Would you kill the big guy?

[perseus]

Problems of life and death facing people in situations of war and crisis

This is just one programme of a series. This starts in a moral philosophy class at West Point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/05/100423_will_you_kill_big_guy_one.shtml

I'm simultaneously impressed yet amazed they teach this stuff to future commanders in the field of battle. Don't the moral decisions have to be made by those who draw out the rules of combat, for those who carry out orders ruthlessly without hesitation? If commanders hesitated and started thinking about the right and wrongs of issues on the spot, or worse still refusing to obey a command from above, surely this would compromise their military effectiveness? Then again there needs to be some interpretation and understanding of the rules, so I'm not sure.

 

[Partisan]

Perseus, good post, I'll follow this on the bbc website. On to the meat of the matter.

It is important that commanders at all levels have a clear understanding of the morality of not only their decisions and actions, but those of their superiors and subordinates. After all the Nuremburg defence is not an acceptable defence.

Teaching this enables soldiers to be able to differentiate between a legal and an illegal order and hopefully give them the confidence to refuse the order, or at least report the incident further up the chain after the fact.

I don't feel that it compromises military effectiveness, if anything it makes the commander more deliberate in their choice of words, reducing ambiguity and clarifying expected outcomes and actions.

By the way I did opt to push the fat man - does that make me bad? I don't think so, just pragmatic.

 

[Wolf]

In my opinion, the reason more people opted for 'yes' on the first question and 'no' on the second probably has to do with the fact that there's less direct involvement in the former.
Which has some cynical implications about human nature.

There's also the whole 'selfish vs. selfless' conundrum that comes into play: Either it's selfish to spare the fat man, and selfless to kill him; or selfish to kill him, and selfless to spare him.
In the end, it's seems any decision you make will make you at fault, because someone's bound to die.

With that said, I would answer 'yes' for both questions, since death is unavoidable.



The scenario, however, is unrealistic (which I acknowledge is the point), so it's easy to give an unrealistic answer.
In the real world - it goes without saying - there's plenty more to consider; plenty more to do.

 

[perseus]

The scenario, however, is unrealistic (which I acknowledge is the point), so it's easy to give an unrealistic answer.

Is this a little similar to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, that is kill 200,000 Japanese to save 2,000,000 (probably mainly Japanese).

By the way I did opt to push the fat man - does that make me bad? I don't think so, just pragmatic.

Does this mean you would remove the organs from a healthy person to help 10 unhealthy ones, providing this increased net happiness?

 

[Wolf]

Is this a little similar to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, that is kill 200,000 Japanese to save 2,000,000 (probably mainly Japanese).

Well, I agree, the basic format "Kill some, Save many" could apply to a lot of things. But I was referring to the scenario itself being unrealistic. They give you two options: kill the fat man or not.
In the real world, there is another option, for example: do nothing. That also holds some philosophical key into human nature. But I digress... I'm aware the scenario is designed to provoke a certain type of answer. I just think it's also important to realize it's easier for a person to say 'yes' or 'no', because they don't have to consider as much as they would in reality. It's just a thought. I'm not criticizing anyone.

Being a military scenario would makes things considerably different, in my opinion.
A civilian isn't as obligated to act, in some cases, as much as a soldier is.

 

[HokieMSG]

Problems of life and death facing people in situations of war and crisis

This is just one programme of a series. This starts in a moral philosophy class at West Point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/05/100423_will_you_kill_big_guy_one.shtml

I'm simultaneously impressed yet amazed they teach this stuff to future commanders in the field of battle. Don't the moral decisions have to be made by those who draw out the rules of combat, for those who carry out orders ruthlessly without hesitation? If commanders hesitated and started thinking about the right and wrongs of issues on the spot, or worse still refusing to obey a command from above, surely this would compromise their military effectiveness? Then again there needs to be some interpretation and understanding of the rules, so I'm not sure.

One of the main reasons they do this for military leaders is to get them to start thinking about these kinds of things BEFORE they have to make a decision. [When a decision like this HAS to be made there is usually very little time to think about it.]

