Question

My friend gave me an ultimatum (basically the trolley problem) in which I must either choose one person between two innocent people to be murdered or have both murdered in front of me if I did not choose.

My religious jurisprudence forbids me from killing anyone who is innocent. So I decided to not choose whether to save either person effectively letting both die.

My friend listened to my reasoning then said, since I chose not to intervene I am by extent committing an action, ergo therefore murdering two people instead of one.

I can follow their reasoning; however, I cannot find it true to my own understanding.

Is this true or false?

Answer 1

You put the matter in anothers hands, not yours. You chose not to kill them. Donʻt get mixed up with the technicalities, we know the truth. You didnʻt want them to die, but, you know not to be the one who chooses who lives and who dies. By making that choice not to act, you are putting it not in your hands, but in Godʻs.

Answer 2

Do you? We know not of what God would do in that case. Op, I say this. God knows our hearts, and what our intent is. He knows whether your actions are malicious or not, so if you are genuine and true in heart, you are fine. Technicalities are just word play from the red guy on your shoulder :)

Answer 3

I knew that both would die if I did not choose though, because of this does that make it an action, in which case I caused them their death? If I am the cause, would it not be better to kill one, and save the other that way I am still the cause but there is a more positive outcome.

Preferably I would like to see the main difference between the religious and secular thought. It is simple to implicate God, which is why I choose not too choose in the first place.

EDIT: Spelling.

Answer 4

@ShadowLegendX I do not like the red guy on my shoulder, he makes me loose sleep.

Answer 5

I get your point though.

Answer 6

To add on hat Shad said. It all goes to the intent. Yes, maybe the two beings that died might think that you were cruel but you in your heart knew that you did not mean harm. Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons behind not saving at least one person?

Answer 7

There's an adage "the road to hell is paved witrh good intantions", what this means any so called good intentions must be followed to fruition else it is not real. Christ said " a man that puts his hands to a plow and looks back is not worthy of heaven", where look back means doubt not in questioning what has transpired but in the reality of a sitituation and circumstance. Two question arise, when does a man put his hands to a plow? Is a plow put in your hands your plow or anothers, so is the question asked is it real, or just part of someone elses fantisy, therefore the one asking the question must supply the answer. To make the question more relavaent, say one is your son and the other a stranger, does this make a differeence in your answer, why? Both your children then what? It comes down to what do you take responsibility for in this world, everything, nothing, or just the part you precieve and seem to have control of.

Answer 8

There is no difficult position to explain. The entire situation has NOTHING to do with you, except that you might save one from the murderer.

The giver of the sadistic choice is the murderer in any case. Playing like you are the giver of death simply is ludicrous. Do not be confused by such foolishness.

I don't like this, either: "My religious jurisprudence forbids me from killing anyone who is innocent." Unless I know who is judging innocence or guilt, this is a very slippery slope. Of course, war is a challenge, here.

Answer 9

@tkhunny so would you save one person, and let the other die or save neither? From what I am understanding is you are saying that whatever choice I choose between those two, I am not to be burdened by either because the giver of the sadistic choice is at fault, correct?

> "My religious jurisprudence forbids me from killing anyone who is innocent." Unless I know who is judging innocence or guilt, this is a very slippery slope.

Not quite sure I catch what you mean. By slippery slope, do you mean the dangers of one taking the law (religious or non-religious) into their own hands?

Answer 10

Anaise time, well hopefully you believe in destiny and fate, I for one will search for another way out. And if it does come to this, God let it happened, perhaps a test maybe =)

Well, this might be a bad example, but remember those two men that were getting slightly the same crucification as Jesus? Long story short, one went to hell and one went to heaven even after his murderous intentions.

Now if I knew those two innocent people, I'd make a choice right off the bat, in my mind, I would attempt to save those two people. But they are random, pulled out of the hat, this is what I have to say, Who are you to choose someone's fate?

