The 3 men knew what the outcome would be. I'd beat their stupid asses straight to death, preferably with each other's severed limbs & I'd feed 'em to the sharks when I'm done. lives in They put everyone's danger for a personal vendetta. If kill or die are my only options I'd kill in a heartbeat.
tyrants cannot be tolerated, ergo i would say kill the nazis. since that isnt an option i wouldnt kill the 3 men and hope to at least take the officer down before i die. tho admittedly in that situation i would prolly try to run away (not that i could really since its an island).
I would kill them, either way they're going to die but if I do it then I can save 61 innocent lives. I wouldn't enjoy it, it'd kill me on the inside, but it'd have to be done
ONE person shouldn't own 70% of the land and shouldn't be responsible for the lives of everyone else on the island. I'd relinquish my power so we could all be equal and make decisions TOGETHER
Here is the answer for what you should do: don't kill the men... be killed, because you are a good person and wouldn't take a life.
Here's the more realistic thing that I'd do: I'd kill the the three men (hey, they killed first...sadly...) mostly because heck they were probably going to die in agony soon enough so I'm just ending it quickly for them. Either way they'd die. 60 innocent people plus me were spared and the murderers were punished. I guess I'm like the sheriff so I take care of it.
I would kill the three men. Although it would be extremely hard for me to kill someone, it is much better than the 64 that would die if I didn't. Also, those three men are barely alive, and if they live, there's a good chance it would be incredibly painful. So, I would end the pain quickly.
a deeal is a deal. kill the 3 men. easy question. im not gonna be held responsible for murder when im put in a situation like that by a god. and if i am then he wasnt the god for me
If you do beat the 3 men up then your giving in to the nazi's. if you don't you kill innocent people, but you'll have taken a stand against the nazi's.
@RakeThemLeavesBabe Ever heard the phrase "live to fight another day"? Is it really better to die for you belief setting the example to the others saying that everyone who defies will die too or to give in this time to later attack the Nazis from within? I would kill the 3 men. And then kill the Nazis as they would bee leaving their 'dominion' unsuspecting defiance.
@hellterminator I wouldn't never harm someone who is submitted, I will be gentle to the weak, and wicked to the harmful. If I was to kill the three men then I'm only taking care of the symptom and not the problem, the problem being that we would being manipulated by a tyrant.
@RakeThemLeavesBabe Yes it would be wrong to kill those 3 men and be done with it. But is it wrong to kill them to later be able to overthrow the tyrant? There are things worth dying for but by dying at that point you'd have achieved nothing.
I honestly think not kiling them is actually kind of selfish of me. If i had the opportunity to save 60 people i wouldnt blow it because of morals. besides if their already about to die i might as well just put them out of their misery.
Oh i should mention im a huge fan of the mercy kill. just saying.
"To the last man," I'd say.. We'd all gather together and try to kill as many Nazis as we could before they killed us. How the fuck do we know the Nazis weren't lying?
@WildManChris2000 Actually, if you REALLY believe in God, and truly love your felow-man, you should refuse to kill, period. The Nazis are blackmailing you. You are not responsible for what the Nazis do. The Nazis are going to kill, and thou shalt not kill. How do you know the Nazis aren't going to kill everybody anyway? How do you know thee Nazis aren't trying pour "salt in your wounds" BEFORE the fact?
@WildManChris2000 IF there is no God, sure, I'd kill the three men because there's no God, so I love myself more than anyone else. If I believe in God, REALLY believe... I'll have faith in God to get us through this and refuse to kill. Let the Nazis do the killing, I am not responsible for that.
I would kill the 3 people. I think the fact that my life was endangered overturned it. Not in a selfish way, but I would rather not die for the crimes of my men. I think that is the right thing to do as well as it spares the lives of 61 individuals for the cost of 3 who are, additionally, murderers. But, personally, I never would have agreed to the 1-3 deal the first place anyways. But in this scenario, I would kill the 3 murderers.
It doesn't involve your own death, either the you killing 3 or them killing about...15 or so.
That is what's difficult, do you leave with clean hands if they have 15 killed? Or are your hands more dirty when you yourself have killed 3?
You being killed yourself, is a no brainer. I don't believing in dying for a cause, it's kinda silly - survival is the necessity of man, causes are second always.
It's pretty much a psychological trick. By making him complicit in at least 3 deaths, the Nazis give this owner of 1 third of the island a stake in their control.
Even knowing that, in moral terms, I might do it. In more realistic terms, the only thing stopping me would be my own breaking down in tears for so long the Nazis get impatient and kill me.
Not excatly 2 good scenarios there Lacy but in my mind its no doubt Kill or be killed, i choose kill :/
And i guarantee 99% would choose the same especially as the world looks now if they were put in that situation, its so easy to say the high-morale ground and i wouldnt do it yada yada let them kill me and so on just a load of crap.
But heres the good thing its not even 1 ina million that will ever have to be put in that situation.
You should kill the 3 men, just to spare the lifes of the innocent, and I would kill the 3 men, but I propably couldn't live with myself, and kill myself after that later on. Couldn't possibly think of beating someone to death, or beating anyone in the first place :S
...they're cooperating with the enemy and killing their own people. John should not take part in this and refuse to make such an agreement.
In the end, there may be nothing to stop the Nazi soldiers from killing everyone on the island but the inhabitants should not be killing one another because they were threatened and ordered to do so.
I don't know what I'd do in that situation, probably refuse and suffer a nervous breakdown. Not necessarily in that order.
It would be morally wrong to kill the 3 men (shoot them or beat them, it doesn't matter). Killing someone who murdered an innocent person is wrong so it is definitely wrong to kill someone who killed attacking enemy soldiers. The Nazi leader is using psychological manipulation. Naturally, most people would feel compelled to sacrifice "only" 3 lives to save 60 others, probably even women and children. However, by accepting the agreement, ...
It's not really something to think about literally. It is basically the concept of preventative morality using a paradoxical method, ie. using violence to prevent more violence.
It is not as clear cut as this usually as in real life there are very rarely such absolute certainties like Nazis about kill someone, and offering you the choice.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept of using violence to prevent more violence in general. But in my opinion, the morality of using that method always depends on the particular circumstances. I believe that using that method would be wrong in the situation described in the video while it might be all right in many other cases.
Yes, of course it's not as clear cut as this in real life, this is just a thought experiment.
Both are wrong, but killing the three men would be the lesser of two evils. Killing three to save sixty is definitely logical especially when you take into consideration that the three are already murderers themselves. So acting within those options and assuming the Nazis keep to their word I would choose to kill the three men.
Killing 3 men to spare the lives of 60 villagers (men, women & children) seems like the "right" option, but having to BEAT a man to death (for a sane person) is not easily done, as it is brutal and disgusting, so doing that to 3 men...
I guess I would have to go with killing the 3 men, beating them to death sounds hard to do, but there are places on the body that would kill if too much pressure was applied; so the death wouldn't be as slow...
i think it would be "right" to kill the 3 men because they were told not to kill the soldiers and they were aware of the consequences. so it would seem right to kill them and spare the innocent 60 villagers. however i dont think i would be able to beat the men to death. i can barely watch someone get punched in a movie. i suppose the fact that they committed murder would make it a bit easier... i guess if i absolutely had to choose i would kill the 3 men and try to do it a quickly as possible.
Killing the three villagers is obviously the most logical decision, since they are going to die anyway, but to actually kill them with my bare hands would be the hardest thing I would ever have to do. The best thing to do would hit them in any place that would kill them quickly.
Well, as a good leader one's required to do what benefits the majority of ones subjects the most. I would probably. A martyr doesn't really serve any good whatsoever, in practice, no matter how noble his intentions are.
So, me being in Johns shoes, do it for selfish reasons (sparing my own life) as much as for the common good, and I'd say the right/noble thing is to do it solely for the greater good, not for your own lifes sake.
It's interesting though... Not killing the three peasants accused of murder, to maintain ones' moral code/not damn your soul (if you believe in such things as sin and damnation), isn't that kinda selfish as well? Saving your own conscience/soul, and in the process sentence 60 other persons to death... Both ways are wrong, as killing other people should be avoided, but I'd say the lesser of two evils is killing those three.
well im not a very guilt ridden person so i can say w/o a doubt id beat them to death. Ill be damned if im going to die along with 60 other people who commited no crime because 3 people couldnt be peaceful.
I sat here thinking about this one for a while and i would most likley do the selfish thing of saying i wuld beat the 3 ppl then end up not doing and killingmyslef the fact that its not possible 4 me 2 have that thought in the back of my head reminding me what i did.