Wolf makes a good point. If a commander spends too much time thinking about it, the decision will likely be made for him/her. The idea is to get them to think about it when ther IS time.

Ultimately, IMHO, it is a trust issue. If the subordinates trust their superior, they are more likely to follow the order. IF they do not, they might take the time to decide if the order is legal and moral. This ties into my comments about Wolf's statement.

Partisan also makes a good point about the Nurenberg defense ("I was just following orders"). All soldeirs are taught that they are required to refuse any illegal order given.

Here is a scenario for you.

You are in command of troops who are being fired upon by enemies who have taken shelter in a hospital. What do you do.
1. Order your troops to return fire, likely killing many innocents
2. Order your troops to not return fire, likely killing many of your troops.

I know the legal answer, but I wonder what you guys would do.

 

[Partisan]

Does this mean you would remove the organs from a healthy person to help 10 unhealthy ones, providing this increased net happiness?

Excellent question, gut reaction says that organ donorship is voluntary, but then is sacrifice. I made the sacrifice decision for the fat guy as an instinctive decision. Whereas organ donorship is a more deliberate decision. That said I guess that I would do it, not for increased net happiness, but for the greater good. The next step would be what if 1 of these is a noted war criminal, what is your decision - it would be all but him - everyone has to live with consequences of their decisions, as I have to live with mine.

Hokie, in answer to your scenario, tactically I would manouevre to get out of the fire and then try to approach from a different angle, if it was that heavily fortified and defended then pull back and get extra strength, cordon off and wait them out - if the tactical situation allowed. Otherwise it is get out of the fire and move on, reporting the situation so that the information is available to all.

 

[Botak]

Here is a scenario for you.

You are in command of troops who are being fired upon by enemies who have taken shelter in a hospital. What do you do.
1. Order your troops to return fire, likely killing many innocents
2. Order your troops to not return fire, likely killing many of your troops.

I know the legal answer, but I wonder what you guys would do.

Is Break Contact, withdraw maintaining eyes-on, then call in direct support as they leave the Hospital an option?

 

[MontyB]

I thought that would have been the logical option.

 

[-- Dusty]

Problems of life and death facing people in situations of war and crisis

This is just one programme of a series. This starts in a moral philosophy class at West Point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/05/100423_will_you_kill_big_guy_one.shtml

I'm simultaneously impressed yet amazed they teach this stuff to future commanders in the field of battle. Don't the moral decisions have to be made by those who draw out the rules of combat, for those who carry out orders ruthlessly without hesitation? If commanders hesitated and started thinking about the right and wrongs of issues on the spot, or worse still refusing to obey a command from above, surely this would compromise their military effectiveness? Then again there needs to be some interpretation and understanding of the rules, so I'm not sure.

To change the switch in order to save five lives yet loose one, yes I would consider the one to be collateral damage. Better to lose one than five.
But to throw a man from the bridge to save the same five lives? No.
When you switch the tracks, that is a given. You know for a fact the train will take the other route, much to the demise of one person. Sorry pal, **** happens.
But to knowingly take another man's life in hopes of saving the five lives? It's a gamble. Is that a gamble you are willing to take? Maybe. Is it a gamble *I* am willing to take? Nope.

But this is all in theory. In a real life situation under identical circumstances, things may change because the stress and emotions of the situation will have an effect on the decisions made.

 

[LeEnfield]

I always thought that there is only one objective in war and that is to win, what ever happens in between the start and the finish is a grey area. If you win you can be Mister Nice Guy, lose and you have to take what ever is dished out to you.

 

[perseus]

The example is just theoretical, but should be treated as if that would happened for the sake of the exercise. To suggest an alternative is dodging the principle that it forces you to make one decision one way or the other. No ifs or buts. Once you have decided on that principle you can use it as a guide.

In real life there are such black and white situations. e.g. Kill a conjoined twin to save both, shoot down an airliner to save it crashing into a building.