 |
| |
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
OK, today I'm back with a new question! 
And before we progress any further, I want to straighten a few things out.
1. I am not trolling. I have respect for my fellow posters here.
Just because I ask a question concerning faith does not mean I am
a heretic ogre trying to deprive innocent people of their precious views.
2. I am seriously interested in your answers, and do not appreciate spammers filling up my thread with silliness.
If you have a problem with the question, tell me.
If you cannot maintain a sensible attitude, then get mommy to sit you in your high chair to play, OK?
And if you want to go off topic and discuss the finer points, please start your own thread.
Now if you are up for it, here is a question!
If you are religious, and adhere to the ideas that suicide and murder is bad, how would you tackle this moral problem:
Scenario:
While on holiday, you and your loved ones (partner/family/etc) are taken kidnapped and captive by terrorists/criminals.
They give you the choice of either shooting your loved ones or yourself – What do you do?
You could be heroic, and try and shoot them, resulting in you and your loved ones being killed anyway.
But would that be murder?
And if forced to shoot yourself, is that still suicide?
How would you handle this situation?
Please answer as you see fit.
Last edited by curtsibling on 06-02-2004 at 15:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JellyBean
|
|
Not religious, but as Azazel says - with clear, consistent ethical values.
My choice: shoot as many of them as possible. Stop them from kidnapping anyone else in the future. They probably wouldn't have abided by the agreement anyway - kidnappers don't exactly have a sterling reputation in that respect.
Although - if I thought that they would abide by the precise words of the agreement above, I could shoot myself in the foot and claim that I'd fulfilled its terms.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
That doesn't seem so tough. If you have no guarantee of your family's safety even if you shoot yourself, the obvious answer, even for a religious person, is to not do it. If you do have a guarantee, somehow, then the self-sacrifice isn't really suicide...it's like taking a bullet to save an innocent person.
Now here's a real toughy for the religionists:
Thanks to a massive war/famine/catastrophe, etc., the human race has been virtually wiped out except for a small enclave of humanity. By luck, there is only one woman left and the rest are men. The woman is 8 months pregnant, but is having major complications. There is luckily a doctor who diagnoses the situation as thus: The baby is healthy, but the pregnancy will kill the mother if it continues. The woman will be saved by an abortion, but it will damage her uterus beyond repair and end any reproductive hope. The woman wants to have the abortion to save her life, and the doctor has the means of doing it reasonably safely.
So, do you let the woman abort the baby to save her own life, but end humanity in the process, or force her to carry it to term in the hopes the new child will become a progenitor of the next wave of humanity?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Is the baby female? |
perv
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2004 15:32
|