If these three men were truly guilty of the killings of the soldiers then they have committed a crime, regardless if the victims were Nazis. Then executing them would be a sort of justice. I would also try to bargain for giving them quick death is return for my doing the deed.Soldiers killing civilians and civilians not in uniform killing soldiers are both crimes under the laws of war. Your duty is to the living.
1. I should make the beating quick, going for blows in the head so they die instantly. The rules were made clear. You kill, then innocents are killed because of you. It's unfortunate but they brought this death upon themselves.
2. To save the lives of the many I would take the lives of the few.
To end this, I would say that in a way, it is an easy decision to make. Unless the village leader is absolutely certain that the death of 60 of his villagers would raise them to the point where they would rise up and fight the Nazis at all costs, then the clear choice is to kill the 3 because to not kill the 3 when you are uncertain of how the villagers will react is nothing more than letting your pride control your decisions. And as they say, "Pride goeth before the fall."
I am surprised at just how different I think about this situation. The numbers of lives that will die did not even enter into my consideration of which to decide.
On the one hand, if I refuse to kill the men, then I send a message to the Nazis that I will not submit to them, that they cannot get me to do their killing for them. The question is whether or not this will instill fear of the Nazis into the villagers, or rage that the Nazis are killing their friends and families.
(cont.) If fear, it is a bad choice, for it reinforces Nazi rule. If rage, it will pave the way for rebellion.
On the other hand, if I do kill the men, I could put the Nazis into a false sense of security that I could use to my advantage. The only problem with this is whether or not the member of the village will still trust me, and whether or not I could live with myself knowing that, even if it was to trick the Nazis, I had done their bidding.
Thus, I would have to determine if by dying my martyrdom would pave the way to my people's freedom, or if they need my leadership.
I also think that it is important to ask the question, "Would I refuse to kill the 3 because I take pride in that I would never kill, or would I refuse because I will not give in?"
In conclusion, The decision that I would make would be to kill the three men and make the Nazis think they can trust me, because an unsuspecting enemy is the easiest one to kill.
Logically, the correct choice would be to beat the three to death to save not only myself, but the sixty villagers.
But, to actually be face to face with them; look them in the eye as I viciously extinguish there life, makes it a difficult task. I believe logic would still take over, but it would be a sickening experience.
ok so 3 non-trained civilians where able to kill 20 trained soldiers who the fuck did that happen and don't say it was guerrilla warfare because they fuck that up then oh and to answer the question i would be on a fucking train to a death camp yer i'm a jew so what
i also should kill them because it will increase my chances of owning 100% of the island some day in the near future, for inst. if i start secretly killing Nazis to get the remaining villagers killed too.
Kill the 3 villagers, they are going to die anyway and doing it yourself SAVES 60 lives...plus, you are in no position to do OTHERWISE at that time.
Then poison every fucking bite of food and drop of drink the nazis take from the village.
Or, if you can't -
Get a dozen villagers together (i.e. the friends and relatives of the 3) at a later night, slit the throats of the nazi barracks guards, chain the barracks doors, AND BURN THE FUCKERS ALIVE!
Kill all the male villiagers, raid their food stocks, steal their cattle, capture their women into slavery, sow the ground with salt where they once reaped grain.
Kill the 3 guilty persons, if they can prof its them. Since they knew the rules, and they acted apon it. So they prob hade a plan thinking there 3 lives was worth killing as many german soilders as they could..... I dont agree on the matter but that Is what I think.
No, it's an easy question. I'd rather have a net benefit on life than a net loss. I'd have to muster up my guts and brutally and inhumanely murder three men by hand. It would be hard to DO that but the question of whether or not to do it is simple.
Clearly, from a pragmatic point of view, both in terms of the "overlord protector" figure and in terms of self preservation the correct answer is to kill the three that were guilty.
Clearly those men who killed already made their choices, they accepted the fact that they might die. This is in addition to the fact that they were fighting, most probably, for the villagers themselves. They want not only their own freedom, but freedom for their neighbors.
If the other 60 weren't involved I should not kill the three but I probably would (assuming the other three weren't my offspring etc). With the other 60 involved I should and would kill the three.
id allow the death of the whole village.... if 3 guys killed 20 nazi i can guess that the whole village could have fought off the nazi as a whole... and being a dick id kill the village for being cowards and id died only to be remembered as a ruthless but principle guided leader... history books love that sort of stuff
Well, although killing those 3 would be like betraying the villagers, I think killing the 3 men would be the right thing to do.
John has told them of the consequences of killing the Nazis but they didn't care so in a way those 3 are putting the lives of 60 people on the line. They should be killed without remorse since they have betrayed their fellow islanders.
killing the men is the only thing that makes sense to me. even if it's a hard choice to kill men with your own hands, it's still better because these three men knew that there was a deal with the nazis. so they fucked up and broke the only rule they were not allowed to break.
Well, my ethics are mostly utilitarian. So I'd say that the right thing to do would be to kill the 3 to save the 60. If all human life is equal, saving more lives just makes sense. I know these situations aren't easy, but I think it takes a strong person to do what is right when it feels wrong. I would definitely do it. I'd talk to them, try to convince them this is the right thing to do. Then I would try to get it over with quickly.
I would probably tell the villagers to fight back - along with myself helping them. I mean, if they made me kill the 3 people, they'll eventually turn on the rest of us by proposing more ultimatums and slaughtering more of us. Bad people aren't to be reckoned with. At least I would have tried hard enough to fight back without giving in and letting them take us over. The chances are we all will be dead sooner or later even if I did kill the 3 people only.
the thing that you are meant to do is kill yourself and the other people because it is seen as the right thing to do because you are not taking the cowards way out but i would kill the three people because it saves the other 60 people
i would have to (and i hate to do it) chose the 3 men. i would try to find a away to make it a quick beating. like a blunt object to the temple of the head. but i still would feel bad.
i would tho rather give up my own life in exchange for all 63 people, i would like to ask them. if i let you torchered, rap, and beat me to death would you spare the lives of all. but inside i know this would do nothing. they would take me up on this and then kill everyone latter. so this would fail, but still.
I understand enough about maral dillemmas to get why this is not an easy question to answer. However, I still think my solution would be to kill the three men, primarily to avoid the death of further individuals. One thing you must realize is that you are having this dillemma imposed on you and ultimately the only ones truly doing something wrong are the ones imposing it on you .
Plus (not to be too morbid) you could simplify things by breaking their necks rather than beat the life out of them.
although i realise the complexity of the circumstance and the difficulty in deating 3 men to death, i would bring myself to kill them as A) they had been warned B) the lives of the 60 outweigh the lives of the 3 and C) it is the logical thing to do. I would probably suffer great emotional stress bringing myself to it, but id just remind myself of the alternative. in the end my sanity and a good nights sleep, does not jutify allowing 64 men and women to die. (not to mention I'll be dead)
I would say that John should kill the three men because John did tell them what the rules were and what would happen if any the nazi's were killed so that makes me think they did it for bad ness. ? Yes?
This makes me think about the Holocaust and slavery. The number of villagers most likely greatly out numbers the Nazis. Ask the leader one day to decide(giving you more time is always good for planning). During that night orchestrate a surprised attack during the night.
To answer the question either of the ways you want us to would assist the Nazis helping them with their cause. I am required to answer this contrary to the way you wanted
its simple math, save 61 lives by taking 3, or lose 64.....there is a greater good here. Be objective, no one person's life should be more heavily weighted than any other person. Would be th easiest decision of my life. Sure it may 'haunt' me for a little while, but as someone stated earlier, I just saved many lives.
It would be much harder to answer if it was you had to kill the three murderers and then the nazis would kill you, or save the three murderers and they'd spare you but kill the 60 villagers.. in my opinion anyway
I wouldn't do either of those, I'd call Chuck Norris & he'd beat the shit out of the whole nazi war machine in 5 seconds then throw Hitler into the middle of the Sun, Go Chuck!
In here, is the use of the utilitarianism philosophy, by John S. Mill. Now, what I would do is beat down the three men that killed the Nazis, which also is the thing I would do as well if this would had been real. Why? Because I know none of the sixty villagers wish to die, and sincerely, neither do I. However, I would not had done it for myself, but for the others. Plus, the three man are barely alive. I know they would leave the three men till death after they kill the sixty villagers, and me.
