Philosophical question

I haven't found a thread like this. So let's see how it flies.

You are a police officer. trained to protect the lives of the people and uphold the law (kinda like Robocop) And you have been tracking a killer who has already murdered 12 people without remorse or reason. unless caught he will undoubtedly kill again.

You have finally cornered the killer, but not after a lengthy chase and a fierce firefight that has drained your ammo. But you have the killer cornered in a crowded mall. The killer takes aim at a little child. He looks at you with a sneer you know all to well. He is going to shoot the child to distract you while he makes good his escape.

Here is the question. Do you save the child, or do you charge in and catch the killer?

Here is the overall dilemma, if you save the child. the murder gets away and will kill many more. Do you sacrifice 1 life to save many more?

 

Robocop doesn't get distracted by death.

 

I didn't say it WAS Robocop. I said Kinda like Robocop. and I disagree. part of Robo's prime directive is "Protect the innocent"

 

Then Robocop would shoot the bad guy while he's holding the kid.

Honestly, this is a clumsy scenario. You haven't ruled out alternative actions that might bring about a different end. And what's with the sneer? How is it relevant outside of Hollywood?

But to get to what I think is your basic point, you've painted yourself into a corner - because of who you've said I am (which is not me), I protect the greater good, which means the kid dies.

Maybe you want to try this exercise again.

 

That is the point. Your painted into a corner in which you only have two choices. neither are preferable. So which of the evils do you choose.

But I do agree that I did word word it rather poorly. But you do get the general idea.

 

No, you've asked me to play a character and decide what HE would do. You haven't asked me what I would do. Reread your OP - it has little to do with what TFPers would do. It has everything to do with what we imagine this fictional character would do.

 

WOW, literal much?

 

Well thank you for the correction then folks.

 

You're accusing me of actually reading your post and comprehending what it says. Seriously?

Go back. Reread. Start with the part "You are..." then tell me why I'm wrong.

You're trying to ask an ethical question about the reader, but you've set it up so that they have to imagine themselves as a specific type of person ("Robocop type") instead of themselves. Effectively, you've neutered your own point by being more interested in the details of who this person is ("the sneer you know so well") that you've neglected other plot points (that you haven't explained how this child is going to die in a way that will keep you from stopping the killer as well as why it is impossible to kill the bad guy before he kills the child).

And, yeah, the "wow, literal much?" kind of response is not going to serve you well. Especially when you've failed at comprehending the words that you put on the page.

 

I agreed it wasn't / isn't a good post. I said I stand corrected.

 

Ozmanitis , the others are correct in pointing out your logical fallacies. You can't characterize the protagonist and then ask the audience to simply adapt themselves into him/her. You also fail to address how exactly you would save a child without then being able to continue pursuing the criminal. If he's going to shoot at the kid, the two most likely actions are either 1) shooting the criminal first (which ends up with a moot point for your question) or 2) throw yourself in front of the kid so you get hit rather than him/her (which radically changes the dynamics of your question, since you would not only weigh the greater-good principle, but also throw risking your own death on top of that).

Regardless of the nitpicking, I have always been a follower of the "for the greater good" principle. Unfortunately, theoretical decision-making hardly ever applies to real world situations.

If I were to find myself in a situation where it is absolutely either the kid or further casualties, without any % of a chance to get your cake and eat it, I would likely end up saving the child due to the higher chance of the kid's death compared to the chances of the criminal killing again (since he may still end up caught by other police officers).

 

Thank you Remixer, I do apologize for the "logical fallacies" in the scenario I'm really not a very good story teller.

 

This is simply the forced-choice doomsday scenario, although it's usually explicitly given that if you do nothing, both bad outcomes happen (the child dies and the criminal escapes). Your scenario does imply that. As is common in these scenarios, your participant is not given all the information they would like to have, or would have, in the situation, so I'll simply answer no.

 

I for one saw the logical fallacy* and still understood the question that was intended.

Sometimes TFPers can be tedious like that. It helps when practicing for writing your thesis like that.

I'd kill the bad guy and let the kid die. If those were the only two options left to me.

*I still don't know the meaning of the phrase "logical fallacy", I have googled it and I can't for the life of me figure out what the fuck it's intended for.