Alucroas wrote:

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't assume that as an FBI agent, I am some kickass action superstar who saves the day whilst simultaneously slam-dunking on Shaq and humping my share of gorgeous women. What I do assume, though, is that, as an FBI agent, I've been trained in how to handle weaponry and, if necessary, how to kill a man. I assume that, as an FBI agent, I am able to think of the logical choices between "bend to terrorist demands" or "let millions die." I assume that, given that the other assumptions are true, if the terrorist hands me a knife and gives me any sort of opening, I'm going to utilize my training and experience, apprehend, and kill him. And now, with the one and only obstacle in my path gone, I would leave the premises (Not outrunning any explosions as you seem to think I would be), locate the nearest phone, and alert my co-workers of the impending threat.

Since you've so kindly deemed it fit to present us with some alternative options nevrmore, I'm going to run a little test on these options to see how truly valid they really are.

Average human reaction time is somewhere around 0.8 seconds, and augmented reaction time such as that of an F.B.I. agent is near 0.5 seconds. Given that the terrorist more than likely has the detonator in his hand, the chances of you actually managing to spin around, tackle the guy to the ground, and get the detonator out of his hand are extremely unlikely. Now then, even if you did manage to get him on the ground before he could detonate the button, the chances of one of you accidentally pressing the button is a lot higher due you having now lost control of the situation.

You're assuming that the FBI Agent would be mulling it over long enough to have turned around and be facing a completely different direction before he decides to whip around and gut the terrorist. I assume that as soon as a weapon's put in his hands, he grabs the terrorist (most likely by the wrist holding the detonator), takes control of his body motions, and brings him into a hold. The situation at this point has never spiraled out of his control.

Now let's present another alternative.

What if the detonator is fake? Or better yet, what if there are multiple detonators each fully capable of setting off this bomb? For all you know, there could in fact, be someone watching you through a surveillance camera, ready and willing to blow the ever livin' fuck out of 10,000,000 people the second you he sees you lunge at his comrade. Now what happens? They decide to kill the girl, blow up 10,000,000 people and everybody loses. And trust me, when an agent fails a mission, they don't just get fired or get suspended from duty, so you'd better hope that those terrorists kill you first.

True, but why should I, as the person answering the question, not as the FBI agent, consider that there is any more substance to the initial dilemma than what the person has given me? If the hypothetical statement is "If a puppy was annoying you, would you kick it?" I wouldn't start considering that maybe I shouldn't kick it because someone is around or something because that wasn't presented to me. It's the fault of the person who asked the question that they did not give enough substance as to allow me to come up with my own, alternative method.

There is one thing you're right about, and that is that an F.B.I. agent should utilize whatever options he has available at this moment in time, though he also to acknowledge that he may be shooting himself in the foot by creating a path that either A) doesn't exist or B) is leading to a place that he doesn't want to go.

This is why you shouldn't be going off looking for alternatives to the situation, because they are unreliable, and an F.B.I. agent can only rely on what's right there in front of him, not risk jeopardizing his mission by putting EVERYONE in danger, including himself. It's a lack of knowledge, which leads to a lack of tactical efficiency.

Congratulations. You just shot yourself in the foot.

If your argument is over a lack of knowledge on the FBI Agent's part, then why would he ever agree to torture the girl in the first place? He has no idea if the terrorist really is going to keep his end of the bargain, he doesn't know about the trustworthiness or even mental stability of this guy, why should he trust him at all? If we look at it from that end it seems to me to become an even stronger case for why he should go up instead of left or right.

Why has the debate spiraled onto a tangent about reaction time and feasible courses of action when this was meant to be a purely ethical debate involving nothing about any of what you are speaking about. You were asked to give your opinion on, and support, how you personally would handle the situation within the limited scope applicable. If you allow "what If"'s then you risk this becoming some fantasy wonderland argument with no real purpose. Stick to the prompt. This could just as soon be a farmer or a young kid, you never know if the terrorist is like SAW. Presenting alternatives based on the particularities of the situation won't get us anywhere. Maybe you 'aught to try and think of it like LegendaryRatBoy put it. Short of super-human prowess, you're faced with the same ethical dilemma.