Why I say this? For goodness sake, they are Nazis. Forgiveness is not in their mind, specially to those who had murdered Nazis. I would also finish the pain of those three that had murdered the Nazi soldiers. In conclusion, I will save the sixty villagers and myself, and finish the pain of the three men that are barely alive.
Simple question providing one thing... evidence. If I know for a fact that they are guilty, I would readily beat them to death. Reason- They knew that each one they killed would cost 3. They were willing to murder 57 of there own people by their actions. That makes them murderers. It may sound messed up but I am a man of situation. In this situation I would regret that 3 of my people had such little care for their fellow villagers. Especially since they would die anyways. Yea...not hard. ~TTFN!~
well from a tactical standpoint i would side step from the nazi officer, do an armbar take down on him, tell his platoon to drop there weapons since i do have a commanding officer in charge, and easliy dispose the officer with a snap to the neck. semper fi. thats y i love being a marine.
A though question but I would certanly prepare to atleast try killin the men on the fence because although it may haunt me i would keep reminding myself about all the people i saved.
A good thing is you could crack their neck to kill them
i dont know. thats a really hard thing to think about. i guess i would kill the three men, but the thing is, i dont know if i would be able to physically beat them to death. id get too emotionally fucked. but thinking about all the other innocent people that is what i would want to do.. but really if put in a situation like that one, i'd really have a tough time. It would be easier just to die. but :\ that's selfish.
The only reason the nazis would have to ask me to do the killing would be to enlist me as their ax man. And since they're trying to force me to do it in a brutal way, they're probably trying to make me look more brutal to the villagers than they are. I'd figure the whole situation was contrived for this purpose and demand to see the 20 bodies.
It's easy. I'd beat those poor bastards to a FURTHER pulp but it would be the hardest thing I could ever do. It's a loose loose no matter how you slice it, not sure there is a clear should here (save body counting) Self preservation is a huge factor, and the larger death toll another. The personal contact killing is a strong deterrent, but it is trumped by self preservation and the alternative higher body count. I'll take my chances at community retribution vs. certain death.
well if it was up to me id kill the 3 men. i may not like it and sure as hell would grieve about it later but to save the majority would be better for the society. to be honest that decision would have my life in the balance sense i value mine but i don't think a massacre would be the better choice.
i would have to say that the right thing to do i think would be to kill the three men (sacrificing the few in exchange for the betterment of the whole)
and my decision personally would be to kill the men just for the mere fact it would save my own life (the only one i get)
well, this kinda goes back to the whole death penalty thing. these three men are murderers, but they are people. in my opinion, these men would rather die than have the nazis brutally kill their friends and family. and if these men were as brutally beaten as she described, they probably couldnt receive proper medical attention, esp with nazis around, and would die anyway. soldiers have to kill in war for the greater good all the time. its hard, but its war
i honestly dont know. i have been a pacifist all my life, a bit of a hippy you might say. lol. it may seem like an easy question to some, but for me its horrifying to even think about making a decision like that.
I'm not going to waste 61 people's (including myself) lives over 3. Yes, it does set a bad example, being overwhelmed by nazis without resistance, but retaliating in that situation achieves nothing but civilian death.
i should probably kill the three men because it would be saving 60.
But i would first see if i could sacrifice myself to save each and every person in the island, if they wouldnt agree to that then i would offer them their own peice of land to talk them out of killings
i guess i would break their necks...lol so it would be over quick. However, there may be a better tactic i may need to learn in case i'm in that situation. lol It would be mentally hard but justification would come from the 60 other people and myself being put at risk by those 3. Maybe if they wanted to start killing the Nazi's off, they should have had a meeting with the village.
Its irrational to save 3 instead of 60, assuming that all villagers are equally good people, saving 60 and gaining more time, is clearly better than trying to prove to someone, (who probably doesnt care about your morals anyways) that by not killing 3 people you are showing some kind of "principle" and letting 63 people (including yourself) die. You should sacrifice "peace of mind" for the lives of 60. This buys you time to plan a revolt, a counter attack, or escape...its what I would do.
I would kill the 3 guys.But I dont think thats what I should do.Because I dont really want to have to live with the guilt of know that I killed those people.But on the other hand I think that would be the reason that I would take the other one because I wouldnt have to live with the guilt of the people dying.
This is an extremely easy question to answer, I would kill the 3 men. Had it been that the nazi's just threatened my life I would not, but being that 60 other people would most likely die if I didn't then yes that is the smart choice, plus it would be fairly necessary to put those 3 men out of their misery as well.
i would (as sad as this sounds) beat the three men, if they're barely alive then y not end there suffering quickly. greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people). im not sure what i should do but thats what i would do.
You should let everyone die. These are Nazis we are talking about. Even if they live, the Nazis will make their lives an unbearable hell, and they will likely end up killing many of the villagers anyway, so why drag it out.
However, I would kill the 3 men. It would be an emotional torment, but the prospect of hope for myself and the villagers for survival would force me to do it.
would: an eye for an eye, if those people killed 20 Nazi soldiers than they should be killed too. they knew the circumstances, yet went against them. there are innocent citizens and i would want to protect them, they shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of others.
should: I would want to save everybody... haha, maybe i could talk in a possible "3rd" choice. the leader leaves the island before i (john) tell the people to revolt against the invaders. they are after all being imperialistic dicks. Live free or die trying and all that jazz i suppose.
i feel this is farely easy, as all were informed of the risks and consiquences. those three made a choice on behalf of the village when they had absolutely no right. 60 lifes to be lost for the ignorence of three men. though the lost of life is tragic in any situation, this one beholds its own moral and legal(modern law) justifaction. in conclusion those three made a decision without the right to, and would pay the price for the redemtion of those they openly chose to risk.
well i know it sounds unrealistic but i would try and reason with the nazi leader to take my life and spare the villegers do what they must with the men who murderd their own but let the other 60 be they did nothing take my life insted of theirs it probably wouldnt work but is worth a shot.
In order to answer this question you must question your own morality and conclude if a guilt free conscience is possible, knowing that three villagers, who are murderers, died at your hands.
Again, by the circumstances of the given proposition the nazi leader can still rightfully take the lives of 60 innocent civilians along with John himself, totaling in 64 homicidal fatalities, only one more death than problem #1 would succumb. Therefore, this problem depends on the personal morality of the given individual that would represent the position of "John" as well as the narcissism of the given individual.(to be continued)
Therefore, by circumstances of the "peaceful" proposition, the nazi leader can still rightfully take the lives of 60 villagers, totaling a maximum of 63 dead villagers, along with the three that died at your hands, despite the claim made by the nazi leader to spare the lives of 60 innocent villagers. In problem #2 you say that the nazis are going to be the ones murdering the three murderers, NOT the nazi leader himself. (to be continued)
I may be over thinking the scenario but seeing as the nazi leader said "For every soldier of mine that your civilians hurt or murder, I'm going to kill 3 of your civilians", the "I'm" implies that the nazi leader plans on fulfilling the murders PERSONALLY. In problem #1 John would be killing the three villagers personally. (to be continued)
Although I would feel really bad for killing someone, I would have to kill the three men. He, after all, did warn them about the situation and the three men decided on their own, knowing the consequences, to kill those nazis. They brought it upon themselves. The other 60 lives, including his, are innocent. They shouldn't be punished for what the three did.
i wud kill the beat up guys they r allready dying anyway and then i would gather a copple of ppl and jump the nazi ppl
if they belive in god i wud push god up their buthole while i kick their nazi ass.
but what i should do is ask if they wud spare their life for one more day while the next of the day goes by i would gather a lot of ppl and kill the nazi in their sleep.
but i like wat i wud do better cus im mean that way and proud...yeah!!!!
I'd walk up to one of the three almost-dead men, punch his nose into his brain, rip out his jawbone, and go fuckin crazy and kill every nazi bastard on that island!!!
what i would and should do would be to beat the 3 men to death. i could do it quickly, they are almost dead. By killing these three murderers, i would save 61 innocent peoples lives. Thats it.
In short I am not certain what is the right choice but I am quite certain that I would not beat them to death. However, given the fact that my own life was at stake... people do unexpected things in such situations... I can not positively say that I would not kill them since I have never been in such a position. Also, if my own life really was at stake maybe the reasons for doing it would all of a sudden seem much more reasonable? Plus all the adrenalin. Still I have a feeling that I wouldn't
Of course given that any military force acted in that way I would do what I could to harm them myself. But really everything depends on the circumstances, it is so hard to generalize. For example, if there was a chance that the crime could be brought to the attention of the international community then maybe my responsibility would be to survive so that I could testify against them in Haag?
