Paradox Question 3

1. 0

   Mad Prophetposted 14 years ago

   You're a soldier sent out to war, and you were taken captive by the enemy along with your comrades.  It's down to only two of you.  Your a single person, while the other person has a wife and kid back home; both of which you know would be devastated if he didn't come back alive.  Let's just say the enemy gives you a choice, and order you both to fight to the death for their own amusement.  Would you kill your comrade fully knowing that his family will miss him, but you'll live. Or would you sacrifice your own life, so he/she may live on?

   replyreport
2. 61

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   I'd have to kill him.
   Ya only get 1 chance at life. May the best man win!
   Qwark

   replyreport
3. 72

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Paradox? No paradox here.
   
   Sounds like a simple moral choice, driven by a specific circumstances. To give your life up for someone else is the ultimate selfless act, when one has a choice to make.
   
   When someone is put into a position where they're coerced into makings a life altering choice, such as live or die? The desire for life will win out and the battle is or could be long.
   
   The other person, their life and their family isn't a concern, when being coerced into a live or death battle. Survival is the only option.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 14 years ago

   Wow, I love how everyone here is so honest about them basically saying, "SCREW THE OTHER GUY!"  All joking aside though, I honestly don't know what I would do, as I certainly don't want to die, and I have a heightened phobia of death.  I guess what it would come down to is this..how well do I know the person?  If I was best friends with this person, and I knew his family fairly well..then I probably would allow him to kill me so he can live.  Although I would be hesitant about it at first, but I couldn't deprive his kid and wife of him.  Besides, I doubt anyone would seriously miss me if I died.  Sure, my immediate family would, but they're usually so preoccupied with their own lives that I doubt it would be much of a loss to them, as long as they didn't have to pay for a funeral.  Which I think the military handles, so I doubt that would ever be an issue.
   
   However, if I didn't know the guy that well, then.....well...I'm not a violent person....but...I'm sorry...you're dead.

   replyreport
5. 60

   tthudiumposted 14 years ago

   I would team up with my comrade and fight the enemy together. That way we don't have to make a choice and the choice is made up by how strong we are and how weak the enemy is!

   replyreport
6. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 14 years ago

   False binary here, not to mention an oversimplifcation.
   
   Any person that would find amusement by forcing captured comrades to fight to the death is not trustworthy. Therefore, fighting offers no reasonable expectation of an actual realization of that promised freedom, thus rendering the betrayal of a friend, one's honor, and the possibility of being killed illogical.
   
   You and your friend simply agree not to fight and your capitors will have to kill you and lose the ransom potential/bargaining chip you provide, or they will have to find something else to do for amusement. Which may involve torture, but what can I say? If they torture you to the point you WILL fight your comrade, that's no longer you being in control of the decision is it?
   
   Now, if your friend is not interested in that reasonable arrangement and deludes himself into thinking he's found a real chance at freedom when the offer is made, well, then he gets what he's got coming soon as he takes the first swing.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
7. 59

   Bellamieposted 14 years ago

   Though I have never been anywhere near a battle and I have a family of my own and would want to be able to watch my children grow up and grow old with my spouse, I would have to say that I would give up my life for the other person.  What's the saying?  For the greater good?  If I had no family to worry about, it stands to reason that there really isn't anyone that would truly miss me anyway.  Well, maybe a friend or two, but they'd get over the loss.  I'd fall on the other persons knife and let him live.  But whose to say that the enemy won't kill him afterwards, too?  Then what?

   replyreport
8. 67

   Doctor Kristyposted 14 years ago

   I don't reckon I'd attack first, since my conscience would drive me mad afterwards.
   
   But if he decided to fight me, I would fight back.
   
   I don't think that my life would be worth less than his simply because I'm not in a long term relationship.

   replyreport