Cheesey Christian line: pray =)

My line: I actually would attempt to save one ...I myself am quite disgusted to agree with that ressurected man, but I would. Here's the catch,

Answer 11

I cannot completely answer because there can be many factors playing into the situation/predicament. Apparently tk would have no remorse, he would choose one and be done with it. Me? I'd be drowning in remorse.

@tkhunny eat some ice cream, it might melt that heart. People like you, I'd call somewhat enstrangled.

Back to you @Opcode I am quite confused or rather stumped.

Answer 12

@ShadowLegendX Let's say you're choosing between

A. Person murdered a random friend (nothing Pacific, I do not mean to offend)

B. Person is a young child, who's gay.

Answer 13

I would choose neither

Answer 14

But either way, some one will die, by choosing neither, you are choosing both.

Answer 15

So?

Answer 16

And I am not choosing both, I am choosing nothing

Answer 17

But nothing is a option.

Answer 18

Talking factors, what if it were between a friend and a complete stranger?

Answer 19

Doesn't matter who they are

Answer 20

Even if it was a child of your own? 😕

Answer 21

Predestination, and in turn fate are humorous notions, though I believe God to be ever-knowing (not a contradiction as complex as it sounds). As for feeling remorse, I lack that. Too far desensitized from my experiences to care, which has lead me down to odd decisions though I still attempt a façade of humanity, mainly because of how useful it is.

Switching it even if I were to save either one, what happens if I experience gratification from the action? Surely inaction would better or does life matter more than the intention of a sin? Sure context matters, but does the notion of tkhunny defining whatever action I choose, I am not the giver of dead?

I am akin to think the question is nonsensical, but I am not sure how to prove that.

Answer 22

There should be joy in saving one in such peril - IF this could be done. Keep in mind that such an option is not likely given by one possessing integrity. Unless we can ASSURE the killer will keep his word about the other, we most likely have three victims, anyway. This makes the proposition absurd, at its best. "nonsensical" Yes. I like that.

We use our own classification of guilt or innocent to start wars and to continue wars well beyond some higher purpose that may have existed at the beginning of the conflict. How else can terrorists justify their actions except to extend someone else's perceived guilt - quite arbitrarily. Simply stated, "The U.S.A. has dropped a bomb in my neighborhood. This means all U.S.Americans want to kill me. Thus, I declare 'death' to all Americans." We don't actually know who dropped the bomb or why someone was in the neighborhood dropping bombs, but we have concluded what we have concluded. They are guilty and we must kill them - even if they are 6 year old children huddled together in a classroom. The Crusades can be seen in much the same way. It's by no means a perfect explanation, but "They are infidels. We must kill them." If we could judge the true laws of God, with the judgment of God, I see no problem with such judgment. Like a child who thinks the definition of "fair" is limited to "what I want", we see the pettiness and hatred all around us. This is not the judgment or law of God. This is stuff we made up.

My views. I welcome others'.

Answer 23

> This is stuff we made up.
So when can we judge by rules given within a holy text? (or should I open up a separate question? Seeing as you answered what I wanted for this thread already.)

Answer 24

We must learn to KNOW God - not just know ABOUT Him. There is a morality born in each of us. To quote South Pacific, if we lose this morality, we "Must [have been] be carefully taught". We must watch Justice AND Mercy. We CANNOT proceed with only one of those. The laws of man are often contrary to the Laws of God. The U.S. Constitution TRIED to be based on the laws of God. I believe the Founders of the Constitution did a fairly good job of it (with a few exceptions that led to internal war and still lead to bigotry). However, our social and legal jurisprudence has wandered off. It is no longer about what is right, true, good, or correct. It is about what can be argued. Skill in argument is unlikely to be closely tied to the laws of God.

Answer 25

All right, closing this. Thank you everyone.

Answer 26

Truth is you can never know God, only know what He said for us to do and wonder whenever you observe something that seems miraculous. And even more wonder why it isn't more wide spread.