I would not kill them. The reason is that I would not agree to play along in such a cynical game. I I had to die for that conviction then fine. I would of course feel bad for the 60 people who would also have to die with me, however, to begin with I would not trust the Nazi leader on his promise and also acting like that would cause more opposition against the Nazi for their crimes. I would refuse to take any moral responsibility for the Nazi choosing to shoot 60+ villagers, that is their choice
I can agree that in principle the moral thing would be to kill the three men given 1: an absolute certainty (or close to that) that the promise would be kept and 2: that the invaders did not represent such a despicable ideology (such as Communism or Nazism).
In that case I would have to set myself above my disgust and kill them by any means forced upon me just to save the life's of the 60 people. They had done what they considered to be right and been caught, they'd die anyway.
The moral thing to do would be to beat the 3 men to death. You save 61 lives and any guilt you might feel at murdering these people should be outweighed by the lives you saved. The three men are going to die anyway so its completely selfish to refuse saving 60 lives because you dont want to get your own hands dirty. Having said this you might find you behave illogically under that kind of pressure. Still killing the 3 men is the moral option.
Before I answer, I'd like to ask why the civilians murdered twenty nazi, even though they knew that they had condemned 60 other villagers.
Just wondering.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have the guilt of killing, but either way the guilt is in my hands.
The thing that would freak me out would be actually beating the men, but since they're already nearly dead, I don't think it would take too long, or be too much more painful for them.
I'd really rather spare as many people for as long as possible
With the assumption that the deal is "legit," my opinion tends to be that if the positive effects outweight the negative ones, then its a good action to do. To kill three men and spare 61 is the lesser of two evils. Murder in general is obviously a bad thing but since it is going to happen, it might as well be by my hands... I would look for the fastest possible way to beat them to death since that is the manner specified. I can't imagine myself doing it any other way.
The only moral action in this case is to not comply with the Nazi's. This might mean your death (but by no means guaranteed), but it certainly is the more moral option in my opinion.
Ok, well in this instance we know the Nazi's are not to be trusted. Their intentions are clearly to cause terror by torturing innocents. According to your story, there was no evidence, and no trial. Assume therefore that if you chose the "lesser of two evils" option that you would not be in control in order to prevent the second evil being carried out. That is to say, if you beat the three guys to death, the Nazi's may kill you anyway, as well as ..CONT
I have no idea what I would do. I have cultivated the policy of making decisions as things happen, allowing PA to be my guide.
Thanks for great video:)
joseph
Satori1800 2 weeks ago
@milky
zeowww 1 month ago
Yeah, yeah. Bad edit. Still, you get the gist of it.
TheCrimsonification 3 months ago
The 3 men knew what the outcome would be. I'd beat their stupid asses straight to death, preferably with each other's severed limbs & I'd feed 'em to the sharks when I'm done. lives in They put everyone's danger for a personal vendetta. If kill or die are my only options I'd kill in a heartbeat.
TheCrimsonification 3 months ago
tyrants cannot be tolerated, ergo i would say kill the nazis. since that isnt an option i wouldnt kill the 3 men and hope to at least take the officer down before i die. tho admittedly in that situation i would prolly try to run away (not that i could really since its an island).
hanner1euraid 3 months ago
I would kill them, either way they're going to die but if I do it then I can save 61 innocent lives. I wouldn't enjoy it, it'd kill me on the inside, but it'd have to be done
AntiMatterWave 5 months ago
You call for a full out resistance from the people, anyone who doesn't resist is a collaborator!
SloBroVlog 5 months ago
How many nazi soilders are there? because if there's not too many you can just have the civilians rebel against them.
kidkong584 5 months ago
ONE person shouldn't own 70% of the land and shouldn't be responsible for the lives of everyone else on the island. I'd relinquish my power so we could all be equal and make decisions TOGETHER
jsamari 5 months ago 2
i say kill the nazi leader....lol
cuterocker98 6 months ago
Here is the answer for what you should do: don't kill the men... be killed, because you are a good person and wouldn't take a life.
Here's the more realistic thing that I'd do: I'd kill the the three men (hey, they killed first...sadly...) mostly because heck they were probably going to die in agony soon enough so I'm just ending it quickly for them. Either way they'd die. 60 innocent people plus me were spared and the murderers were punished. I guess I'm like the sheriff so I take care of it.
zombiehunter3579 6 months ago
I would kill the three men. Although it would be extremely hard for me to kill someone, it is much better than the 64 that would die if I didn't. Also, those three men are barely alive, and if they live, there's a good chance it would be incredibly painful. So, I would end the pain quickly.
Isitonacornflake 6 months ago
you should not give in to the nazis... but i would chicken out and give in.
Prognosticator00 6 months ago
a deeal is a deal. kill the 3 men. easy question. im not gonna be held responsible for murder when im put in a situation like that by a god. and if i am then he wasnt the god for me
MrMarkLegion 6 months ago
If you do beat the 3 men up then your giving in to the nazi's. if you don't you kill innocent people, but you'll have taken a stand against the nazi's.
RakeThemLeavesBabe 7 months ago
@RakeThemLeavesBabe Ever heard the phrase "live to fight another day"? Is it really better to die for you belief setting the example to the others saying that everyone who defies will die too or to give in this time to later attack the Nazis from within? I would kill the 3 men. And then kill the Nazis as they would bee leaving their 'dominion' unsuspecting defiance.
hellterminator 4 months ago
@hellterminator Oh there's an extra 'o' in the 'too'. I hate not being able to edit my comments.
hellterminator 4 months ago
@hellterminator I wouldn't never harm someone who is submitted, I will be gentle to the weak, and wicked to the harmful. If I was to kill the three men then I'm only taking care of the symptom and not the problem, the problem being that we would being manipulated by a tyrant.
RakeThemLeavesBabe 3 months ago
@RakeThemLeavesBabe Yes it would be wrong to kill those 3 men and be done with it. But is it wrong to kill them to later be able to overthrow the tyrant? There are things worth dying for but by dying at that point you'd have achieved nothing.
hellterminator 2 months ago
I honestly think not kiling them is actually kind of selfish of me. If i had the opportunity to save 60 people i wouldnt blow it because of morals. besides if their already about to die i might as well just put them out of their misery.
Oh i should mention im a huge fan of the mercy kill. just saying.
coolzsinger67 7 months ago
"To the last man," I'd say.. We'd all gather together and try to kill as many Nazis as we could before they killed us. How the fuck do we know the Nazis weren't lying?
WildManChris2000 7 months ago
@WildManChris2000 Actually, if you REALLY believe in God, and truly love your felow-man, you should refuse to kill, period. The Nazis are blackmailing you. You are not responsible for what the Nazis do. The Nazis are going to kill, and thou shalt not kill. How do you know the Nazis aren't going to kill everybody anyway? How do you know thee Nazis aren't trying pour "salt in your wounds" BEFORE the fact?
WildManChris2000 7 months ago
@WildManChris2000 IF there is no God, sure, I'd kill the three men because there's no God, so I love myself more than anyone else. If I believe in God, REALLY believe... I'll have faith in God to get us through this and refuse to kill. Let the Nazis do the killing, I am not responsible for that.
WildManChris2000 7 months ago
This sounds like something out of Dragon Age.
danitiwa 9 months ago
I would kill the 3 people. I think the fact that my life was endangered overturned it. Not in a selfish way, but I would rather not die for the crimes of my men. I think that is the right thing to do as well as it spares the lives of 61 individuals for the cost of 3 who are, additionally, murderers. But, personally, I never would have agreed to the 1-3 deal the first place anyways. But in this scenario, I would kill the 3 murderers.
HaveFaithInScience 10 months ago
I would kill them to spare those 60 lives and my own . Its better to have three people die then 64.
neveyful 11 months ago
break the neck of the three men.
jhNNNNNNNy 1 year ago 2
That isn't the thought experiment.
It doesn't involve your own death, either the you killing 3 or them killing about...15 or so.
That is what's difficult, do you leave with clean hands if they have 15 killed? Or are your hands more dirty when you yourself have killed 3?
You being killed yourself, is a no brainer. I don't believing in dying for a cause, it's kinda silly - survival is the necessity of man, causes are second always.
superhamzah85 1 year ago
Beat the mother fucker... What kinda stupid ass question is that?
