately lead to until you are in that situation.

But I am certain that the people who are in the position to make such decisions in reality are no more equipped (ethically, morally and intellectually) than anyone else. In fact, recent history alone demonstrates that they are not, and that actually they would do any evil that is required, not to prevent a greater evil, but merely to further their aims (a different thing entirely). I chiefly refer not to the armed forces, even the very highest ranks (even they are following orders), but to their political masters with whom the decisions ultimately rest, and I can confidently say that they are the very kinds of people who should NEVER be in a position to make those decisions for the simple reason that they are the type of people for whom power is the ultimate goal, ergo they are not concerned with right and wrong, good and evil, but merely their own egos.

Career politicians are the very last people to ever have making those decisions because their entire lives are spent compromising what little integrity, morality and ethics they once had in order to get to the point where they are in a position to make those decisions - the person with his finger on the metaphorical button is the last person to have anywhere near the bloody button, because the very fact that they are in that position means that they have no ethical or moral integrity left, having squandered it all to get there. They have indeed sold their souls for personal power (and I'm afraid it's beyond question - you don't get to be the top dog politically by moral and ethical integrity, you get there by kissing the arses above you, stabbing the backs alongside you, stamping on the fingers of those below you and selling out everything you ever believed in if it will get you that little bit further up the greasy pole).

I wouldn't want to have to make such decisions, but I don't seek personal power so I will never have to. If I was the kind of person who sought personal power I probably wouldn't give a toss about making such decisions because I would no longer care about right & wrong, whatever I said would be the right decision because that's the way I'd think, being that kind of person.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Boojum