What would Buddhism say in this situation...

Bluehair · 07-02-2006 7:24pm #1

Came across an interesting hypothetical dilema recently during my studies and would be facinated what those practising Buddhism would do in the following scenario and how their beliefs would guide the decision.

I probably don't need to on this forum but will point out that use of Kung-Fu or 'McGyver' style responses to the situation are invalid!

There are, as you will see, only two possible responses. Which you would choose and how you would justify it is the question.

Thank you to any who take the time to read it.

[by the way you can take a large dose of poetic license with the following, it's the situation thats important not the location etc.)

You're in the Jungle assisting poor refugees in a civil-war torn very poor nation. You come across a small village where the local warlord has three young men lined up ready to be shot. You try to intervene and he calmly explains that one of these men is guilty of stealing from him. Only the guilty man knows who he is and he refuses to admit guilt so all three are professing innocence. The warlord explains that therefore all three will be shot. You attempt to argue a defence that this, apart from being immoral, is wholly unfair on the innocent two. The warlord then decides to 'teach' you about unfair and offers a solution. If you pick one of the men and then shoot him yourself then the remaining two will be set free. If you decline to participate then all three will be shot anyway.

So your choice is simple; Take one life and save two or refuse to participate and allow all three to die.

What would you do and how would Buddhist teaching guide you in your choice.

Asiaprod · 08-02-2006 3:11am

Bluehair wrote:

Came across an interesting hypothetical dilema recently during my studies and would be facinated what those practising Buddhism would do in the following scenario and how their beliefs would guide the decision.

Great question:)

So your choice is simple; Take one life and save two or refuse to participate and allow all three to die.

Ah, you missed the third choice, which I think would be the correct action to take:

Explain once again to the warlord that life should be protected and how unfair it would be to let 2 innocent men pay the ultimate penalty for the crimes of the one guilty party. Since it appears that the warlord can only be appeased by seeing someone die, take the gun and offer to shoot yourself in place of the guilty party, providing the 3 men are let go.

Justification: A Buddhist does not fear death, which is just a gateway to something far far better:) Still, I would hate to have to make that choice

Goodshape · 08-02-2006 3:39am

very interesting. Although you'd have to be fairly trusting of the untrustworthy and ruthless warlord to think that he isn't simply going to kill the three of them once you're dead.

Would it not be wiser to simply kill one man at random -- safe in the knowledge that he is going to something far far better -- and let the other three of you live? Would there be a reason to not do it this way?

(is suicide better than [neccessary]-murder?)

Asiaprod · 08-02-2006 5:10am

Goodshape wrote:

Would it not be wiser to simply kill one man at random -- safe in the knowledge that he is going to something far far better -- and let the other three of you live? Would there be a reason to not do it this way?

Apart from the question of trust that the warlord would indeed keep his promise, I would not like to inherit the bad cause/karma that I believe would be incurred by the action of kiilling a possible innocent person. I would prefer to take the risk myself knowing that according to my belief I was doing something right and would inturn be making a just cause for the future. I would not view this course of action as suicide.

That does not mean that I will not kill out of self-defence. If some one attacked my family the choice would not even come into it. Must be the Tiger in me.:)

Asiaprod · 08-02-2006 5:57am

Goodshape wrote:

very interesting. Although you'd have to be fairly trusting of the untrustworthy and ruthless warlord to think that he isn't simply going to kill the three of them once you're dead

You know, there is also another way to look at this from a Buddhist perspective.
One could say with complete confidence that something in the 3 possible victim`s lives (past cause/current cause/Karma) has resulted in them to be in this current position. One could then stand by and watch it unfold. It is debatable if this is really acceptable without some kind of penalty being incurred by one`s failure to take action. I think one has to try to do something. In light of this, I will stick to the shoot myself option as being the safer option.

Goodshape · 08-02-2006 6:07am

Are you saying you could trust in karma (if thats the right word in this context) to ensure that you shoot the right person?

//edit
...oh no, sorry.. read it again:: you're saying that the THREE of them are there as a result of past deeds (and resulting bad karma). Still, would it be bad enough to die for is then the question. I see your point in sticking with your original answer.

Not a nice situation to be in in any case

plonk · 08-02-2006 6:18am

Get the gun off the warlord saying you will shoot yourself but then kill the warlord:)
You could also say that you were meant to be there. So you were meant to see this which will lead to changes in future events in your life

\but do you think you could shoot yourself to save the lives of 3 people youve never met before all of which could be criminals

Asiaprod · 08-02-2006 6:43am

Goodshape wrote:

...oh no, sorry.. read it again:: you're saying that the THREE of them are there as a result of past deeds (and resulting bad karma). Still, would it be bad enough to die for is then the question.