56step1 1 year ago
set the villagers on the nazis but keep the leader alive and beat him to death
sirbestnameever 1 year ago
It's pretty much a psychological trick. By making him complicit in at least 3 deaths, the Nazis give this owner of 1 third of the island a stake in their control.
Even knowing that, in moral terms, I might do it. In more realistic terms, the only thing stopping me would be my own breaking down in tears for so long the Nazis get impatient and kill me.
WingedWyrm 1 year ago
is/ought.
jeez. i hate BS shit like this. Reify ethics from 0.
-
We're gonna grease the tracks of our tanks with the guts of those hun bastards....
InaneRex 1 year ago
Survival of the fittest.
Not excatly 2 good scenarios there Lacy but in my mind its no doubt Kill or be killed, i choose kill :/
And i guarantee 99% would choose the same especially as the world looks now if they were put in that situation, its so easy to say the high-morale ground and i wouldnt do it yada yada let them kill me and so on just a load of crap.
But heres the good thing its not even 1 ina million that will ever have to be put in that situation.
Self-Preservation look up and learn
DRock7977 1 year ago
I would walk up to the men ask them if they did it. Whatever they say I would then ask the villagers for a vote. Then I would do whatever they voted.
Coladecoca 1 year ago
You should kill the 3 men, just to spare the lifes of the innocent, and I would kill the 3 men, but I propably couldn't live with myself, and kill myself after that later on. Couldn't possibly think of beating someone to death, or beating anyone in the first place :S
Jakedaelectrican 1 year ago
...they're cooperating with the enemy and killing their own people. John should not take part in this and refuse to make such an agreement.
In the end, there may be nothing to stop the Nazi soldiers from killing everyone on the island but the inhabitants should not be killing one another because they were threatened and ordered to do so.
I don't know what I'd do in that situation, probably refuse and suffer a nervous breakdown. Not necessarily in that order.
FighterInTheShadow 1 year ago
It would be morally wrong to kill the 3 men (shoot them or beat them, it doesn't matter). Killing someone who murdered an innocent person is wrong so it is definitely wrong to kill someone who killed attacking enemy soldiers. The Nazi leader is using psychological manipulation. Naturally, most people would feel compelled to sacrifice "only" 3 lives to save 60 others, probably even women and children. However, by accepting the agreement, ...
FighterInTheShadow 1 year ago
@FighterInTheShadow
It's not really something to think about literally. It is basically the concept of preventative morality using a paradoxical method, ie. using violence to prevent more violence.
It is not as clear cut as this usually as in real life there are very rarely such absolute certainties like Nazis about kill someone, and offering you the choice.
superhamzah85 1 year ago
@superhamzah85
I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept of using violence to prevent more violence in general. But in my opinion, the morality of using that method always depends on the particular circumstances. I believe that using that method would be wrong in the situation described in the video while it might be all right in many other cases.
Yes, of course it's not as clear cut as this in real life, this is just a thought experiment.
FighterInTheShadow 1 year ago
i would kill the three men and save the 60 people.
Mynameismeganx4 1 year ago
Both are wrong, but killing the three men would be the lesser of two evils. Killing three to save sixty is definitely logical especially when you take into consideration that the three are already murderers themselves. So acting within those options and assuming the Nazis keep to their word I would choose to kill the three men.
mikerodeman 1 year ago
Have you followed-up this yet? I'd still like to hear your point-view as well.
MescalineDaydreams 1 year ago
honestly i think id start to cry and get killed along with the villagers.
i know im a pussy.
fracturedfist 1 year ago
It depends if the men are guilty or not.
minimint12 1 year ago
Killing 3 men to spare the lives of 60 villagers (men, women & children) seems like the "right" option, but having to BEAT a man to death (for a sane person) is not easily done, as it is brutal and disgusting, so doing that to 3 men...
I guess I would have to go with killing the 3 men, beating them to death sounds hard to do, but there are places on the body that would kill if too much pressure was applied; so the death wouldn't be as slow...
priceboy3 1 year ago
dude this is hard there is no proof that the nazys would keep theyr promise :s
Xenofan20 1 year ago
i think it would be "right" to kill the 3 men because they were told not to kill the soldiers and they were aware of the consequences. so it would seem right to kill them and spare the innocent 60 villagers. however i dont think i would be able to beat the men to death. i can barely watch someone get punched in a movie. i suppose the fact that they committed murder would make it a bit easier... i guess if i absolutely had to choose i would kill the 3 men and try to do it a quickly as possible.
madasrabbits06 1 year ago
Killing the three villagers is obviously the most logical decision, since they are going to die anyway, but to actually kill them with my bare hands would be the hardest thing I would ever have to do. The best thing to do would hit them in any place that would kill them quickly.
ScrubsTheOpera 2 years ago
Well, as a good leader one's required to do what benefits the majority of ones subjects the most. I would probably. A martyr doesn't really serve any good whatsoever, in practice, no matter how noble his intentions are.
So, me being in Johns shoes, do it for selfish reasons (sparing my own life) as much as for the common good, and I'd say the right/noble thing is to do it solely for the greater good, not for your own lifes sake.
xxhellspawnedxx 2 years ago
It's interesting though... Not killing the three peasants accused of murder, to maintain ones' moral code/not damn your soul (if you believe in such things as sin and damnation), isn't that kinda selfish as well? Saving your own conscience/soul, and in the process sentence 60 other persons to death... Both ways are wrong, as killing other people should be avoided, but I'd say the lesser of two evils is killing those three.
xxhellspawnedxx 2 years ago
well im not a very guilt ridden person so i can say w/o a doubt id beat them to death. Ill be damned if im going to die along with 60 other people who commited no crime because 3 people couldnt be peaceful.
00BrokenSoul00 2 years ago
I sat here thinking about this one for a while and i would most likley do the selfish thing of saying i wuld beat the 3 ppl then end up not doing and killingmyslef the fact that its not possible 4 me 2 have that thought in the back of my head reminding me what i did.
STUFFx72 2 years ago
If these three men were truly guilty of the killings of the soldiers then they have committed a crime, regardless if the victims were Nazis. Then executing them would be a sort of justice. I would also try to bargain for giving them quick death is return for my doing the deed.Soldiers killing civilians and civilians not in uniform killing soldiers are both crimes under the laws of war. Your duty is to the living.
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
I feel like a monster for saying this but:
1. I should make the beating quick, going for blows in the head so they die instantly. The rules were made clear. You kill, then innocents are killed because of you. It's unfortunate but they brought this death upon themselves.
2. To save the lives of the many I would take the lives of the few.
GrrricaPeace 2 years ago 2
To end this, I would say that in a way, it is an easy decision to make. Unless the village leader is absolutely certain that the death of 60 of his villagers would raise them to the point where they would rise up and fight the Nazis at all costs, then the clear choice is to kill the 3 because to not kill the 3 when you are uncertain of how the villagers will react is nothing more than letting your pride control your decisions. And as they say, "Pride goeth before the fall."
bjseerus 2 years ago
I am surprised at just how different I think about this situation. The numbers of lives that will die did not even enter into my consideration of which to decide.
On the one hand, if I refuse to kill the men, then I send a message to the Nazis that I will not submit to them, that they cannot get me to do their killing for them. The question is whether or not this will instill fear of the Nazis into the villagers, or rage that the Nazis are killing their friends and families.
bjseerus 2 years ago
(cont.) If fear, it is a bad choice, for it reinforces Nazi rule. If rage, it will pave the way for rebellion.
On the other hand, if I do kill the men, I could put the Nazis into a false sense of security that I could use to my advantage. The only problem with this is whether or not the member of the village will still trust me, and whether or not I could live with myself knowing that, even if it was to trick the Nazis, I had done their bidding.
bjseerus 2 years ago
Thus, I would have to determine if by dying my martyrdom would pave the way to my people's freedom, or if they need my leadership.
I also think that it is important to ask the question, "Would I refuse to kill the 3 because I take pride in that I would never kill, or would I refuse because I will not give in?"
In conclusion, The decision that I would make would be to kill the three men and make the Nazis think they can trust me, because an unsuspecting enemy is the easiest one to kill.
bjseerus 2 years ago
Logically, the correct choice would be to beat the three to death to save not only myself, but the sixty villagers.
But, to actually be face to face with them; look them in the eye as I viciously extinguish there life, makes it a difficult task. I believe logic would still take over, but it would be a sickening experience.
