Ethics of A Panicdemic

Here are some ethical questions to consider.

Let’s say you’ve been kidnapped and your kidnapper offers you a choice. Shoot one person in the head or choose between two buttons, one of which will do nothing and the other of which will detonate a bomb that will kill 10,000 people. (You cannot choose to shoot the kidnapper.)

1)      Would you shoot the person in the head or pick a button?

2)      Does this answer change if you have to shoot 2 people? 10? 20? At which point does the number become unacceptable?

3)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are among the 10,000?

4)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are the people you have to shoot?

5)      Does the answer change if you have to shoot yourself?

Changing the scenario a little. Let’s say that the kidnapper makes you choose a button before then choosing to shoot the people.

1)      How would you feel if your kidnapper told you after you had shot the person/people that the button you had chosen would have caused no harm?

2)      How would you feel if your kidnapper told you after you had shot the person/people that the button you had chosen would have killed 10,000 people?

3)      How would you feel if you had chosen not to shoot the person/people and the button you had chosen would have caused no harm?

4)      How would you feel if you had chosen not to shoot the person/people and the button you had chosen would have killed 10,000 people?

 Same scenario, only now in this situation, you can choose to kill the kidnapper, but if you fail, the 10,000 people will die.

1)      Are you obligated to try to kill only the “bad guy” and attempt to save all innocents?

Same scenario, only in this situation, the people you are shooting in the head have an equal chance of surviving their head wound as the 50/50 chance of blowing up the 10,000 people?

1)      Would you shoot the person in the head or pick a button?

2)      Does this answer change if you have to shoot 2 people? 10? 20? At which point does the number become unacceptable?

3)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are among the 10,000?

4)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are the people you have to shoot?

5)      Does the answer change if you have to shoot yourself?

 Same scenario, only in this situation, you have 100 buttons to choose from and 99 will do nothing, but 1 will detonate the bomb.

1)      Would you shoot the person in the head or pick a button?

2)      Does this answer change if you have to shoot 2 people? 10? 20? At which point does the number become unacceptable?

3)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are among the 10,000?

4)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are the people you have to shoot?

5)      Does the answer change if you have to shoot yourself?

Same scenario, only in this situation, you have 100 buttons to choose from and 99 will do nothing, but 1 will detonate the bomb, also the gun is a six shooter and only 1 bullet is loaded. Also, there are 700,000 people in the blasting zone.

1)      Would you shoot the person in the head or pick a button?

2)      Does this answer change if you have to shoot 2 people? 10? 20? At which point does the number become unacceptable?

3)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are among the 700,000?

4)      Does the answer change if your closest loved ones are the people you have to shoot?

5)      Does the answer change if you have to shoot yourself?

Same scenario, only in this situation, you can choose to give up control and allow the kidnapper, the people who will be shot, and the people in the blasting zone to all do what they need to do in a desperate bid for life. By walking away, you know that some will die, but you don’t know if it is greater or fewer people than who would have died if you followed the kidnapper’s directions.

1)      Do you choose to walk away or take control?

2)      Does you choice make you responsible for the lives lost? Why or why not?

3)      Would you have been more or less responsible for the lives lost by making the opposite choice? Why?