Would you kill a fellow SD.net member?

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-01-21 10:30pm

This is mainly a morality question. Let's say Darth Wong or someone on this board win a lottery of a few million (or billion) dollars and is kind enough to bring EVERYONE on the board for a trip. Yes, all 3,000 to 4,000 members, everyone.

However, the problem is this. Someone decide to knock all members here using sleeping gas, and everyone will soon wake up to find a collar on their neck.

Well, we are all stuck in a scenario from the movie 'battle royal' The collar on your neck will kill you if you tried to remove it, or did not kill anyone for a while. Also, we are stuck on an island, if we tried getting away from there, our neck collars will explode. And only one person can survive till the end of the game. And also, you are given a weapon, either it can be rocket launcher, or it may just be a M-16. All the weapons in this scenrio are military weapons, and are lethal.

So, we are left we two choice. Either kill a fellow board member, or be killed yourself.

In this scenario, will you kill them? For me, I kind of feel like committing suicide before the madness reach me.

What about you guys and girls? I know some of us here have families and wife on the board as well. So would you want to kill them as well, or will you not do it, only to be killed by the collar?

Would any of you give in to what the person in charge wants everyone to be? A murderer?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2007-01-21 10:53pm

I think you ought to act such that you minimize the most casulties and harm. 1:1, if everyone will die if they don't kill someone, I don't see the difference in killing yourself and someone else. In the end, one of you will live. There's no sense in both of you dying.

However, it would be more moral to kill those who would have the least to lose in terms of causing pain/suffering to others if they died. You should certainly not kill those who have more dependants than others, unless there are some other hidden circumstances.

This isn't realistic, since no one will actually do the ethical thing in real life. I would think human self-preservation instinct will take over reason.

If you can't get the collars off, and only one person will survive, then you ought to give the hell up and just have a group of people painlessly kill all the others based on the utility of them living or dying. It doesn't matter who lives or dies if you take the neutral "point of the universe" view Utililtarianism requires. They are all, intrinsically, interchangeable. THeir dependents and other external factors won't be all equal though.

In the ethics of this situation, you should also try to calculate who is likely to do more good for society if they survive. Do you save the engineer or the cartoonist, for example, all things equal?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2007-01-21 10:57pm

Edit: Sorry I forgot to clarify my last point.

Take me, for instance, and Mr. Wong.

Wong has several kids I believe, and he's an engineer. He's objectively more useful to society than I am, and he has far more dependants ( I have none). Few will miss me if I die. His kids and his wife will. Therefore, his life ought to get weighed higher.

That's the way we ought to do it in this scenario if only one can survive, and we ought to kill each other with the fewest wasted resource and the least pain to get to the objective of saving the person who is both the most useful overall and has the most to lose.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2007-01-21 11:09pm

There's several people on the board who probably deserve to die. Not naming any names.

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-01-21 11:15pm

If I must, then I must. Tough luck, kid. However, I will still attempt to limit the pain and suffering involved; drop them in their tracks if possible.

One other possibility: How does this magic device determine if I actually kill somebody? 'Cause, depending on how it works, I might just game the system to keep alive without killing people myself.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » 2007-01-21 11:44pm

Me? I would definitely kill rather than be killed. But I'd be nice. For those weaker than me, a simple shot to the head from a distance or behind, so they don't suffer. Those who can actually put up a fight? I either subdue them and kill them cleanly, or I die.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-01-21 11:45pm

What is it, exactly, that prevents three to four thousand heavily armed people working together to get out of the situation, rather than playing this game?

Because I see two options for myself here. One, work together with as many people as possible to get out of the siutation. Or two, I'll be wandering off to hide and let the collar kill me when time expires.

I could see my time being extended if I successfully defended myself from attack, but I won't kill just to stave off my own death.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-01-22 12:27am

Would I? There's one or two people on this board I wouldn't kill, and would rather kill myself in order to allow them to live. Theoretically anyone else is open season if they're gunning for me. I'd rather work together and find a way to change the game's rules than continue playing the game.

Obviously, if I woke up in a pit with a sword in my hand and was ordered to kill someone else--or at the least, defend myself--I would. Would I actively seek out a chance to? Of course not.

Even people who I actively dislike I wouldn't really want to kill. Certain people are even worse--and I would be perfectly willing to kill them, and I wouldn't feel bad about it in this situation (or any other) but I don't have any perverse desire to kill someone regardless of the circumstances. Taking someone's life is a sad thing, even if they deserved it.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2007-01-22 02:12am

What would occur if nobody killed anybody? Would we all just fall over dead the same instant?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-01-22 02:38am

This is a really badly-constructed scenario, to say nothing of the moral and ethical implications such a scenario represents. Therefore, I call this thread flamebait.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-01-22 03:49am

There seems to be a trend of "what ifs" here. From medieval age, to what not. It's beginning not to be funny, especially if the situations in question is a "dog eat dog world" sort.

