View Full Version : Renounce your Convictions or Die
Would you say whatever a captor wanted you to say, just to live?
Example:
You have been captured by jihadis. They have you tied up and want you to swear allegiance to Allah/ the prophet Mohamed/ whatever. They want you to renounce your convictions, principles, culture, faith. They tell you that if you do this, they will continue to keep you captive, but will not behead you.
Do you do it? Just say what they want in order to live a while longer and look for a window of opportunity to escape?
Or do you believe so strongly in your convictions and/or faith, that you'd rather perish than deny them? Go out defiant to the last breath, standing firm, never giving in.
I would like to think I'd be able to tell them to go pound camel anus, but that would be a terrifying situation. Extreme fear can overwhelm almost any thought process.
ETA: another example could be the captors want you to divulge sensitive compartmentalized information or die, and doing so would totally violate your principles and your oath.
Magic_Salad0892
09-06-12, 05:20
Would you say whatever a captor wanted you to say, just to live?
Example:
You have been captured by jihadis. They have you tied up and want you to swear allegiance to Allah/ the prophet Mohamed/ whatever. They want you to renounce your convictions, principles, culture, faith. They tell you that if you do this, they will continue to keep you captive, but will not behead you.
Do you do it? Just say what they want in order to live a while longer and look for a window of opportunity to escape?
Or do you believe so strongly in your convictions and/or faith, that you'd rather perish than deny them? Go out defiant to the last breath, standing firm, never giving in.
I would like to think I'd be able to tell them to go pound camel anus, but that would be a terrifying situation. Extreme fear can overwhelm almost any thought process.
ETA: another example could be the captors want you to divulge sensitive compartmentalized information or die, and doing so would totally violate your principles and your oath.
Would I renounce my convictions in order to look for a window to escape? Yes. In a heartbeat. I have that instinct of self preservation, and if there are other people with me, then I might be able to help them too. That is more important than just saying ''**** YOU!''
Would I divulge information? No. Under no circumstance. If I was a military man. I'm not, so I have no information to give.
Like I said previously, my answer is NO to everything. I think . . .
I can't know for sure because it's never happened to me. But, Internet chest-thumping aside, I would think I'd refuse.
Jesus' disciples went to their deaths very very gruesomely because they wouldn't renounce him. Scores more have done the same since.
Not only Christ, but I don't think I'd ever renounce the US Constitution either.
ThirdWatcher
09-06-12, 06:46
Not only Christ, but I don't think I'd ever renounce the US Constitution either.
I hope I am never in that position but I gotta agree with this.
Army Chief
09-06-12, 07:13
Assuming an issue of real consequence, like faith or loyalty to the nation, I would rather die for something that I believe in, than to grovel for more time in this life by feigning acceptance of something that I do not believe in.
If it is a matter of being killed over my views on something like wearing Capri pants or getting a house cat, I'm sure I could find some room for temporary accommodation.
AC
To my faith or my love of my country(well, the Constitution at least), I'd much rather die as I know I will have died for what I believe in.
Anything else, **** it, that dude over there did it, and I'll tell you the what where when why and how of it.
I do see the other side:
Who cares what I say? I don't mean a word of it. What matters is what's in my heart, and if I can buy more time, I will.
I do see the other side:
Who cares what I say? I don't mean a word of it. What matters is what's in my heart, and if I can buy more time, I will.
I will do almost anything for the opportunity to kill my captors. The only thing I "hope" I would not do is put other innocent people in harms way simply to save myself. But honestly, I probably wouldn't trust them to let me live regardless.
But if a "jailhouse conversion" to Islam is all that would be necessary to afford me the opportunity to escape or at a minimum take a few with me, then I'm sure Buddha and Hachiman will understand because they see what's actually in my heart.
Army Chief
09-06-12, 13:15
But if a "jailhouse conversion" to Islam is all that would be necessary to afford me the opportunity to escape ...
Definitely follow your logic, and of course, you're coming from a different point of view, faith-wise, but your post gave me some interesting food-for-thought.
