# How Would You Choose?



## Huckleberrylane (Mar 2, 2016)

Scene: You have many evil men with guns standing before you and your friends. One says to you "You have 2 choices. We will kill three innocent people or we will kill you and one person of your choice." What would you do?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 2, 2016)

I would surely give up my life for the sake of others that Christ may be glorified and love may be demonstrated. I wouldn't be able to choose who would die with me, though, as my conscience would not allow it.


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2016)

One might scrabble on the doors of the gate and let spittle fall down upon one's beard.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 2, 2016)

MW said:


> One might scrabble on the doors of the gate and let spittle fall down upon one's beard.



So, is that ok for us to do? I have often considered pretending to be mad as a possibility if I ever found myself in a dire situation! (Not the beard part as I don't have one!)


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So, is that ok for us to do? I have often considered pretending to be mad as a possibility if I ever found myself in a dire situation! (Not the beard part as I don't have one!)



I think anything done in that kind of situation is going to look like madness; unless the person somehow manages to come out of it, like David, and then it seems like an insane kind of brilliance. If we get through the other side of a mad situation with our faith intact we have something for which to give thanks.


----------



## Andres (Mar 2, 2016)

I hope I'd have the courage to stand up to them and refuse to make a wicked choice like that. I would tell them to repent of this wickedness and that I refused to participate in their sins.


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2016)

I would assume that they were lying. Either they are going to shoot or they aren't. At that point, there isn't much point to playing their game. 

Although if this is a puzzle, the correct answer is, 'OK, I pick you.' And I wouldn't consider that a wicked choice to make.


----------



## Andres (Mar 2, 2016)

Edward said:


> Although if this is a puzzle, the correct answer is, 'OK, I pick you.' And I wouldn't consider that a wicked choice to make.



Oooh, good one! lol


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 2, 2016)

There are two other choices that could be made in that situation:
1. You and your friends could try to fight your way out.
2. You could refuse to make either choice, thereby not incurring the guild of anyone's blood.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 2, 2016)

Edward said:


> 'OK, I pick you.'



Excellent.

These so-called ethical dilemmas are fruitless, but they often are used to desensitize people into getting used to making such choices. I remember being in a seminar that presented a scenario that included an old person, a brilliant person of great value to the world, various other people of various talents, and you, the talented survivalist, all in a boat that is down to its gunwales in stormy water. Someone has to be tossed out. How do you decide?

I said I'd jump out and steady the boat. I'm a strong swimmer and have experience being in cold water for long periods of time.

The "facilitator" said, no, you can't do that--it's against the rules." 

My response: "How are you going to enforce the rule? Throw me out of the boat?"

But it does remind me of an old joke from the 70s:

The president of the Unites States, Henry Kissinger, an old preacher, and a hippie were in a military cargo plane. The pilot's voice came over the intercom saying, "we have an in-flight fire and cannot make it to the ground. I'm ejecting. There are three parachutes where you are for your use. Goodbye."

So the president said "I'm the President and the country needs me, so I've got to have one of the parachutes." He grabbed a parachute and jumped out. 

Kissinger said, "I am ze smartest man in ze world so I must take a parachute." And he strapped up and jumped out. 

The preacher turned to the hippie and said, "Son, I'm an old man. I've lived my life. You take the last parachute." And the hippie said, "Don't sweat it, man. The smartest man in the world just jumped with my backpack."


----------



## Toasty (Mar 3, 2016)

Huckleberrylane said:


> Scene: You have many evil men with guns standing before you and your friends. One says to you "You have 2 choices. We will kill three innocent people or we will kill you and one person of your choice." What would you do?



That is a false dilemma. Those are not the only two possible choices. Don't accept the false assumption that there are only two choices. 

They could be lying. They could kill you and all of your friends.

You could tell them to repent. You could call the police. You and your friends could try to run away. You and your friends could try to fight them.


----------



## johnny (Mar 3, 2016)

Huckleberrylane said:


> Scene: You have many evil men with guns standing before you and your friends. One says to you "You have 2 choices. We will kill three innocent people or we will kill you and one person of your choice." What would you do?



I am going to take this question at face value.

I would simply say kill three innocent people because no one is innocent anyway.
The responsibility of the sin of this act lies with the people doing the killing.

If I was with my wife however, then I would ask her and we would more than likely choose to die together.
I don't think it would be that difficult a task with two of us agreed, much harder by yourself.

There has been hostage situations where ethnic Jews have been separated from the crowd.
I have often wondered, would I as a Christian, voluntarily put myself forward to stand with them.
Even knowing that they are more than likely unregenerate non believers? 

Anyway, that's for another hypothetical.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 3, 2016)

Ah the old Kantian vs Utilitarian scenerio eh?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 3, 2016)

Why believe the psychotic evil beasts? If they mean what they say, or not, they are monsters. Would it not be as reasonable to conclude they were lying, just to see you squirm? If they spared you alone for that you would not choose some "one" to die, and tried to cover your conscience in blood; in fact, you delivered your conscience from bloodguiltiness.

Also, be aware that besides a "desensitizing" attempt that may be tied to these thought-experiments, other experimenters have a greater deviant interest. These kinds of tests are screening devices. A given population is sorted by those who have more or less likely probability for utility in the unethical designs of social engineers. Even by refusing to play the game, you are categorized.

One sees these kinds of manipulations in organization-for-consensus gatherings. These are often led by people who are not looking for a natural consensus, but have an agenda. Once strong opposing personalities are identified, those persons can frequently be effectively marginalized using a variety of tactics, leaving the pre-organized cadre largely, if not totally, in command of the process. Come to find out, it wasn't an effort to find out what people in general were interested in, in order to begin to seek common satisfaction; but a plan to implement what some folk wanted the whole time, but needed to appeal to the "voluntary will" to gain without force.

People are often surprised at how so many can be persuaded into voting against their real interests. One of a plebiscite's great weaknesses, in large or small settings, is revealed by the immense difficulty of reversing a majority decision. After all, it involves convincing many that they made a mistake the first time, or that they were manipulated. People don't like their pride wounded or challenged.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 3, 2016)

I would not believe a word that person says so would not choose anything. I'd ideally tell him to repent, give him scripture until he killed me to shut me up!

In actuality I'd probably just start crying and fall down, though.


----------

