# Ethics Question(s)



## T.A.G. (Dec 13, 2009)

Taking a class at a Secular college in Ethics, I want to represent the Biblical worldview of things...that's where I need your help, to make sure I am not off on anything huge.

First question that I am hit with is what if you and 30 other people were in a cave exploring when an earthquake occurred. It traps everyone in with a person being trapped under rocks. You have tnt to get out of the cave but it would kill the person trapped under the rocks. If you do not do it the oxygen will run out. You have about nine hours to do something before people start dying. Do you use the TNT to kill the one to save everyone else. What if the man trapped under is saying to use the TNT, what if he is pleading with you to not use it?

Is there a biblical answer to this?


----------



## TimV (Dec 13, 2009)

It's just a variation of the "Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to move" argument. Concocting a scenario where one is forced to sin no matter what. And the answer is the question itself is sinful.


----------



## Montanablue (Dec 13, 2009)

These types of questions are hugely unrealistic. There's a reason they have to come up with hypotheticals instead of using a real life situation.


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 13, 2009)

The answer is to not explore caves.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 13, 2009)

lol though I agree I must come up with something my grade depends on it!


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Dec 13, 2009)

How can you be sure the TNT will work?


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 13, 2009)

Questions like that are the kind that one is equipped to answer after you've completed a course in ethics. It may be a tool to explore the various forms of ethics you'll study later in class.

But to answer your post more directly, it depends on what level of Christian maturity you are at. I can't think of a direct Biblical answer to this. I would opt for sacrificing the one to save the many (ie, the utilitarian view) as Christ died for the sins of His elect through history, but not bring up the "God part" in class just yet. Take some time and listen for what the instructor's attitude toward Christianity is. You can then better develop a strategy for injecting your faith into the class.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 13, 2009)

Here's what happens in the movie version. Spend 8 hours waiting and hoping to find a better solution, and attempting to rescue the buried individual. Then, recognizing that it is reason that it is better that one should die for the people than that all the people should perish, use the TNT without regard to the attitude of the trapped individual - whose attitude should be one of being willing to expire for the sake of others.

But in the novel they reasoned that it was never right to do evil that good may come, and so together they sat in the cave while their flashlights failed until darkness consumed them all. The rescuers arrived shortly thereafter, but although some of the bodies were still a little warm it was too late to revive any of them.


----------



## smhbbag (Dec 13, 2009)

> It's just a variation of the "Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to move" argument. Concocting a scenario where one is forced to sin no matter what. And the answer is the question itself is sinful.



Absolutely. I think it also purposefully distorts the nature of reality in order to make the only 2 options be sin. 

No one has absolute knowledge about how much air is left in that particular room, nor how long it would last. No one has perfect knowledge about how the dynamite might work with freshly caved-in stone and rubble. No one knows whether the blast would even work, nor if it would kill the man. No one has perfect knowledge about whether there is, in fact, some bit of fresh air coming into the room. 

They also assume the spelunkers have been absolutely foolish, assuming they never told anyone about their trip, and that there were no people on the mission stationed outside/behind the group. 

By giving the people absolute knowledge about the outcome of their actions, it divides their choices more easily into categories that are both sin.

The question is not just unrealistic, it purposefully sets aside reality in order to make some non-sensical point.

I would be tempted to write my answer as a question that makes the same amount of sense the one posed: "If a circle were a square, how would you find its radius?" Tell him that no person could be expected to answer such a nonsense question.

Posing hypothetical questions can be useful in fleshing out our principles in ethics. But those hypotheticals need to bear some similarity to reality. I could understand if a question ignores some of reality out of neglect, but in this case the questioner is purposefully setting it aside, because he hates God and refuses to submit to Him.

In reality, I think, the people have a fair amount of liberty given the situation you describe. The sin is not necessarily determined by the action nearly as much as it is determined by the faithful motives of the people in the cave. Did they disregard his life as worthless compared to theirs? Did they neglect to properly examine the situation to determine the TNT's effect, because they considered the man of low relative worth? Did they pray and ask God for His help and guidance?