My sense is that the "captors" in this case have already proven themselves a people devoid of honor -- at least, as we define such things in the West -- and when you consider what they do to their fellow Muslims as a matter of course, I'm not sure why a jailhouse convert could, or should, expect to fare any better.
It wouldn't be a viable approach for me in any case, but even employed as a strategic device solely for the purpose of gaining an advantage, I'm left to wonder if such a thing would even alter the equation at all. Likely not.
AC
Would you say whatever a captor wanted you to say, just to live?
Example:
You have been captured by jihadis. They have you tied up and want you to swear allegiance to Allah/ the prophet Mohamed/ whatever. They want you to renounce your convictions, principles, culture, faith. They tell you that if you do this, they will continue to keep you captive, but will not behead you.
Do you do it? Just say what they want in order to live a while longer and look for a window of opportunity to escape?
Or do you believe so strongly in your convictions and/or faith, that you'd rather perish than deny them? Go out defiant to the last breath, standing firm, never giving in.
I would like to think I'd be able to tell them to go pound camel anus, but that would be a terrifying situation. Extreme fear can overwhelm almost any thought process.
ETA: another example could be the captors want you to divulge sensitive compartmentalized information or die, and doing so would totally violate your principles and your oath.
And if they torture you? Then what? You either omitted this by choice or by mistake. Either way, it's a very real possibility, especially in your addition.
I'll say what I have to say to get back in the fight.
Except I like to think I'd die to keep secrets.
They are going to kill you anyway, so I choose not to cooperate.
i would rather swallow the barrel of a gun. I highly doubt they would say, "ok, cool and welcome to the brotherhood". I dont want to get my execution video to end up on liveleak.
Definitely follow your logic, and of course, you're coming from a different point of view, faith-wise, but your post gave me some interesting food-for-thought.
My sense is that the "captors" in this case have already proven themselves a people devoid of honor -- at least, as we define such things in the West -- and when you consider what they do to their fellow Muslims as a matter of course, I'm not sure why a jailhouse convert could, or should, expect to fare any better.
It wouldn't be a viable approach for me in any case, but even employed as a strategic device solely for the purpose of gaining an advantage, I'm left to wonder if such a thing would even alter the equation at all. Likely not.
AC
Likely, and I even noted that.
"But honestly, I probably wouldn't trust them to let me live regardless."
But if I can say "words" and that gets me the opportunity to take some company with me, or possibly even unass myself from the situation, then "words" you are going to get.
They are going to kill you anyway, so I choose not to cooperate.
The most likely outcome.
Army Chief
09-06-12, 13:43
Likely, and I even noted that.
"But honestly, I probably wouldn't trust them to let me live regardless."
But if I can say "words" and that gets me the opportunity to take some company with me, or possibly even unass myself from the situation, then "words" you are going to get.
Tracking. On all but a few topics of consequence, you and I tend to be very well-aligned; I just found value in the thought process that your post introduced.
So, hypothetically speaking, now that you're a newly-confessed Muslim, if you're killed anyway, do you get your 72 virgins? ;)
AC
Tracking. On all but a few topics of consequence, you and I tend to be very well-aligned; I just found value in the thought process that your post introduced.
So, hypothetically speaking, now that you're a newly-confessed Muslim, if you're killed anyway, do you get your 72 virgins? ;)
AC
I suppose that would be up to Amaterasu.
:D
I do see the other side:
Who cares what I say? I don't mean a word of it. What matters is what's in my heart, and if I can buy more time, I will.
Well there is....someone....who cares what you say if you get my drift. I think some of the issue revolves around your view of lying. Is lying ever ok in any and all circumstances? I do not believe lying is ever justified, but I do to a degree understand my own weaknesses and to a degree the weaknesses of others. I would also make a distinction between lying and lawful deception. Wearing camo would be an example of lawful deception. I do think there are convictions that should never be renounced even at the point of death, because as I get older and closer to death, I believe there are some things worse than dying. Could I stand under the pressure, I don't know, but I pray for courage often.
