Ethical question?

Question

I read this in a book once. I have my own answer but I was always intrigued as to how other people would answer it.



You and another person are trapped underground in a mining accident. A rescue team is on its way but there is only enough air for one of you to survive until the rescue team arrives.

You have a gun and some sleeping pills. The other person, takes some pills, says "It's in God's hands" and falls asleep.

You have the gun in your hand. What do you do?

As a slight aside, my normally calm mild-mannered girlfriend answered thus :

Shoot him. He made his choice, I made mine.

Answer 1

Shoot him. If he's right, God will stop the bullet. If he's wrong, God doesn't care about people stupid enough to believe He exists.

Answer 2

Intuitive answer: I'd take some sleeping pills too. What the hell, how do I know exactly how much air two of us can breathe? If it was an accident, there is no way for me to tell with any real certainty. Perhaps, moreover, we use less air while sleeping, and it might save us both. I could never end another human life.

Deontological answer: If you shoot him simply so you can survive, you are using him as just a means to an end, so you would be acting immorally. If, on the other hand, you shoot him because you have some special knowledge that could save mankind and you feel it is your duty to make sure the public hears it, then you acted morally. It all depends on the situation and your intent in the proposed action.

Utilitarian answer: If you are a more valuable person to society, kill them. If they are a more valuable person to society, kill yourself.

Answer 3

It is a grand question, and a theoretical one, as you are unlikely to be sure that you would both be dead by the time the rescue team got through to you, if you do not kill one of you.

But in this scenario, most of us (60%) would probably shoot the sleeping companion, roughly 20% would shoot themselves, and 20% would still not shoot either person.

If the person was not selfish in this instant, I would say that the decision should be made in terms of who would have had the longer, healthier, happier life, and who would be more missed by more other people (eg dependants)? Perhaps a doing a 3/5 excercise out of the parts of this answer is the best answer to give. Unless you would argue that it is right to be brutally selfish at the expense of others, which I disagree with.

Answer 4

Did he take ALL the pills? If not, I would do the same, because that would increase both of our chances of survival.
I would not shoot either of us.

If he took all the pills, I would just sit there. I would probably pass out from lack of oxygen, and be the first to die, because the guy that took the pills is in a state that doesn't use oxygen as rapidly as I would. But at the same time, as I pass out, I use less oxygen, so I might live, in the end.

You need to narrow the parameters down to make it more of an absolute "ethics" dilemma. I can turn it into a science problem to maximize my own survival, not commit suicide, yet remain moral.

Answer 5

If he takes the pills then it seems he is willing to accept that he may die. So, I do nothing and wait. I don't shoot either one of us, because in both cases it would be murder. If there is enough air for both of us (assuming that the other being asleep will consume less), then all went well. If not and he dies, well he knew that was a possibility. If I die, well no hard feelings (and at least didn't commit suicide or homicide.)

If one the other hand I had choice, I would give him the gun and ask him to shoot me, so he can save all the air for himself. I would NOT kill myself as suicide is wrong. (I'm not sure though if it's still wrong in such wild scenarios. have always wondered!)

Answer 6

Depending on the mine I odnt htink it would be wise to fire a gun, due to the dust igniting. You could always use the end of the gun like a billy club. Just kidding, i am a very optamistic person and would try to find a positive solution. Is there a small draft detected any where, could i possibly find a simple way to let more in. If that failed i would try to fall asleep and hope that there would be enough time and air for us both to survive.

Answer 7

If he takes the pills, then it's a done deal. You wait until you get rescued. If he just falls asleep but is still alive, then you have a problem.

While it's better to be selfless, it's also an unforgivable sin to commit suicide, but why let two people die when killing one could save the other?

At this point, the most ethical answer would be to do nothing, and put the situation in God's hands, literally. If you aren't meant to die yet you won't die, if you are, then you will just have to accept your fate - God needs your soul for other things.

Just my opinion.

Answer 8

Take the bottle that the pills were in and empty the gun powder from all the bullets into it. Find something to secure it tight inside (peice of a sock?) and de-thread some of the material from a peice of clothing. I place the makeshift bomb near the entrance that I deem most easily broken through and attach the makeshift fuse accordingly.
I would then band two rocks together to create a spark, fart while the spark was in the area of the fuse and let it burn down!
Escape!

Answer 9

Mining rescue operations usually involve the drilling of shafts towards the area of rescue through which the forced pumping of heated breathable air sustains life at subterranean strati of the earth.

The premise of arguing the lack of air is rash and illogical.

Murder or suicide is inappropriate during, and negating of the purpose of a rescue attempt. Such behavior is considered not an effective sacrifice for the cause of saving lives.

Use of sleeping pills is also inappropriate where as any incapacitation of a participant victim creates more difficulty for the rescue attempt upon the period of extracting persons being freed from the mine.

Answer 10

Nothing...nothing at all. Talk to myself for a while, cry, curse, come to acceptance, rant, rave, think, hope. Each person is entitled to his hope. If I were to survive, and the other not, then I would mourn for the passing of another human being. If I did not survive and the other did, I would hope that the other would do the same. I don't believe, in ending life by my own will, nor do I believe in ending someone elses life so I can live. I may give my life, but never end it by my own hand..

Answer 11

Life is very precious & if at all, its known later that there wud have been atleast a little chance for both of us to survive then i wudnt be able to forgive myself.So i wudnt shoot the other person whoever that person is.If at all i get too tensed up i will have those sleeping pills & leave the rest to God.