Personally, I would find myself less at odds. On one hand I would torture the girl to save the lives of million, on the other hand we could use a few million dead. I would personally feel responsibility towards the young girl, whilst the lives of a million of strangers would haunt me less. It may be a little difficult when their grieving families curse my name, but odds are I'd kill the terrorist and no one would be the wiser of our little wager. I could always say I had no choice in the matter, and thought it was a mere hostage situation. I know it sounds a bit heartless, but I can really have no empathy for those that I don't know. It might as well be the same as a newscast breaking the story of an attack in a foreign nation killing a similar amount of people. Would anyone really care then? Sure, they would say "Oh... That's horrible." And then they would go about their daily lives. Same for me, I can't say that I would feel too much guilt for people I never knew. And torturing the little girl would be a very personal experience that would likely haunt me for a long, long time.

Astral Weave wrote:Why has the debate spiraled onto a tangent about reaction time and feasible courses of action when this was meant to be a purely ethical debate involving nothing about any of what you are speaking about. You were asked to give your opinion on, and support, how you personally would handle the situation within the limited scope applicable. If you allow "what If"'s then you risk this becoming some fantasy wonderland argument with no real purpose. Stick to the prompt. This could just as soon be a farmer or a young kid, you never know if the terrorist is like SAW. Presenting alternatives based on the particularities of the situation won't get us anywhere. Maybe you 'aught to try and think of it like LegendaryRatBoy put it. Short of super-human prowess, you're faced with the same ethical dilemma.

Uh, no. I'm not saying "Well gee I guess I would use my laser vision (I have laser vision guys) and melt the knife then fly away to safety where I can warn everyone about the bomb." I'm using exactly what was given to me, which is training, a terrorist, and a knife, and using them to the most logical end. This isn't a "What If?", it's a "Why Not?"

Listen dude, you can suppose whatever you want, you can make up your own little scenario, but that is simply not what is being discussed here, and doesn't interest us in the slightest. What the OP wants to know is what you would do given ONLY (ONLY NLYO LYON YONL ONLY FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING ONLY !!!) the two options: torture the girl or let her live and condemn 10 000 000 people. We're not talking about "ifs", another course of action, or anything else, but ONLY those two ways of dealing with the problem.

Why are you so thick-headed, stubborn and annoying to not understand that this is abso-fucking-lutely NOT about what the FBI agent could do aside from those two things in that situation, but rather what choice you would make in that situation. That is why the OP didn't include any info about the surroundings, volatile substances, ashtrays on the table, mental state of the terrorist, number of people with him close-by, presence of surveillance cameras.

I wish you could get this, that this isn't about all the other possibilities, but those two only ... Sadly, you cannot see the true reason behind this thread: seeing what people would do given this choice of absolute moral choices ...

Selothi wrote:Listen dude, you can suppose whatever you want, you can make up your own little scenario, but that is simply not what is being discussed here, and doesn't interest us in the slightest. What the OP wants to know is what you would do given ONLY (ONLY NLYO LYON YONL ONLY FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING ONLY !!!) the two options: torture the girl or let her live and condemn 10 000 000 people. We're not talking about "ifs", another course of action, or anything else, but ONLY those two ways of dealing with the problem.

First of all, as I've explained before, I'm not "Supposing" anything, nor am I making up my own scenario. I'm usingt the scenario that was given to me and seeing it through to the most logical conclusion. Second, I do not care if it interests you or not. I'm not posting here to get recognition for having the smartest answer, I'm telling you what I would do in the hypothetical. Thirdly, I know what two options I have been given, thank you. Fourthly, as I said in the post right above yours, this isn't a "What if", it's a "Why not", and so far nobody has given me a satisfactory answer as to why I should not be able to do exactly what I have posited.

Why are you so thick-headed, stubborn and annoying to not understand that this is abso-fucking-lutely NOT about what the FBI agent could do aside from those two things in that situation, but rather what choice you would make in that situation. That is why the OP didn't include any info about the surroundings, volatile substances, ashtrays on the table, mental state of the terrorist, number of people with him close-by, presence of surveillance cameras.

Right, and the choice I would make is to kill the terrorist and escape with the girl. Why is that so hard to understand?

I wish you could get this, that this isn't about all the other possibilities, but those two only ... Sadly, you cannot see the true reason behind this thread: seeing what people would do given this choice of absolute moral choices ...

I find that given black and white, I choose gray. Why can't my answer reflect that?