Yes that is the question. What I have stated is what I would do in principle. Could I do it if the situation really happened. I have no idea to be honest. I have responsibilities to others also.

One could only trust that one would do the correct thing if the situation ever came up. I will be interested to hear what Bluehair selected?:)

Asiaprod · 08-02-2006 6:52am

plonk wrote:

Get the gun off the warlord saying you will shoot yourself but then kill the warlord:)
You could also say that you were meant to be there. So you were meant to see this which will lead to changes in future events in your life

Both good points.
I would change point 1slightly and say hold the warlord at gunpoint and then the five of you walk out of there. I somehow feel that the warlord would be reluctant to get himself shot. Generally speaking, those who hold so little regard for the lives of others tend to hold their own life in great regard, so it would be a good option.
However, I am dealing with the ethics of the situation. So I will stick for the moment with the self sacrifice option unless someone else comes up with a better. I am sure one could also think of some way to discover which of the 3 was the real thief through some kind of trick questioning.:)

plonk · 08-02-2006 7:04am

Asiaprod wrote:

However, I am dealing with the ethics of the situation. So I will stick for the moment with the self sacrifice option unless someone else comes up with a better. I am sure one could also think of some way to discover which of the 3 was the real thief through some kind of trick questioning.:)

I was going to say that but didnt think you were allowed. Too easy.

coffee_cake · 08-02-2006 4:16pm

Asiaprod wrote:

One could only trust that one would do the correct thing if the situation ever came up. I will be interested to hear what Bluehair selected?:)

I only just noticed the person was called bluehair, heh. that's funny.

I personally would do everything I could to reason him out of shooting them. Not just to defend the people to be shot but to explain why taking a life is not a justification for stealing something, particularly minor. I think it would depend on what they stole, and to see if something less extreme would satisfy everyone as long as it was demonstrated that they were punished and learned their lesson.

I do not think I could take a human life like that unless it was a case of euthanasia. Heh, I was feeling majorly guilty for months after killing a ...daddylonglegs? ... that came into my room and freaked me out, so I really don't think I could do something on that level.

Asiaprod, I don't think offering to shoot yourself in their place is a good solution.
If the guilty person refuses to admit what they did and is happy to let other two people die alongside them, they're only going to be happy if someone they've never met before and don't care about dies instead. It won't show them that stealing is wrong - especially if being on the verge of shot hasn't done so - and they might just do it again.
The warlord also will still have a dead person he's never met before and doesn't care about on his hands and a thief at large. If the thief steals again, the whole situation will probably crop up again and who will be around to offer themselves in the place of the thief?

Suicide in this case sounds like a noble sentiment, but I don't think it would get anyone anywhere.

So in short my answer is to keep on trying to point out to the warlord why the whole thing is a bad idea. After that, if it doesn't work, I'll have to judge given the situation at the time.

I'm not sure how much buddhist teachings would apply to this beyond the whole life is precious thing, and yes, possibly advocate you offering to take the place of the three men. If it did any good.

Sinister · 08-02-2006 8:23pm

I dont see why he should interveve at all, he has as little a right to kill anyone (including himself) as the warlord has.
maybe he needs to experience the cruelty of man onto man, maybe the lesson to be learned is not his, but the 3 mens.
surely to a buddhist the only thing dying is the body not, for want of a better word, the soul. i thought to a buddhist death was just part of the journey.

The Free Man · 08-02-2006 8:33pm

a good question alright.

i would, as a buddhist, allow the warlord to make his own choice. but i would stress the point for a lengthy time to him that even in killing all 3 people, even if the thief is dead, he will end the lives of 2 completely innocent people. i would sit him down and talk about this point to him until it was solid in his head.

Bluehair · 08-02-2006 9:45pm

I thought this might stir some discussion

It's something of a 'Sophies Choice' in many ways, which is the lesser evil perhaps?

Suicide although not strictly a choice per the scenario did come up in the class and i'd tend to agree with Bluewolf here, although noble it would seem to serve no purpose right or wrong. Taking this route in the scenario results in four deaths rather than 'just' three.

At the time i elected to take one life to save two, my reasoning being one of simple pracmatism rather than ethics.

However my own thoughts have been leading me elsewhere (including here) recently so i thought it would be interesting to see how people would interpet Buddhist teaching to guide them in the scenario.