CollegiateOfTheFist 2 years ago
If it meant saving 60 life's ud have no choice even if it did haunt u the rest of ur life
deadsnowman83 2 years ago
ok so 3 non-trained civilians where able to kill 20 trained soldiers who the fuck did that happen and don't say it was guerrilla warfare because they fuck that up then oh and to answer the question i would be on a fucking train to a death camp yer i'm a jew so what
Mitchboy26 2 years ago
i also should kill them because it will increase my chances of owning 100% of the island some day in the near future, for inst. if i start secretly killing Nazis to get the remaining villagers killed too.
paarsefrikandel 2 years ago
i would kill any 1 the nazi guy wants me to kill to save my own fat ass
paarsefrikandel 2 years ago
well, I could kill the 3 with a minimal amount of further pain, so i would chose that option =]
872463051 2 years ago
The level of consciousness of the three beaten men, may infuence my decision.
moneyjarrod 2 years ago
Kill the 3 villagers, they are going to die anyway and doing it yourself SAVES 60 lives...plus, you are in no position to do OTHERWISE at that time.
Then poison every fucking bite of food and drop of drink the nazis take from the village.
Or, if you can't -
Get a dozen villagers together (i.e. the friends and relatives of the 3) at a later night, slit the throats of the nazi barracks guards, chain the barracks doors, AND BURN THE FUCKERS ALIVE!
What *I* would do is rage-attack the leader :(
Strutinan 2 years ago
I feel like I'm in school, p.s u could be a teacher xx
gretulytea222 2 years ago
Kill all the male villiagers, raid their food stocks, steal their cattle, capture their women into slavery, sow the ground with salt where they once reaped grain.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Kill the 3 guilty persons, if they can prof its them. Since they knew the rules, and they acted apon it. So they prob hade a plan thinking there 3 lives was worth killing as many german soilders as they could..... I dont agree on the matter but that Is what I think.
TheWolfbane 2 years ago
i'd kill the nazi leader
Inquisitiveification 2 years ago
No, it's an easy question. I'd rather have a net benefit on life than a net loss. I'd have to muster up my guts and brutally and inhumanely murder three men by hand. It would be hard to DO that but the question of whether or not to do it is simple.
FFRQ 2 years ago
The correct figure was 1:100 in Yugoslavia
Clearly, from a pragmatic point of view, both in terms of the "overlord protector" figure and in terms of self preservation the correct answer is to kill the three that were guilty.
Clearly those men who killed already made their choices, they accepted the fact that they might die. This is in addition to the fact that they were fighting, most probably, for the villagers themselves. They want not only their own freedom, but freedom for their neighbors.
targetfixed 2 years ago
If the other 60 weren't involved I should not kill the three but I probably would (assuming the other three weren't my offspring etc). With the other 60 involved I should and would kill the three.
Artifactorfiction 2 years ago
of course the answer is easy, I'd kill the three men
I want to save my own life, and 3<60
however, the Nazi's probably wouldn't stick to their word and end up killing everyone anyway
apbrit2009 2 years ago
I would have to go with the utilitarians. It would save more lives, plus my own, and I don't want to die.
Killing 60 would anger the villagers, causing more killing. 3 villagers responsible being killed would scare them, preventing more killing.
And it's not every day you'd be better off to kill someone. Am I the only one who's curious about the experience?
Then, just in case things go badly in the future, I'd sneak off the island. Go ahead, condemn my cowardice.
qwexas 2 years ago
id allow the death of the whole village.... if 3 guys killed 20 nazi i can guess that the whole village could have fought off the nazi as a whole... and being a dick id kill the village for being cowards and id died only to be remembered as a ruthless but principle guided leader... history books love that sort of stuff
bloodylover101 2 years ago
Well, although killing those 3 would be like betraying the villagers, I think killing the 3 men would be the right thing to do.
John has told them of the consequences of killing the Nazis but they didn't care so in a way those 3 are putting the lives of 60 people on the line. They should be killed without remorse since they have betrayed their fellow islanders.
Conoclast 2 years ago
killing the men is the only thing that makes sense to me. even if it's a hard choice to kill men with your own hands, it's still better because these three men knew that there was a deal with the nazis. so they fucked up and broke the only rule they were not allowed to break.
MCK35 2 years ago
kill a few save alot? nope. I will not take a life to save a life.
freexspirit1 2 years ago
Well, my ethics are mostly utilitarian. So I'd say that the right thing to do would be to kill the 3 to save the 60. If all human life is equal, saving more lives just makes sense. I know these situations aren't easy, but I think it takes a strong person to do what is right when it feels wrong. I would definitely do it. I'd talk to them, try to convince them this is the right thing to do. Then I would try to get it over with quickly.
juggernot325 2 years ago
Is fighting back allowed? Just asking.
I would probably tell the villagers to fight back - along with myself helping them. I mean, if they made me kill the 3 people, they'll eventually turn on the rest of us by proposing more ultimatums and slaughtering more of us. Bad people aren't to be reckoned with. At least I would have tried hard enough to fight back without giving in and letting them take us over. The chances are we all will be dead sooner or later even if I did kill the 3 people only.
slxdragon 2 years ago
You kill the men
Utilitarianism
fewest people get killed
oober349 2 years ago
Comment removed
chucknorrisjutsu 2 years ago
Comment removed
chucknorrisjutsu 2 years ago
Comment removed
chucknorrisjutsu 2 years ago
the thing that you are meant to do is kill yourself and the other people because it is seen as the right thing to do because you are not taking the cowards way out but i would kill the three people because it saves the other 60 people
totallyboredtodeath 2 years ago
youshould kill your self and 64 people but the right thing to do would beat the shit out of those three guys
samfesssin 2 years ago
i would have to (and i hate to do it) chose the 3 men. i would try to find a away to make it a quick beating. like a blunt object to the temple of the head. but i still would feel bad.
i would tho rather give up my own life in exchange for all 63 people, i would like to ask them. if i let you torchered, rap, and beat me to death would you spare the lives of all. but inside i know this would do nothing. they would take me up on this and then kill everyone latter. so this would fail, but still.
jeffwolfheart 2 years ago
I understand enough about maral dillemmas to get why this is not an easy question to answer. However, I still think my solution would be to kill the three men, primarily to avoid the death of further individuals. One thing you must realize is that you are having this dillemma imposed on you and ultimately the only ones truly doing something wrong are the ones imposing it on you .
Plus (not to be too morbid) you could simplify things by breaking their necks rather than beat the life out of them.
steveb0503 2 years ago
although i realise the complexity of the circumstance and the difficulty in deating 3 men to death, i would bring myself to kill them as A) they had been warned B) the lives of the 60 outweigh the lives of the 3 and C) it is the logical thing to do. I would probably suffer great emotional stress bringing myself to it, but id just remind myself of the alternative. in the end my sanity and a good nights sleep, does not jutify allowing 64 men and women to die. (not to mention I'll be dead)
Manford5847 2 years ago
I would say that John should kill the three men because John did tell them what the rules were and what would happen if any the nazi's were killed so that makes me think they did it for bad ness. ? Yes?
SinkningShips 2 years ago
Comment removed
SinkningShips 2 years ago
yes i would kill them
hit them one time hard in the neck with the rifle to break their neck and save the rest of the villagers
i mean their dead anyhow so better to do it yourself and to save 61 lives then to let everyone die.
chrisowh 2 years ago
This makes me think about the Holocaust and slavery. The number of villagers most likely greatly out numbers the Nazis. Ask the leader one day to decide(giving you more time is always good for planning). During that night orchestrate a surprised attack during the night.
PapaDeltaRomeo 2 years ago
To answer the question either of the ways you want us to would assist the Nazis helping them with their cause. I am required to answer this contrary to the way you wanted
PapaDeltaRomeo 2 years ago
its simple math, save 61 lives by taking 3, or lose 64.....there is a greater good here. Be objective, no one person's life should be more heavily weighted than any other person. Would be th easiest decision of my life. Sure it may 'haunt' me for a little while, but as someone stated earlier, I just saved many lives.
umsmykal 2 years ago
It would be much harder to answer if it was you had to kill the three murderers and then the nazis would kill you, or save the three murderers and they'd spare you but kill the 60 villagers.. in my opinion anyway
NiMur90 2 years ago
I would commit suicide and let everything solve for itself without me taking any other life.
ShadowAlin 2 years ago
I wouldn't do either of those, I'd call Chuck Norris & he'd beat the shit out of the whole nazi war machine in 5 seconds then throw Hitler into the middle of the Sun, Go Chuck!
kingsman565 2 years ago
In here, is the use of the utilitarianism philosophy, by John S. Mill. Now, what I would do is beat down the three men that killed the Nazis, which also is the thing I would do as well if this would had been real. Why? Because I know none of the sixty villagers wish to die, and sincerely, neither do I. However, I would not had done it for myself, but for the others. Plus, the three man are barely alive. I know they would leave the three men till death after they kill the sixty villagers, and me.