It cannot reflect gray because the prompt given specifically stated that the bomb would go off if you killed the terrorist, and you would succeed in killing 10,000,000 people anyways. The reason you cannot do what you have proposed is because it is not one of the two choices. A logical answer is not ethically debatable, rather logically debatable. And this entire thread revolves around morality. Sure, an FBI agent might take some other more practical course of action, or not even get into that position in the first place. Those details are there only to put the choice in an entirely possible, real world situation. The question stems from the skeleton of the prompt, so let me reiterate it for you, which weighs more, the torture of an innocent girl or the lives of 10,000,000 people?

Astral Weave wrote:It cannot reflect gray because the prompt given specifically stated that the bomb would go off if you killed the terrorist, and you would succeed in killing 10,000,000 people anyways. The reason you cannot do what you have proposed is because it is not one of the two choices. A logical answer is not ethically debatable, rather logically debatable. And this entire thread revolves around morality. Sure, an FBI agent might take some other more practical course of action, or not even get into that position in the first place. Those details are there only to put the choice in an entirely possible, real world situation. The question stems from the skeleton of the prompt, so let me reiterate it for you, which weighs more, the torture of an innocent girl or the lives of 10,000,000 people?

The problem stems from the fact that the only reason it's put in this perspective in the first place is to try restrain you as much as possible. When that restriction fails by allowing such an obvious third answer, I'm not going to pass it up just because it wasn't originally in the prompt.

In fact if anyone was going to restrain you as much as possible they would present it in the terms I gave above; which weighs more, the torture of an innocent girl or the lives of 10,000,000 people? It is presented in the FBI scenario to help people understand the situation and relate to it. We aren't trying to say your answer is infeasible or incorrect, simply that it does not fit the stipulations, and is therefore an invalid answer in this situation. If you were an FBI agent in a similar scenario, by all means there 'aught to be a whole cornucopia of alternative choices. But this IS not about the scenario itself, rather the ethical implications.

I shall refrain from arguing with you anymore, as I would advise anybody else with a similar disposition. We are discouraging others users from posting their opinions on this thread with our little qualms.

People calm down. This is a ethics question, not a flame war.

Treali Storm wrote:A year ago, during an interesting Ethics discussion, a group of friends and I spent an hour debating the following question. It was them versus me. Thirteen of them.

You are an FBI agent. You have been kidnapped by a terrorist who planted a bomb under a major metropolis which will go off in about two hours from now unless he aborts the timed explosion. If/when the bomb explodes, ten million presumably innocent people will die. This terrorist brings you to a small room where a little girl is tied up. He hands you a knife. He tells you "If you torture the girl, then I will not set off the bomb."

Having studied psychology intensively for many years, you know for absolute sure that this man is so fanatic that he really will abort the explosion if you torture the girl. Knowing that (as only in a hypothetical situation) your only two choices are to 1.) Torture the girl and save 10 million innocents and probably be lauded a hero or 2.) Not torture the girl and condemn 10 million innocents to certain fiery death, and probably be blamed for it; that you cannot simply turn around and backstab the terrorist (the bomb will still go off; only he knows how to stop it) or pretend to torture the girl (the terrorist is not stupid).

Do you torture the girl or not? Why?

Yes, the answer is very simple.

Torture the girl.

And why would it be so simple? Because we know a few simple facts given to the dilemma that I will quote. We have two important facts to the argument.

1) "'If you torture the girl, then I will not set off the bomb.'"

and

2) "Having studied psychology intensively for many years, you know for absolute sure that this man is so fanatic that he really will abort the explosion if you torture the girl."

So put into logical situation, with fact versus fact, we know: Torture girl -> bomb does not go off. Don't torture girl -> bomb goes off.

And this is why I say it is simple. If I was the FBI agent, I would approach the girl. Tell her "Your parents won't save you. You are not loved. You are going to die. People will die and it is your fault." And so on. I would even use the knife threateningly to get her to cry/worry.

And afterward I would walk to the terrorist and tell him to defuse the bomb. And I would not even have to lay a finger on her.

Why? Cause that is torture.

People are concentrating on the fact that the terrorist did give the FBI agent a knife. However, he did not tell you how to torture the girl. And if we are playing with the two facts stated above and the definition of torture, we do not have do physically injury the girl.

------------------------

Now I bet some of you are asking some questions like:

Q: Wait, a rule was "...pretend to torture the girl (the terrorist is not stupid)."

A: Yes that is correct and I never broke it. I DID torture her, just not in the implied way. And the part about him not being stupid even enforces my argument. It means he will understand that he did not phrase his demand correctly.