The heart motives in such a situation would reveal a great deal about a man. The action is just a calculus of odds, more or less.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 13, 2009)

You'll be able to quickly reference sound Christian answers and approaches to these ethical puzzles here. Jochem Douma covers all the bases succinctly in short chapters:-

Responsible Conduct: Principles of Christian Ethics: Amazon.co.uk: Jochem Douma, Nelson D. Kloosterman: Books

This one's more the nitty-gritty:-

The Ten Commandments: Amazon.co.uk: J. Douma: Books

Both very easy to read and understand.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 13, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> You'll be able to quickly reference sound Christian answers and approaches to these ethical puzzles here. Jochem Douma covers all the bases succinctly in short chapters:-
> 
> Responsible Conduct: Principles of Christian Ethics: Amazon.co.uk: Jochem Douma, Nelson D. Kloosterman: Books
> 
> ...



The only problem is that I have to give an answer tomorrow but I do appreciate these sources for later issues!


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 13, 2009)

you kill the one person. Biblical principles include those with leopracy, killing certain sinners in OT israel, NT includes excommunication and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross for the sins of the world. A spoiled apple effects the rest.


----------



## smhbbag (Dec 13, 2009)

I'd like to add to my post:

Everything gets screwed up when you ascribe omniscience to a human being.

He could easily say, "If you knew that buying insurance from this company A, rather than company B, would cause B's salesman to lose his job, go nuts, and kill his wife, and that buying A's insurance would cause that salesman to get enough of a bonus to spend a weekend cheating on his wife in Vegas, what would you do?"

Or, "if you knew that stepping on this bug would....." have some negative outcome whether you killed it or not.

When we know the outcome of an action without any doubt, it changes everything. It puts a clear burden of sin on just about any action. 

This makes the question nonsense. In our non-omniscient world, we act according to God's law in motive, in prayer, and in outward action, and declare liberty where God says it exists, and the consequences are His alone. Omniscience, for any creature who is not sovereign, inevitably is paralyzing and obstructs God's entire created order.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 13, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Taking a class at a Secular college in Ethics, I want to represent the Biblical worldview of things...that's where I need your help, to make sure I am not off on anything huge.
> 
> First question that I am hit with is what if you and 30 other people were in a cave exploring when an earthquake occurred. It traps everyone in with a person being trapped under rocks. You have tnt to get out of the cave but it would kill the person trapped under the rocks. If you do not do it the oxygen will run out. You have about nine hours to do something before people start dying. Do you use the TNT to kill the one to save everyone else. What if the man trapped under is saying to use the TNT, what if he is pleading with you to not use it?
> 
> Is there a biblical answer to this?



What were you doing with TNT in the first place? Do people usually carry TNT with them when exploring caves? 

Is the cave so tiny so that everyone is close together including the man trapped under the rocks? If so, wouldn't the TNT kill everyone?

Is the cave large enough so that you can put the TNT far enough from everyone including the man trapped under the rocks so that the exploding TNT will kill no one?

You can use the spare cellphone in your pocket to call for help. 

You can pray to God for help. 

Why can't you get the man out of the rocks?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 13, 2009)

I know this is a question based upon ethics but just a quick thought: TNT has a certain explosive radius. If you were in the cave the explosion would surely cause more damage then good. The cave would collapse even further or you'd kill or harm someone in the process (minus the guy stuck).

In this situation, they are looking for an answer to the question "do the means justify the end?" Like some that have already posted(depending on what your teacher is looking for or if you have to answer the question directly) I would question the question. I would write about the nature of the question rather then answering it itself.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 13, 2009)

Too bad your course does not use a Christian based text, such as Scott Rae's _Moral Choices_. 

Secular ethics courses usually focus upon teleological aspects of ethics, which are basically utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number). Such a system is fraught with problems, e.g.,: 

1. Predicting or measuring the harm or benefit of one's choices
2. Minorities are not protected
3. Egoism, or self-interest tends to dominate

All the typical secular sources of ethics, such as teleological or relativism, suffer from a lack of recognition of our one Supreme Moral Authority, God.

Scripture primarily teaches a deontological (principle based from divine commands and natural law) and virtue based system. The biblical basis for using natural law is found from verses such as Jeremiah 33: 25-26; Proverbs 8:22-31; Romans 2: 14-16; Proverbs 6:6-11, 24:30-34. Virtue theory holds that morality is more than just doing the right thing, focusing upon the moral agent acting (motives, character, such as being more Christ-like) more than the act the moral agent performs.

