Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Jim and the Natives - A Phillosophical Problem


Recommended Posts

Jim finds himself in the central square of a South American town. Against the wall are a row of twenty native Americans, in front of them armed men in uniform. The captain states the natives are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent protests, are about to be killed to discourage further protest. As Jim is an honoured visitor, the captain offers him the privilege of killing one of the native Americans himself. If Jim accepts, then the other native Americans will be let off. If Jim refuses, they will kill them all. There is no viable option C. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, beg him to accept. Taking the captain's word at face value, what should he do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is that everyone wants to avoid answering the question, because it's hard to answer. People often desperately want to say Jim should refuse, but usually need to caveat it somehow because the utilitarian calculus also resonates.

 

If, hypothetically, the Captain can be trusted - what should Jim do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 There is no viable option C. 

 

Take the gun, shoot the Captain. Get killed by his Soldiers, but y'know, fight the power.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 There is no viable option C. 

 

Take the gun, shoot the Captain. Get killed by his Soldiers, but y'know, fight the power.

 

 

I knew that when I put 'There is no viable option C', that someone would create an Option C.

 

If, hypothetically, there was no Option C - I am assuming you would refuse?

 

Please, please, please try very hard not to say 'there is always an Option C'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't believe in the no-win scenario!"

Of course, I can stick to Star Trek and say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.". In theory, the "right" answer is to do the killing and save the rest, but it's not an answer I'd want to give.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the natives against the wall all want him to do the killing, does that mean one of them is willing to volunteer to give their life for their friends? Because that's technically assisted suicide, and therefore not murder, and therefore less morally questionable than an actual murder.

 

Of course, if Jim does the killing, this is a PR victory for the Government, proves anyone can be coerced, that even an outsider can see the rebels deserve to die. So refusing shows that the Government's will can be resisted and turns the 20 victims into symbolic martyrs. So a case could be made that refusing helps whatever cause they were fighting for (assuming they were fighting for a cause).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"not an answer I'd want to give" is interesting.

 

If we look at from an intention point of view, the intention in shooting the one Native is to save 19 lives. The intention in not shooting the Native is (I think) to preserve one's own 'moral & psychological integrity' - whilst I instinctively struggle with the idea of morally condemning someone who would refuse the honour, I don't think refusing is particularly noble. To me, it is cut and dried (though, at this scale, obviously not a choice I ever want to have to make) - that person is dead either way. But in 2016, it doesn't feel like an easy thing to admit I grant you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the natives against the wall all want him to do the killing, does that mean one of them is willing to volunteer to give their life for their friends? Because that's technically assisted suicide, and therefore not murder, and therefore less morally questionable than an actual murder.

 

Of course, if Jim does the killing, this is a PR victory for the Government, proves anyone can be coerced, that even an outsider can see the rebels deserve to die. So refusing shows that the Government's will can be resisted and turns the 20 victims into symbolic martyrs. So a case could be made that refusing helps whatever cause they were fighting for (assuming they were fighting for a cause).

 

These are all interesting points, but let's say, hypothetically, the Captain has picked one out - and the externalities you refer to are moot; would you still refuse? I know you want to, but you keep insisting on trying to sweeten the deal which tells me that you're conflicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A utilitarian viewpoint says you should kill one to save nineteen. In practice people are reluctant to commit cold-blooded murder, even in defense of others. Add in the fact that for this scenario to be occurring, some of the people involved are horrific monsters, while other people are fighting against them, and it's from that layer group that your potential victim comes, and I don't think you're going to get many people willing to say that they'd follow the Captain's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're hotwired to try to find alternative solutions because every fictional narrative we come across in life has something like this, an end of act 2 scenario that looks like it's inescapable and then the protagonist finds a third way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're hotwired to try to find alternative solutions because every fictional narrative we come across in life has something like this, an end of act 2 scenario that looks like it's inescapable and then the protagonist finds a third way.

 

That's interesting - do you have any more on this, either from a neuroscientific or literature POV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We're hotwired to try to find alternative solutions because every fictional narrative we come across in life has something like this, an end of act 2 scenario that looks like it's inescapable and then the protagonist finds a third way.

 

That's interesting - do you have any more on this, either from a neuroscientific or literature POV?

 

Please forward all future inquiries of such a nature to my neuroscientific advisors, piranisi and greggulator. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OPTION C --

Jim offers to live in this country permanently. The sentry must stand down and the natives agree to never protest again. Jim offers his life/jailing if the natives go back on their word. He serves a position as a broker between the protesters and the governing forces. He's permanently chained to this relationship, but no one dies as long as everyone is honest in the situation.

1) The protesters have indicated they are willing to watch a friend die in exchange for their lives. They show a motivation for survival. They would agree to this deal.

2) If the government does not agree to the deal, they are not rational actors. They are willing to kill one in exchange for the lives of 19. Not agreeing to this Option C shows they would have slaughtered the protesters even if Jim accepted A. The government wants a sacrifice of some sort. Why not Jim's freedom?

3) Jim makes a moral decision that may allow all parties to live. We don't know Jim's background other than the fact he is presented with a moral choice. This is the correct choice -- self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe Greggulator found a way to "wait and see how this plays out" this thing.

 

He proposes here that Jim chain himself to the proposition that the future actions of a bunch of irrational unknown human actors who have already demonstrated self-destructive or immoral behavior will, in the future, be rational and moral. 

 

If one needs any more evidence that his optimism over a WWE booking is misplaced...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the natives against the wall all want him to do the killing, does that mean one of them is willing to volunteer to give their life for their friends? Because that's technically assisted suicide, and therefore not murder, and therefore less morally questionable than an actual murder.

 

Of course, if Jim does the killing, this is a PR victory for the Government, proves anyone can be coerced, that even an outsider can see the rebels deserve to die. So refusing shows that the Government's will can be resisted and turns the 20 victims into symbolic martyrs. So a case could be made that refusing helps whatever cause they were fighting for (assuming they were fighting for a cause).

 

These are all interesting points, but let's say, hypothetically, the Captain has picked one out - and the externalities you refer to are moot; would you still refuse? I know you want to, but you keep insisting on trying to sweeten the deal which tells me that you're conflicted.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure I have it in me to kill to save my own life, let alone anyone else's. Also, part of me is assuming it's all a work, they're all actors and the gun isn't loaded or even real. Also, I'm arrogant enough to think my moral standards are more important (to me) than other people's lives ;)

 

There was this Derren Brown thing on Channel 4 in January about taking a member of the public and seeing if they could be persuaded to murder someone... but the first thing they did was make sure they had a conformist mindset (they were told to go into a room and fill a form in. Three actors were sitting in the room also filling a form in. A bell went off, and the actors all stood up. It went off again and they sat down. Anyone who also stood up with them, despite not having been told anything about it, was considered to have a conformist brain) . Which I don't have. Hence me looking for a way out and assuming it's fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...