Q: Well what happens if the terrorist changes his mind or says you have to use physical violence?

A: He may afterward with a new demand, however I have solved the present problem. According to rule #2 that I stated above, he cannot back out of his agreement. He cannot set off the bomb. Period.

Q: What happens if he was lying or if the FBI agent guessed wrong or if there are two bombs or... etc?

A: Then there was no point to the rules of the question itself, thus making the argument useless. We are given facts or truths. We have to use those to our advantage. No if, and, or, or buts.

------------------------

PS: Please notice one thing. The terrorist never said he would release you or the girl. Your probably going to be stuck there.

PSS: Yes, I did mentally torture a girl into crying. But I am okay with making a girl cry to save people lives.

PSSS: For all arguments about disarming the bomb. The question made that impossible, yes IMPOSSIBLE, for the FBI agent to do so. "that you can not simply turn around and backstab the terrorist (the bomb will still go off; only he knows how to stop it)" We can assume that the FBI agent doesn't know where the bomb is, doesn't know where the bomb is located in general for evacuation, and cannot disarm it. PERIOD. If you made an attempt to disarm the bomb, the chances of the bomb going off is 100% without you stopping anything. Why? Cause that is a face of the question. Like I said before, no if, and, or, or buts.

Astral Weave wrote:In fact if anyone was going to restrain you as much as possible they would present it in the terms I gave above; which weighs more, the torture of an innocent girl or the lives of 10,000,000 people?

That gives you freedom of ignorance, though. "What is worse, the torture of a little girl or killing 10 million people?" is substantially different than "What is worse, YOU torturing a little girl or killing 10 million people?" Even if you boil it down to prime components like that, the answer is much easier to come to because as far as you know it's not you personally doing the deed, defeating the entire "morality" aspect of the question in the first place.

It is presented in the FBI scenario to help people understand the situation and relate to it.

Exactly, but the more detail you go into, the further the person being asked is chained down in their answers. The fact that the question even comes with the addendum "You can't fake out the terrorist" is proof of that.

We aren't trying to say your answer is infeasible or incorrect, simply that it does not fit the stipulations, and is therefore an invalid answer in this situation.

And what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that you are right when you say that.

If you were an FBI agent in a similar scenario, by all means there 'aught to be a whole cornucopia of alternative choices. But this IS not about the scenario itself, rather the ethical implications.

But any choice that I make carries its own ethical implications. That's what happens when you do anything, ever. Hell, I'm sure somebody could have deconstructed my entire alternate theory by now if they'd taken the time to and give a rough estimation of what kind of person I am (the people calling me a stubborn jackass notwithstanding.)

Don't twist my words around just because I did not include "you". It was implied, however I admit there is a difference. Besides, if you want to play that way, you can construe ethical implications from every last twitch to utterance. Look at Ponats post just above your last one, that is truly a creative answer. It does not break any of the rules set, and in fact I think is better than any of the answers before it. I do not hold your post in contempt, Nevrmore, simply stating that your post breaks one of the restrictions, and is as such invalid. As an example, if I break the law, there can no arguing that I have not broken the law when the evidence is put in front of me. Those addendums are present to try and inhibit people such as your self from circumventing the the simple choice. However, I see that without the situation the circumstances are changed greatly, and a skillful answer like Ponats is similarly invalid. I feel like I'm arguing the existence of water, and having to defend against syllogisms that require more effort than I am willing to put forth.

Props to Ponats!

Will you ladies

SHUT UP?!

This is a simple question, with

TWO

simple answers: Torture, or No Torture. We have been given two VERY SIMPLE outcomes. Count 'em. ONE. TWO. There is no, "But what if I used my super ninja powers and went like "SHAZAM!" and killed the dude and defused the bomb!!!!!!1lololololol", It is a simple question. Stop dealing with "What If"s.

I would only torture her if the following are met:
1) if the girl is old enough and tells me she understands why I have to do it.
2) as long as she is not an infant or toddler, I have little brothers and I could never torture a little child like them
3) she wouldn't die. sorry, but (in my opinion) to murder a little girl when she is staring you in the eyes is worse than killing ten million people, most of whom will hopefully die instantly in the explosion and the rest soon after.
4) she is not one of my siblings. Though my only siblings are boys, I would kill myself, or die trying to kill any motherfucker before ever touching them. sorry all you people, guess your time is up.