FreeThought10 2 years ago
Why I say this? For goodness sake, they are Nazis. Forgiveness is not in their mind, specially to those who had murdered Nazis. I would also finish the pain of those three that had murdered the Nazi soldiers. In conclusion, I will save the sixty villagers and myself, and finish the pain of the three men that are barely alive.
FreeThought10 2 years ago 2
Simple question providing one thing... evidence. If I know for a fact that they are guilty, I would readily beat them to death. Reason- They knew that each one they killed would cost 3. They were willing to murder 57 of there own people by their actions. That makes them murderers. It may sound messed up but I am a man of situation. In this situation I would regret that 3 of my people had such little care for their fellow villagers. Especially since they would die anyways. Yea...not hard. ~TTFN!~
Shadeeri 2 years ago
well from a tactical standpoint i would side step from the nazi officer, do an armbar take down on him, tell his platoon to drop there weapons since i do have a commanding officer in charge, and easliy dispose the officer with a snap to the neck. semper fi. thats y i love being a marine.
latinelover24 2 years ago
A though question but I would certanly prepare to atleast try killin the men on the fence because although it may haunt me i would keep reminding myself about all the people i saved.
A good thing is you could crack their neck to kill them
mullymyster 2 years ago
It is, in fact, a really easy question. 60 lives and your own, versus 3 murderers' lives? Blunt object, please.
110389053191 2 years ago
i dont know. thats a really hard thing to think about. i guess i would kill the three men, but the thing is, i dont know if i would be able to physically beat them to death. id get too emotionally fucked. but thinking about all the other innocent people that is what i would want to do.. but really if put in a situation like that one, i'd really have a tough time. It would be easier just to die. but :\ that's selfish.
lethality1992 2 years ago
I love life i would KILL THE GUYS ON THE FENCE.........
dbh35963 2 years ago
I'd beat everyone. Dudes on the fence, nazis, civilians. . myself
ABitwize 2 years ago
The only reason the nazis would have to ask me to do the killing would be to enlist me as their ax man. And since they're trying to force me to do it in a brutal way, they're probably trying to make me look more brutal to the villagers than they are. I'd figure the whole situation was contrived for this purpose and demand to see the 20 bodies.
schnotzarella 2 years ago
I would ask for an appeasement.
CryoSect 2 years ago
i do one
i know i would cuz why spare the killers when i can keep 60 harmless people including myself safe from them
xxhatemysoulxx 2 years ago
It's easy. I'd beat those poor bastards to a FURTHER pulp but it would be the hardest thing I could ever do. It's a loose loose no matter how you slice it, not sure there is a clear should here (save body counting) Self preservation is a huge factor, and the larger death toll another. The personal contact killing is a strong deterrent, but it is trumped by self preservation and the alternative higher body count. I'll take my chances at community retribution vs. certain death.
jonstewartfanboy 2 years ago
I'd get naked, and beat the three fuckers that started this shit to death, and I'd run around naked screaming crazy and obscene shit. ;-D
UnknownRapArtist007 2 years ago
I really do not see the challenge in this question, the bad guys have the guns so they are in charge.
Obviously the three guys knew the risk and would not want other people to die for there chance at paybacks.
fartwimp 2 years ago
well if it was up to me id kill the 3 men. i may not like it and sure as hell would grieve about it later but to save the majority would be better for the society. to be honest that decision would have my life in the balance sense i value mine but i don't think a massacre would be the better choice.
ricolareaper 2 years ago
I'd kill the 3 men.
maddiexnicole 2 years ago
i would have to say that the right thing to do i think would be to kill the three men (sacrificing the few in exchange for the betterment of the whole)
and my decision personally would be to kill the men just for the mere fact it would save my own life (the only one i get)
ZechRas 2 years ago
well, this kinda goes back to the whole death penalty thing. these three men are murderers, but they are people. in my opinion, these men would rather die than have the nazis brutally kill their friends and family. and if these men were as brutally beaten as she described, they probably couldnt receive proper medical attention, esp with nazis around, and would die anyway. soldiers have to kill in war for the greater good all the time. its hard, but its war
bookwormie08 2 years ago
I think I would let the nazis kill me just because I can't imagine killing a person. But to save others I should choose the first
kindergardencrush 2 years ago
i honestly dont know. i have been a pacifist all my life, a bit of a hippy you might say. lol. it may seem like an easy question to some, but for me its horrifying to even think about making a decision like that.
sarahrox421 2 years ago
I'd go ninja on the Nazi leader.
skaterccchick 2 years ago 2
LOL cute answer
ohhhshitson 2 years ago
If no one is lying...
I would kill the three men.
I'm not going to waste 61 people's (including myself) lives over 3. Yes, it does set a bad example, being overwhelmed by nazis without resistance, but retaliating in that situation achieves nothing but civilian death.
L0ckon 2 years ago
I'd kill the Nazi leader, crack his skull wide open with the rifle...Why? there will come a point when I'm no longer USEFUL to him I'm dead anyway,
who knows maybe my actions will Inspire the villagers to fight back.
I honestly would rather be dead than have this guy make me his bitch wondering what I'll have to do the next time he offers to SPARE my life.
grayman404 2 years ago 2
Get the consensus fromn the villagers first then attack the Nazi's because once they invaded you were already fucked.
kenpojoe815 2 years ago
NO NO THATS NOT WHAT I WOULD DO!
i would ask the natzie leader what evidence he had against the 3 men
xCherryGloss 2 years ago
i think i would turn around and run away
xCherryGloss 2 years ago
As I oppose execution, I could not kill the three men. I understand that it would lead to my own death.
tetsubo57 2 years ago
option 1
LuvM3Hat3M3 2 years ago
i'd kill the three on the fence. I'm not going to trade off the lives of 60 people and myself in order to keep a clean conscience.
Peewee1460 2 years ago
i should probably kill the three men because it would be saving 60.
But i would first see if i could sacrifice myself to save each and every person in the island, if they wouldnt agree to that then i would offer them their own peice of land to talk them out of killings
camcore4 2 years ago
i guess i would break their necks...lol so it would be over quick. However, there may be a better tactic i may need to learn in case i'm in that situation. lol It would be mentally hard but justification would come from the 60 other people and myself being put at risk by those 3. Maybe if they wanted to start killing the Nazi's off, they should have had a meeting with the village.
ccaskins1 2 years ago
first of all - don't trust a nazi
jfeuiebf 2 years ago
still hot
TeckTheDeck 2 years ago
Its irrational to save 3 instead of 60, assuming that all villagers are equally good people, saving 60 and gaining more time, is clearly better than trying to prove to someone, (who probably doesnt care about your morals anyways) that by not killing 3 people you are showing some kind of "principle" and letting 63 people (including yourself) die. You should sacrifice "peace of mind" for the lives of 60. This buys you time to plan a revolt, a counter attack, or escape...its what I would do.
anaki228 2 years ago
I would kill the 3 guys.But I dont think thats what I should do.Because I dont really want to have to live with the guilt of know that I killed those people.But on the other hand I think that would be the reason that I would take the other one because I wouldnt have to live with the guilt of the people dying.
6Heada6Man6 2 years ago
This is an extremely easy question to answer, I would kill the 3 men. Had it been that the nazi's just threatened my life I would not, but being that 60 other people would most likely die if I didn't then yes that is the smart choice, plus it would be fairly necessary to put those 3 men out of their misery as well.
zsmorr92 2 years ago
i would (as sad as this sounds) beat the three men, if they're barely alive then y not end there suffering quickly. greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people). im not sure what i should do but thats what i would do.
zack2070 2 years ago
If I shoot myself first, I really won't care what happens after that. lol
biologyprodigy 2 years ago
you should kill the three men. if you dont the nazis will kill them anyway + everyone else and you
what would i have actually done?
ran screaming like a little girl
aridinal 2 years ago
pff u serious? i would just raise my power lvl to beyond NINETHOUSAND!!! and defeat cell!!!111
masterpi3 2 years ago
I would kill the 3 men.. cause they already murdered 20 people!!. also. would you rather have 3 men die or 61? including children and babies??
