the decisions of holy men
i know this isn't a very normal post but i wanted some opinions :)
Let's take a mental wander over to the land of D&D. Consider a paladin (lawful good) and a holy liberator (chaotic good). These guys (or gals) get special powers from their dedication to their chosen cause, and are just all-round nice dudes (or dudettes; this is the last time I'm going to do this so don't call the fem-police). They disagree on some core issues, though, and I think this is one of them:
A paladin or holy liberator wakes up one day, clapped in irons in a dank dungeon. His captor informs him that he has two other people imprisoned: a good person, and an evil person. The holy man is required to choose one of the two to be executed; if he doesn't choose, or tries to escape, both will be killed. He is also given enough information to be reasonably certain that there is no chance of escape - that is, to try would almost certainly be a death sentence for both captives.
Who would the paladin choose to die, and who would the holy liberator choose to die?
Here's what I think:
The paladin would choose for the evil person to die. He believes it to be reasonably certain that the two captives' moral character will not change in the short term, so that the good person would be more likely to perform good deeds in his or her remaining lifespan, while the evil person would be likely to continue a life of evil; he's taking into account the captives' effects on society in general.
The holy liberator would choose for the good person to die. He knows that the evil person would hate to die to save another, and that the good person would prefer to die to save another than have another die to save him or her. He's taking into account the captives' wishes, because they're the ones most directly affected by the event.
Two questions:
1) What would you do?
2) Do you think my evaluations are correct?
edits:
Elaborating on the good and evil people: the good one has committed countless good acts in his life and feels no regret; the evil one has committed countless evil acts in his life and feels no regret.
I spoke to a coworker about this tonight - he gave the response that he would feel free of responsibility by choosing not to answer, but offered an alternative question with no such copout answer: What if the same two people were going to die in a flood and you knew with certainty that you could save one and only one? Anyone who feels the way my coworker did about the original question can answer this one instead. :)
Let's take a mental wander over to the land of D&D. Consider a paladin (lawful good) and a holy liberator (chaotic good). These guys (or gals) get special powers from their dedication to their chosen cause, and are just all-round nice dudes (or dudettes; this is the last time I'm going to do this so don't call the fem-police). They disagree on some core issues, though, and I think this is one of them:
A paladin or holy liberator wakes up one day, clapped in irons in a dank dungeon. His captor informs him that he has two other people imprisoned: a good person, and an evil person. The holy man is required to choose one of the two to be executed; if he doesn't choose, or tries to escape, both will be killed. He is also given enough information to be reasonably certain that there is no chance of escape - that is, to try would almost certainly be a death sentence for both captives.
Who would the paladin choose to die, and who would the holy liberator choose to die?
Here's what I think:
The paladin would choose for the evil person to die. He believes it to be reasonably certain that the two captives' moral character will not change in the short term, so that the good person would be more likely to perform good deeds in his or her remaining lifespan, while the evil person would be likely to continue a life of evil; he's taking into account the captives' effects on society in general.
The holy liberator would choose for the good person to die. He knows that the evil person would hate to die to save another, and that the good person would prefer to die to save another than have another die to save him or her. He's taking into account the captives' wishes, because they're the ones most directly affected by the event.
Two questions:
1) What would you do?
2) Do you think my evaluations are correct?
edits:
Elaborating on the good and evil people: the good one has committed countless good acts in his life and feels no regret; the evil one has committed countless evil acts in his life and feels no regret.
I spoke to a coworker about this tonight - he gave the response that he would feel free of responsibility by choosing not to answer, but offered an alternative question with no such copout answer: What if the same two people were going to die in a flood and you knew with certainty that you could save one and only one? Anyone who feels the way my coworker did about the original question can answer this one instead. :)