Biblically, virtues complement principles as equals. We have a moral obligation to be a certain kind of person, and whether or not this complementary view results in action is not relevant in many cases. Some rules require action, some rules require virtue. As Christians we do not see virtues as derivatives from principles or lacking in intrinsic value. Doing right is doing the right thing with the right motive and attitude. Doing the right thing for the right reason is insufficient if the right attitude underlying the action is missing.

Rae proposes the following steps for Christian based ethical decision making:

1. Gather the facts
2. Determine the ethical issues (legitimate competing interests or goods)
3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case
4. List the alternatives
5. Compare the alternatives with virtues/principles
6. Consider the consequences
7. Make a decision

As to the scenario in question, some of the issues, not all of which may apply, to consider will be:

1. Human Life is God’s sacred gift
2. Innocent human life is not to be taken
3. Obligation to protect the most vulnerable in society 
4. Death came as a result of the entrance of sin into the world (Romans 5:12, I Cor. 15:21-22)
5. Death is not part of God’s original design
6. But death is a normal part of a person’s life under the sun (Eccl. 2:14-16, 3:19-21, 5:15-16, 9:1-6)
7. Death is both an enemy and a part of life

If death is a conquered enemy:
8. Death need not always be resisted; for example, doctors need not always “do everything" for the terminally ill.
9. When the prognosis is poor, and further treatment is futile, death can be welcomed as the doorstep to eternity.
10. Making what is left of life more burdensome is wrong.

Your answer should be based in part upon what I have written above. Good luck!

See also the ethical dilemma info here:
http://www.friesian.com/dilemma.htm

AMR


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 13, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> you kill the one person. Biblical principles include those with leopracy, killing certain sinners in OT israel, NT includes excommunication and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross for the sins of the world. * A spoiled apple effects the rest.*



Um, how does being unfortunate enough to get stuck under a rock make you a "spoiled apple"? I'm going to have to go with the others here and say that the OP isn't a legitimate question.


----------



## Webservant (Dec 13, 2009)

God gave you the TNT. If you don't use it, you kill 28 people.


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 14, 2009)

Thanks for all the help, I incorporated some of the ideas, I could be really off in answering this, I am sure some of you will think so but this is how I answered

First off I have a hard time finding out realistically that this tour guide does not have some kind of phone/communication device, not to mention a lot of tour guides are in constant communication with its office for reasons like these. But that aside, TNT has a certain kind of radius for its explosion, it seems likely that if you blow it up the amount of radius would be so large which would blow up majority if not all the group or if the radius were so small and the cave was much much bigger, than you could blow it up in a place away from Pat. Regardless, blowing up TNT is usually never safe in a cave as it would cause a lot of damage with the chances of getting trapped much deeper. Why does the tour guide think no one will come to help? It does not seem as if he is an experienced tour guide because he did not bring a device to communicate with. How do we know that this tour guide is right about the oxygen level? There is a BIG difference from 8 hours to 24. How do we know he is right about that no one would come looking for us? What are his credentials? Where is he getting his claims from, he may be being arbitrary? The chances of the TNT doing more damage then good is to high of a risk, not to mention we have not been given a reason to trust the tour guide, therefore I would wait. This would not change if Pat is a women or male for we are all made in the image of God. I would not pay any attention to Pat if he wanted to die or not die, he or she is not in the right state of mind.

There is a moral principle that is evident from this, that being human life is valuable and that it is wrong to murder. The mere fact that so many of us had to struggle in thinking what we should do, shows that we value human life over animals (I am sure if it were a cat or horse no one would have a hard time killing it to save 30 humans) so we do not reduce our dear friend Pat to a mere beast or to simply a bag of h20 and minerals. We perceive and know that we "ought" and are different and special compared to the rest of the world. Dignity is what is debated, I would submit to you that having a high value life on humans shows that this Pat is something more then a body H20 and Minerals, for what wrong is it for one body of h20 and minerals to make another body of h20 and minerals no longer animated? Though we do not live consistently like this, we know that humans are special and that there is something more to humans then them being simply material, namely "Imago dei."

BI


----------