More recently i've thought that i would not intervene. Death is a part of life and although offered the chance to 'save' two lives it is via a method i cannot partake in. Within the scenario it is a dreadful situation but not of my making and i am not sure that facilitating an evil by participating in it (however good the intentions) is 'right' thinking or action.

caff · 08-02-2006 11:05pm

you can save two live or let them all die, if your beliefs dictate you save as many as you can then do so.

ask each man in turn without the others hearing the answers who should be shot. Might not help you any much but its trying. Worst comes to worst you toss a coin. You saved two men, innocent or guilty it doesn't matter. You could not have saved all of them. but you did save two. only good if life is precious to you.

Asiaprod · 09-02-2006 1:59am

Bluehair wrote:

I thought this might stir some discussion

It was a great question, throw out some more, anybody
.

Suicide although not strictly a choice per the scenario did come up in the class and i'd tend to agree with Bluewolf here, although noble it would seem to serve no purpose right or wrong. Taking this route in the scenario results in four deaths rather than 'just' three..

Sorry, maybe I misread something, but my answer was based on the fact that the remaining 3 were to go free. Therefore, It was one death to save 3 lives. Obviously I would not be prepared to throw away my life if the remaining 3 were also to die:).

At the time I elected to take one life to save two, my reasoning being one of simple pracmatism rather than ethics. More recently i've thought that i would not intervene. Death is a part of life and although offered the chance to 'save' two lives it is via a method i cannot partake in. Within the scenario it is a dreadful situation but not of my making and i am not sure that facilitating an evil by participating in it (however good the intentions) is 'right' thinking or action.

Now you have brought up the real question...As a Buddhist, does one try to do something or does one walk away? I honestly believe that one has to try to do something. Walking away creates a different evil, a very personal one in fact. Sure, one unfortunately got placed in a difficult situation that was not of ones own making. But by walking away, one creates a whole new cause.
Realistically speaking, each individual will interpret the teachings and make there own decision. IMHO From a Buddhist standpoint, the crime is that by taking the life of anybody you are in effect denying them the opportunity to reveal their Buddha nature. This is a no no in most schools of Buddhism. The only acception is self-defense. The good news, is that Buddhism empowers the individual to make the choice and does not condemn him for the choice made. The one who performs the action, gets to live with the result. Very fair in my book.

John Doe · 09-02-2006 1:31pm

If someone is secure in the belief that sacrificing their mortal body will just lead to a new and improved afterlife, is it not less selfish still not to sacrifice your mortal body but rather to accept the bad karma incurred (and damaging your immortal prospects) by killing one man and saving two? Even if, as is likely, one of the men you save is the thief he doesn't deserve death any more or less than the other two. It's a strange question really. What it boils down to is that no-one is capable of doing anything that isn't entirely selfishly-intended, by the very nature of the word selfish. We always do that which we think will make us happy. I'd love to start a whole thread on the topic of selfishness but I'm not sure if anyone would be interested.

hairyheretic · 09-02-2006 2:05pm

Asiaprod wrote:

The good news, is that Buddhism empowers the individual to make the choice and does not condemn him for the choice made. The one who performs the action, gets to live with the result.

Asatru would have a very similar outlook. You make the decision on what to do, and you deal with the consequences of your choice, good or bad.

Asiaprod · 09-02-2006 2:57pm

John Doe wrote:

I'd love to start a whole thread on the topic of selfishness but I'm not sure if anyone would be interested.

Then please feel free to do it. Its a good subject and very important to this group.

John Doe · 09-02-2006 3:07pm

Ok!

Bodhidharma · 09-02-2006 3:26pm

I wouldn't participate.

Of the three men, two are innocent. I'm pretty sure the warlord could find the real thief if he really wanted, either by taking them away seperately and questioning them or even torturing them. Whether he wants to actually find the real thief is debateable.

So as a buddhist i would look at it like this, try to convince the warlord to find the thief. If he will not, I will not do his dirty work.

If I shoot the wrong man, then thats bad for us, while being good for two evil people, the warlord and the cowardly thief. So no to that.

If i decline to get involved three will die. Two innocent, one guilty. Two will be unfairly killed.

The scenario is a tough one but ultimately it is not a question of Buddhism but Ethical Philosophy. As a Buddhist i would say that your physical body and your existance on earth is meaningless. So why are we giving these two people who are innocent any more meaning to the flies that are hovering around the warlord's head? They do not matter, nor does the thief or the warlord or you. The problem here is that the people who are about to be shot are attached to their lives. As a buddhist you should accept what happens. All you should be worried about is your own enlightenment, I dont mean that in a selfish way, rather be willing to accept things as they occur.

Or else of course you could shoot the warlord.

What would Buddhism say in this situation...

Comments