Assuming an issue of real consequence, like faith or loyalty to the nation, I would rather die for something that I believe in, than to grovel for more time in this life by feigning acceptance of something that I do not believe in.
If it is a matter of being killed over my views on something like wearing Capri pants or getting a house cat, I'm sure I could find some room for temporary accommodation.
AC
^This exactly.
No better way to go out IMO (well.. unless we're going to dive into fantasies...lol)
I would choose death. Better to die knowing I have not betrayed myself than to betray myself and most likely be killed anyways.
That^ and I don't believe in "giving in" to peoples threats, demands, ultamatums, etc...
VooDoo6Actual
09-06-12, 16:12
Would you say whatever a captor wanted you to say, just to live?
Example:
You have been captured by jihadis. They have you tied up and want you to swear allegiance to Allah/ the prophet Mohamed/ whatever. They want you to renounce your convictions, principles, culture, faith. They tell you that if you do this, they will continue to keep you captive, but will not behead you.
Do you do it? Just say what they want in order to live a while longer and look for a window of opportunity to escape?
Or do you believe so strongly in your convictions and/or faith, that you'd rather perish than deny them? Go out defiant to the last breath, standing firm, never giving in.
I would like to think I'd be able to tell them to go pound camel anus, but that would be a terrifying situation. Extreme fear can overwhelm almost any thought process.
ETA: another example could be the captors want you to divulge sensitive compartmentalized information or die, and doing so would totally violate your principles and your oath.
Ah, similar to what Muslims engage in called "Taqiyya"
It depends on many variables. But if those truly are the perimeters & I can buy time to E&E or neutralize more tangos & possibly save OTHER's lives by my actions then, YES.
Moose-Knuckle
09-06-12, 16:32
I’d go the Patrick Henry route. ;)
I do not believe lying is ever justified, but I do to a degree understand my own weaknesses and to a degree the weaknesses of others.
So hypothetically, if you were in a school that was on lock down because two shooters were killing kids for fun and you knew were a bunch of kids were hiding from them, you'd tell the shooters?
I would suggest that lying to evil people who wish to do harm in an effort to undermine their evil is not only justified but it would be evil not to lie to them.
I would choose death. Better to die knowing I have not betrayed myself than to betray myself and most likely be killed anyways.
That^ and I don't believe in "giving in" to peoples threats, demands, ultamatums, etc...
I understand that as well. And if I truly believe there will be no gained opportunity or benefit to a deception, it makes sense to just tell them to go shit in their hat.
Magic_Salad0892
09-06-12, 17:15
I understand that as well. And if I truly believe there will be no gained opportunity or benefit to a deception, it makes sense to just tell them to go shit in their hat.
I'm with you. But the OP's hypothetical situation you could possibly buy time, and maybe even escape if you lie about your beliefs.
But if I honestly thought that they'd kill me anyway, I'd start preaching shit from the contitution, or Thomas Pain phrases, or something to drive them nuts before I took the axe, hammer, bullet, or whatever.
Army Chief
09-06-12, 18:21
Do keep in mind, gents, that ceding to the Kalima (the first of Islam's five pillars) basically involves taking a lifelong oath against bacon ... something I'm sure that many of us believe in with very great conviction, indeed. ;)
AC
QuickStrike
09-06-12, 18:26
Can't get revenge if you die, so easy choice imo.
Magic_Salad0892
09-06-12, 18:31
Do keep in mind, gents, that ceding to the Kalima (the first of Islam's five pillars) basically involves taking a lifelong oath against bacon ... something I'm sure that many of us believe in with very great conviction, indeed. ;)
AC
NO MORE CMMG TACTICAL BACON?!
**** that. Nevermind.
I would say whatever I deemed more likely to gain me a position of tactical advantage, but with the caveat that I would never do so at the expense of the nation's strategic advantage.
