Twenty-eight for the price of two
Those bargain executions in full.
Another ethics problem, but this time from the book on philosophy problems. You can wait for the conclusion to the story about the magnanimous man until tomorrow or perhaps the day after.
Today's story takes us to the fun-loving People's Republic of Diktatia (formerly the Autonomous Soviet Republic of Diktatskaya) where the national pastime is attacking the government. After one attack, the President orders the Security Minister (aka Uncle Bttplgg – yes, they speak one of those languages which thinks vowels are for sissies) to round up the thirty most likely suspects. They're given an ultimatum. They can either tell the authorities who was behind the attack, or they'll all be shot. If they feel like sharing, then two names will be expected.
In fact, none of them have the faintest idea who was behind the attack, but they're left with the question whether to save themselves, they should sacrifice two of their number. That seems better than everyone being killed, but is it ethical?
This is back to the question of numbers. It's not ethical, of course, but you can blame Uncle Bttplgg for that. Moreover, what difference will it make? The next time there's a bomb, they'll all be rounded up again, and then two more will killed, and so on. If, on each occasion, the two victims are innocent, they're losing their lives for no good reason. The resistance leaders may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb in that case.
Another ethics problem, but this time from the book on philosophy problems. You can wait for the conclusion to the story about the magnanimous man until tomorrow or perhaps the day after.
Today's story takes us to the fun-loving People's Republic of Diktatia (formerly the Autonomous Soviet Republic of Diktatskaya) where the national pastime is attacking the government. After one attack, the President orders the Security Minister (aka Uncle Bttplgg – yes, they speak one of those languages which thinks vowels are for sissies) to round up the thirty most likely suspects. They're given an ultimatum. They can either tell the authorities who was behind the attack, or they'll all be shot. If they feel like sharing, then two names will be expected.
In fact, none of them have the faintest idea who was behind the attack, but they're left with the question whether to save themselves, they should sacrifice two of their number. That seems better than everyone being killed, but is it ethical?
This is back to the question of numbers. It's not ethical, of course, but you can blame Uncle Bttplgg for that. Moreover, what difference will it make? The next time there's a bomb, they'll all be rounded up again, and then two more will killed, and so on. If, on each occasion, the two victims are innocent, they're losing their lives for no good reason. The resistance leaders may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb in that case.
Comments