As long as the situation agrees with these, then I would torture her.

---Im sorry if this weirds any of you out, but I would care very little about all those people dying because of my choice. This may sound bad, but "fighting is never the solution" does'nt always apply. Sometimes, killing (or bringing about the death of others) is the better choice. But I guess it depends on your ethics and beliefs.---
As with iamsheena, I couldnt care less about what society thinks about me. "Society" mainly consists of idiots, so . . . ya . . . I already have plans to abandon it in the future. Also, I am just guessing on how I would behave. I wouldn't know until i've experienced that choice, but what i said about my siblings is set in stone.
And i'm sorry about that little girl's life and how my descision would effect her, her feeling guilty and all. I would probally never get the chance to explain to her.
If I ended up torturing her, I'd probally kill myself after I had made sure she got out. Or I'd go live in the mountains with monks, and learn how to let go of emotion. THEN I would probally kill myself . . .
If anyone wishes to post comments about how soft I am . . . go for it.
And if you don't believe in God, don't read the rest of this. (I won't argue my religion with you. I don't argue with preps about why I hang out with "weirdos", thus I will not argue with you about why I believe in God.) If everything happens for a reason, then this would be no exception. Assuming my choice was to let the people die, then I would have to believe that it was what was needed. That is all for me.

Alright, knock it off. Jesus Crist it's just a question with TWO options. So what if Nevermore wants to ignore the options and believe he/she is thinking "outside" the box. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, we've already told him/her that there are only two options. Just drop it.

Monkeychow wrote:If everything happens for a reason, then this would be no exception. Assuming my choice was to let the people die, then I would have to believe that it was what was needed.

Agreed. Then again, I probably wouldn't have a strong enough character not to torture the girl. The responsibility for ten million deaths, be the people strangers to me or not, weighing down on my shoulders would be too taunting, especially considering the fact that far more people will end up suffering because of those deaths.

If I knew the girl was to be released after the torture I would be more willing to do it than if I would have to leave her in the "care" of the terrorist, not knowing what is to become of her.

Astral Weave wrote:Don't twist my words around just because I did not include "you". It was implied, however I admit there is a difference.

Yes, I know that it's implied, because I know that you took it from the question at the beginning of the thread. But if you went to somebody who didn't know the first question and asked them, "What do you think is worse, torturing an innocent girl, or 10,000,000 people dying?", why would they have any reason to think that the scenario involved them at all?

Besides, if you want to play that way, you can construe ethical implications from every last twitch to utterance.

Yes, you can, if you care enough to.

Look at Ponats post just above your last one, that is truly a creative answer. It does not break any of the rules set, and in fact I think is better than any of the answers before it.

Truly, it is creative. And do you honestly think that the terrorist, who had handed you a knife and told you to torture the girl, would accept "Well I told her that her parents didn't love her. That counts, right?" If you do than your view of the world is quite a naive one.

I do not hold your post in contempt, Nevrmore, simply stating that your post breaks one of the restrictions, and is as such invalid.

Neither do I hold any of your posts in contempt, and I'm simply stating that I do not consider my answer invalid just because an arbitrary restriction has been broken.

As an example, if I break the law, there can no arguing that I have not broken the law when the evidence is put in front of me.

That is what lawyers are for.

Those addendums are present to try and inhibit people such as your self from circumventing the the simple choice.

Aslo, simple morality is inhibiting people from breaking the law. That's a pretty important factor, too.

However, I see that without the situation the circumstances are changed greatly, and a skillful answer like Ponats is similarly invalid. I feel like I'm arguing the existence of water, and having to defend against syllogisms that require more effort than I am willing to put forth.

Props to Ponats!

If you would like to boil it down to such a condescending statement, by all means go ahead.

Enough. I never meant for this to get out of control, and certainly not to offend you. I meant that I was exasperated and tired of arguing with you, nothing else. If you want to continue PM me. Let us take this away from the board, before another GM is less lenient.

Treali Storm wrote:"In order to eradicate evil, we must begin to emulate the evildoer". -Jeff Stetson

There will always be evil in this world.

Also Treali Storm you have to be careful with what you post for the members on this forum to discuss, as you see how they react. . .

... I think I'm just going to lock this topic for a few times. This should give certain people time to grow up and hopefully move on to better things. =) Sorrie, Astral.

Oh and thanks for the one star. Please, DO give me another one. =D