An interesting dilemma involving rape.

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

Audacious
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:10 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania, United States

An interesting dilemma involving rape.

Post #1

Post by Audacious »

So you're in the middle of a giant stadium seating hundreds of thousands of people; on television, there are hundreds of millions and people watching the event you are involved in. You are a prisoner who was sold as a slave by the hypothetical government in question, and you happened to get sold to the only show which is required viewing in over thirty countries every evening.

In front of you is a seven year old child. If you do not rape the child with a heavy emphasis on violence, over thirty innocent people, including you and the child, will be tortured for days and then killed. Should you or should you not rape the child?

James

Choco
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:15 am

Post #11

Post by Choco »

Does anyone else get a creepy feel from the op of this thread :roll:

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #12

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

In such a society as this, there is clearly ethical issues going on that are outside your control. Whether or not you "save" the lives of the other people doesn't even matter at this point. Your requirement is to act ethical on your own behalf and this will hopefully make other people strong enough to do the same.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #13

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

McCulloch wrote:Cooperating with an unimaginably evil system is not ethically correct. I could not condemn the person who may be coerced into doing an evil act, but to go along with this system would be to condone and perpetuate it. The choice to torture and murder the hostages is not with the coerced victim but with those who set up this scenario.
Oh. I didn't realize there was a previous page to this thread. I thought I was the first to answer the question but I guess McCulloch already answered in quite the similar manner I did :-). But, like usual, McCulloch said it more... what's the word... better with the words and the choosing for understanding bit...

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that people would choose to "save" the greater number, but it rather disturbs me. It's this mentality that allows evil to continue and perpetuate. People need to stand up for what is right. It's always best to set the example. Let the evil men be evil, but you, you be good; hopefully others will admire and follow.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
pixelero
Apprentice
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:29 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: An interesting dilemma involving rape.

Post #14

Post by pixelero »

[Replying to post 1 by Audacious]

I'm sorry to inject a note of realism into this hypothetical situation, but wouldn't one's raping of someone else involve a certain physiological condition of a certain organ, a condition that would be extraordinarily difficult to attain under the conditions you've described, unless one were a sadistic pedophile.

Whenever such hypothetical "moral dilemma" questions are asked of me, be it pulling railway switches, pushing fat men off bridges, or raping children, I always answer the same way: I'd do nothing. Taking an evil action to prevent another, (always claimed to be worse,) action, means adopting a certainty of outcome that I, as a devout agnostic, am not willing to adopt. (It's that kind of "certainty" of the future that's used to justify atrocities such as dropping atomic bombs on cities.) What if I pull the rail switch and save a few workmen, only to cause the train to run head-on into another train, with a much greater loss of life? In your scenario, how do I know that the authorities aren't testing me? Perhaps if I'm willing to sacrifice myself and others, we'll all be spared. Or perhaps God, or Superman, or the People's Revolutionary Army will suddenly appear and save the day. Okay... I've strayed a bit from realism, I suppose.

Nevertheless, this is a hypothetical situation, so there is possibly something I might do. I could mercifully break the child's neck then throw myself at any guards or authority figures in the vicinity and fight to the death, perhaps calling on my fellow slaves to revolt and die like men rather than wait around like sheep to be tortured to death.

In any case I wouldn't do as instructed; I'm sure I wouldn't be able to anyway, even if I wanted to.

User avatar
Charming Anarchist
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: An interesting dilemma involving rape.

Post #15

Post by Charming Anarchist »

Audacious wrote: You are a prisoner who was sold as a slave by the hypothetical government in question,
Replace "hypothetical government" with an evil god or master and your scenario will make better sense ---- albeit still an internal cognitive dissonance with what we all know about science.

I get a kick out of atheists who paint scenarios whereby the underlying premise is one of omniscience and the ability to foresee the future.




[Replying to post 2 by Haven] I reject consequentialism too but for a different reason: none of us can predict the future.

The hypothetical situation presented in the OP is objectively no different from forcing a subject into a laboratory and doing twisted psychological experiments upon him to test his faith and or submission to authority. Only a fool would trust such an evil authority figure but it would not be the first time that happened.





Darias wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Cooperating with an unimaginably evil system is not ethically correct. I could not condemn the person who may be coerced into doing an evil act, but to go along with this system would be to condone and perpetuate it. The choice to torture and murder the hostages is not with the coerced victim but with those who set up this scenario.
And you just summed up my views on voting, war, and a number of other things.
Me too! However, I take great strength in what Jesus said: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Give to God what belongs to God." or words to that effect. Both you and I know that Caesar was stealing that money through the form of taxation. Thus, none of it truly did belong to Caesar. Jesus was offering us a choice and an opportunity to test our own faith in God. We Christians believe EVERYTHING belongs to God.

Hatuey
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:52 pm

Post #16

Post by Hatuey »

Tough to say. Lesser of two evils should prevail, but other factors may prevail in the actual scenario. Obviously, in a real case where this was occurring , there would be whole sets of facts to consider other than just what is provided in the op. Personally, I might not be able to actually, physically do the deed. I have been in a several severe situations before, and although this is terribly embarrassing to admit, I have had my own genitalia completely retract inside my body due to the extreme circumstances I was under (kidnapping and torture). So perhaps I would not be able to do the act even if I wanted to save the people. But, I could write a four page long narrative introduction to this scenario that would cause almost any sane person to choose the rape and salvation of the group and the child.

In all cases, it would seem likely that I would want to cause as little harm and as much good as possible. So.....

And no, I'm not creeped out by the OP. Anyone who is should be completely horrified by the disgusting god of the bible, for sure.

User avatar
Deidre32
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am
Location: Somewhere else...

Post #17

Post by Deidre32 »

Basically, you would have to perform a heinous act as opposed to doing nothing and everyone dies. The latter you can't control. The former you can. So, I'd not do it and let the chips fall where they may.

Rape is always wrong. Always.
Anytime a person isn't consenting to sex and is forced violently or drugged or coerced in another way, that is rape and it is always wrong.

Given the scenario above, there are no winners. Either option. Doing something unethical in hopes of bringing about a positive will never happen.
Every silver lining, has a cloud.

User avatar
Mask of the Devil
Student
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:05 pm
Location: Italy

Post #18

Post by Mask of the Devil »

In front of you is a seven year old child. If you do not rape the child with a heavy emphasis on violence, over thirty innocent people, including you and the child, will be tortured for days and then killed. Should you or should you not rape the child?
Consequentialism. The most rational action is to choose the lesser evil.

Beside that, it's easy to say "I would not do that" but in front of neddle, whips and red-hot iron, I guess it would be way more difficult.

Also, most people would prefer to be raped and beaten than to be skinned alive 1 mm at time.

Ignoring that such a scenario is impossible,
Kim Jong, Hussein, Menghele and similar people of the past and the present done did something similar even if in a slightly less spectacular way.

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An interesting dilemma involving rape.

Post #19

Post by Jashwell »

[Replying to post 1 by Audacious]

Make whatever choice you want to, there's no real difference.
It's up to which you find a worse outcome.

Post Reply