Glenniecherrie 2 years ago
You should let everyone die. These are Nazis we are talking about. Even if they live, the Nazis will make their lives an unbearable hell, and they will likely end up killing many of the villagers anyway, so why drag it out.
However, I would kill the 3 men. It would be an emotional torment, but the prospect of hope for myself and the villagers for survival would force me to do it.
trstmeimadctr 2 years ago
what you should do is kill the three men because if you don't they will die anyway, and so will the 60 villagers and you.
I would kill the 3 guilty men even though their only gult is protecting their island because i would want to save the 61 innocents including myself.
StrangersCandy1248 2 years ago
kil the three men saving 61 lives but loosing 3 lives of guilty men. because they killed 20 nazis witch they knew the consiquinces
collin1010 2 years ago
would: an eye for an eye, if those people killed 20 Nazi soldiers than they should be killed too. they knew the circumstances, yet went against them. there are innocent citizens and i would want to protect them, they shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of others.
SenorHappy87 2 years ago
should: I would want to save everybody... haha, maybe i could talk in a possible "3rd" choice. the leader leaves the island before i (john) tell the people to revolt against the invaders. they are after all being imperialistic dicks. Live free or die trying and all that jazz i suppose.
SenorHappy87 2 years ago
I would be woopin some ass.
lol.
Laurahoezz 2 years ago
you should do number 1
if u do it 61 ppl are saved and only three dead .. if u do it the nazis wont get the pride of murdering !
I <3 u laci and u converted me 2 atheism
just saying haha
x
aspenihate2 2 years ago
i feel this is farely easy, as all were informed of the risks and consiquences. those three made a choice on behalf of the village when they had absolutely no right. 60 lifes to be lost for the ignorence of three men. though the lost of life is tragic in any situation, this one beholds its own moral and legal(modern law) justifaction. in conclusion those three made a decision without the right to, and would pay the price for the redemtion of those they openly chose to risk.
Steelwolf696 2 years ago
I would use my dobby powers to free everyone, and then we would all go and live on An Island in the middle of the pacific and have lots of parties.
samizdaking2009 2 years ago
self preservation i wanna live and it will also spare 60 innocent civilans
JL1993219 2 years ago
well i know it sounds unrealistic but i would try and reason with the nazi leader to take my life and spare the villegers do what they must with the men who murderd their own but let the other 60 be they did nothing take my life insted of theirs it probably wouldnt work but is worth a shot.
aktoughgirl 2 years ago
I think I would kill them to spear the 60 other peoples and my life.
j1s92 2 years ago
In order to answer this question you must question your own morality and conclude if a guilt free conscience is possible, knowing that three villagers, who are murderers, died at your hands.
atb448 2 years ago
Again, by the circumstances of the given proposition the nazi leader can still rightfully take the lives of 60 innocent civilians along with John himself, totaling in 64 homicidal fatalities, only one more death than problem #1 would succumb. Therefore, this problem depends on the personal morality of the given individual that would represent the position of "John" as well as the narcissism of the given individual.(to be continued)
atb448 2 years ago
Therefore, by circumstances of the "peaceful" proposition, the nazi leader can still rightfully take the lives of 60 villagers, totaling a maximum of 63 dead villagers, along with the three that died at your hands, despite the claim made by the nazi leader to spare the lives of 60 innocent villagers. In problem #2 you say that the nazis are going to be the ones murdering the three murderers, NOT the nazi leader himself. (to be continued)
atb448 2 years ago
I may be over thinking the scenario but seeing as the nazi leader said "For every soldier of mine that your civilians hurt or murder, I'm going to kill 3 of your civilians", the "I'm" implies that the nazi leader plans on fulfilling the murders PERSONALLY. In problem #1 John would be killing the three villagers personally. (to be continued)
atb448 2 years ago
I would kill the three men.
glitterflysammy 2 years ago
Although I would feel really bad for killing someone, I would have to kill the three men. He, after all, did warn them about the situation and the three men decided on their own, knowing the consequences, to kill those nazis. They brought it upon themselves. The other 60 lives, including his, are innocent. They shouldn't be punished for what the three did.
lbpira 2 years ago
i wud kill the beat up guys they r allready dying anyway and then i would gather a copple of ppl and jump the nazi ppl
if they belive in god i wud push god up their buthole while i kick their nazi ass.
but what i should do is ask if they wud spare their life for one more day while the next of the day goes by i would gather a lot of ppl and kill the nazi in their sleep.
but i like wat i wud do better cus im mean that way and proud...yeah!!!!
sassy741 2 years ago
I'd walk up to one of the three almost-dead men, punch his nose into his brain, rip out his jawbone, and go fuckin crazy and kill every nazi bastard on that island!!!
horsesandmountains 2 years ago
what i would and should do would be to beat the 3 men to death. i could do it quickly, they are almost dead. By killing these three murderers, i would save 61 innocent peoples lives. Thats it.
SeansWhat 2 years ago
In short I am not certain what is the right choice but I am quite certain that I would not beat them to death. However, given the fact that my own life was at stake... people do unexpected things in such situations... I can not positively say that I would not kill them since I have never been in such a position. Also, if my own life really was at stake maybe the reasons for doing it would all of a sudden seem much more reasonable? Plus all the adrenalin. Still I have a feeling that I wouldn't
faarsight 2 years ago
Of course given that any military force acted in that way I would do what I could to harm them myself. But really everything depends on the circumstances, it is so hard to generalize. For example, if there was a chance that the crime could be brought to the attention of the international community then maybe my responsibility would be to survive so that I could testify against them in Haag?
faarsight 2 years ago
I would not kill them. The reason is that I would not agree to play along in such a cynical game. I I had to die for that conviction then fine. I would of course feel bad for the 60 people who would also have to die with me, however, to begin with I would not trust the Nazi leader on his promise and also acting like that would cause more opposition against the Nazi for their crimes. I would refuse to take any moral responsibility for the Nazi choosing to shoot 60+ villagers, that is their choice
faarsight 2 years ago
I can agree that in principle the moral thing would be to kill the three men given 1: an absolute certainty (or close to that) that the promise would be kept and 2: that the invaders did not represent such a despicable ideology (such as Communism or Nazism).
In that case I would have to set myself above my disgust and kill them by any means forced upon me just to save the life's of the 60 people. They had done what they considered to be right and been caught, they'd die anyway.
faarsight 2 years ago
i would say, take me instead.
but i guess in this case that wouldnt work...i guess i would kill the 3 men, i would hate to be put into a situation like that
Totalnarutofanatic 2 years ago
The moral thing to do would be to beat the 3 men to death. You save 61 lives and any guilt you might feel at murdering these people should be outweighed by the lives you saved. The three men are going to die anyway so its completely selfish to refuse saving 60 lives because you dont want to get your own hands dirty. Having said this you might find you behave illogically under that kind of pressure. Still killing the 3 men is the moral option.
ondrujeh 2 years ago
Before I answer, I'd like to ask why the civilians murdered twenty nazi, even though they knew that they had condemned 60 other villagers.
Just wondering.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have the guilt of killing, but either way the guilt is in my hands.
The thing that would freak me out would be actually beating the men, but since they're already nearly dead, I don't think it would take too long, or be too much more painful for them.
I'd really rather spare as many people for as long as possible
MokonaKupo 2 years ago
With the assumption that the deal is "legit," my opinion tends to be that if the positive effects outweight the negative ones, then its a good action to do. To kill three men and spare 61 is the lesser of two evils. Murder in general is obviously a bad thing but since it is going to happen, it might as well be by my hands... I would look for the fastest possible way to beat them to death since that is the manner specified. I can't imagine myself doing it any other way.
rocker341dan 2 years ago
i'm a sociopath so i'd make him a deal. if he gives me a gun, i would kill the 3 guys and the other 60, just to spare myself.
if he refuses, then i would beat them to death.
but this is from someone who doesn't think like most human beings.
ohmyfsm 2 years ago
CONT... as well as killing the villagers.
The only moral action in this case is to not comply with the Nazi's. This might mean your death (but by no means guaranteed), but it certainly is the more moral option in my opinion.
deconverts 3 years ago
Who is giving you the choice? The Nazi's?
Ok, well in this instance we know the Nazi's are not to be trusted. Their intentions are clearly to cause terror by torturing innocents. According to your story, there was no evidence, and no trial. Assume therefore that if you chose the "lesser of two evils" option that you would not be in control in order to prevent the second evil being carried out. That is to say, if you beat the three guys to death, the Nazi's may kill you anyway, as well as ..CONT
deconverts 3 years ago