More over, why on earth would anyone contemplate killing anyone, especially when there's a law to deal with?

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2007-01-22 04:47am

Assuming I really believed it was impossible to cheat the scenario somehow, I'd shoot myself before killing with one of the weapons provided. I admit my motive is as much selfish as moral. I'd like to spite the guy as much as I can, and I'm not really doing anything but make sure my death is fast ( who knows how those collars kill ? ). I'm unathletic, unmilitary, and have never fired a gun in my life. The odds of me managing to be the one survivor in a multithousand person free for all are negligible; much lower that the odds of me getting gruesomely wounded and dying slowly.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-22 06:09am

I would like to think I could kill other people to stay alive, but if I could, I would try to kill the worst people to make the best of a bad situation. I suspect I would suicide for your benefit though, since I am generally someone who puts myself after other people and I think about suicide every other day at least.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-01-22 07:31am

It's Battle Royale.

That book/movie/manga sucked even in the original treatment.
I shoot the man who they sent to explain the stuff to us, then every soldier I can until they make my head blow up.

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-01-22 09:09am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:There's several people on the board who probably deserve to die. Not naming any names.

You have decided that some people deserve to die from interacting with them on an internet discussion forum - the primary purpose of which is to argue about sci-fi !?!

That is f***ing scary, dude.....

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-22 09:25am

petesampras wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:There's several people on the board who probably deserve to die. Not naming any names.
You have decided that some people deserve to die from interacting with them on an internet discussion forum - the primary purpose of which is to argue about sci-fi !?!

That is f***ing scary, dude.....

What about patkelly or the white supremacists?

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-01-22 09:33am

Rye wrote:
petesampras wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:There's several people on the board who probably deserve to die. Not naming any names.
You have decided that some people deserve to die from interacting with them on an internet discussion forum - the primary purpose of which is to argue about sci-fi !?!

That is f***ing scary, dude.....
What about patkelly or the white supremacists?

I've no idea who patkelly is. Are you saying there are active white supremacist members on this board? The quote - "people on the board" - to me implies active members, rather than some trolls who showed up a while ago and got banned. Most of the heated debate I see is about sci-fi. If you think someone deserves to die because they don't believe the death star blew up Alderan, or something like that, that is f***ing scary.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-22 09:35am

Pablo's post appears to be out of jest. I would kill you, though, for daring to challenge him.

glass · Post by **glass** » 2007-01-22 09:39am

loomer wrote:Me? I would definitely kill rather than be killed.

Me too, but that doesn't necesarily mean I wouldn't hesitate too long when it came top it. No way to know for sure without trying it.

glass.

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-01-22 10:18am

Rye wrote:Pablo's post appears to be out of jest. I would kill you, though, for daring to challenge him.

I don't think I should be made to come to this stardestroyer 'kill party', I am not a significant poster. I think only 1000 posts or above. Only fair.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2007-01-22 10:48am

Hmmm.

Are we all wearing shirts with our screen names or most common avatars pictured on them?

If that's the case I think I need to pick something that is much less of a big read fucking dot.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2007-01-22 10:51am

Well if you guys start deciding that people with less/no dependants deserve to die first, I'll go off on a killing spree and be a crazy little hermit that lives out in the forest that comes out every once in a while to smash the back of people's heads with a rock. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice my life because the life of others are deemed more important than me because they have a family or job and they've lived a fuller life than me and deserves as such to continue living it.

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-01-22 11:11am

ArmorPierce wrote:Well if you guys start deciding that people with less/no dependants deserve to die first, I'll go off on a killing spree and be a crazy little hermit that lives out in the forest that comes out every once in a while to smash the back of people's heads with a rock. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice my life because the life of others are deemed more important than me because they have a family or job and they've lived a fuller life than me and deserves as such to continue living it.

Your body should be recycled to serve as nutrients to feed the more worthy.

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-01-22 11:21am

ArmorPierce wrote:Well if you guys start deciding that people with less/no dependants deserve to die first, I'll go off on a killing spree and be a crazy little hermit that lives out in the forest that comes out every once in a while to smash the back of people's heads with a rock. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice my life because the life of others are deemed more important than me because they have a family or job and they've lived a fuller life than me and deserves as such to continue living it.

On a more serious note, there is great danger in a system of morality which rates the value of a persons life according to their contribution to society.

Imagine, for example in China. If limited medical resources, at some stage in the future, resulted in a policy of treating married men with children ahead of single men. Due to the one child policy, China has an excess of 30 million young men to look forward to. 30 million young men with no hope of finding a mate are already likely to be pissed off with their lot in life. If society starts giving them the message that they are valued less, well, you have a potential 30 million man gang with nothing to lose that resents the society they find themselves in.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-01-22 11:54am

I expect they will be a 30 million man army, quite quickly.

Personally, rule 1 is survive.