What do I mean? Well, as a soldier and representative of my country (still my bias even though I'm off Active Duty), I acknowledge that my personal safety is less valuable than the overall strategic position of the United States. Even though I might not necessarily agree with the campaign, I have to accept this position as a matter of duty to the contract to which I deliberately capitulated myself. So if there's a camera running, and I'm instructed to read a statement condemning the US, I cannot do it and must accept the consequences (death), even IF I thought I could spare my own life by reading it. A video of a US soldier condemning the US is a strategic loss for my country and a strategic gain for my captors.
But if I thought I could build rapport with and gain the trust of my captors by privately pretending to convert to Islam or criticize the United States, I would do so in order to gain a tactical advantage and either escape or kill the theocratic-fascists holding me. Since the conversation would be private, there would be no strategic loss for the US, and I would actually be duty-bound to "convert to Islam" because doing so would be a form of resistance. One cannot resist, which IS a dutiful and moral obligation, if one is dead.
So if pretending to convert to Islam would produce no strategic disadvantage for the greater purpose and gain me a tactical advantage at the individual level, I would do it.
If pretending to convert to Islam would produce a strategic advantage for my enemy but increase my odds of personal safety, I would be duty bound to refuse and die.
SeriousStudent
09-06-12, 21:45
Many years ago, when I toted a musket and a cutlass, my Drill Instructors made me memorize this. I am sure they had good reasons, as they did for most of their actions.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U. S. FIGHTING MAN
1. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
2. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.
3. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
4. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information, or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
6. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Many years ago, when I toted a musket and a cutlass, my Drill Instructors made me memorize this. I am sure they had good reasons, as they did for most of their actions.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE U. S. FIGHTING MAN
1. I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
2. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist.
3. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
4. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information, or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to give only name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
6. I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
What we are discussing seems to lie somewhere between #3 and #5. I also not completely sure that being a captive of jihadists makes on a POW anymore than being an inmate at Auschwitz makes one a POW.
Don't think I would. There are many reasons why I would or would not but the one thing that probably tips the scale is the thought they want you to renounce your convictions so that they can kill you with no honor, or something like that. Might just be the psychological justification they are looking for to kill you.
Kinda weird though, feel like a hypocrite with some of the reasoning and all that but that is the final answer I suppose. Obviously cannot know until in that position.
jklaughrey
09-06-12, 22:11
You by all definition are dead or possibly will be soon. I want to live but dishonoring myself, my family, my country, and God is not an option. I die, I die with honor so my children and brothers in arms will continue my memory as a good man, father, soldier, and American.
Don't think I would. There are many reasons why I would or would not but the one thing that probably tips the scale is the thought they want you to renounce your convictions so that they can kill you with no honor, or something like that. Might just be the psychological justification they are looking for to kill you.
Kinda weird though, feel like a hypocrite with some of the reasoning and all that but that is the final answer I suppose. Obviously cannot know until in that position.
And in THAT scenario (a very likely one) I think we all agree. But the scenario presented in the original post was different.
You by all definition are dead or possibly will be soon. I want to live but dishonoring myself, my family, my country, and God is not an option. I die, I die with honor so my children and brothers in arms will continue my memory as a good man, father, soldier, and American.
Would you honestly think less of an honorable man who was clearly "taking a shot at it?"
When I see film of guys at Hanoi Hilton talking about "crimes against the peaceful people of Vietnam" I know the deal.
In reading the original post, I'm reminded of a book I read a while back- Bravo Two Zero, by Andy McNabb.
In it, I recall he talked a bit about what they were instructed to do in case of capture (which they were eventually). Bascially amounted to "lie your ass off". Tell them all about how you're just a poor lowly know-nothing grunt who has no special information or orders, and doesn't even want to be there fighting them, etc.
In essence, make them see you as unimportant so they underestimate you and hopefully at some future time you may be able to gain an advantage.
Granted, this could also just get you killed real quick, but I think you get the idea.
I think it all simply comes down to this- is this action going to give me the chance to escape or at least take a few of them with me? Or will it solve nothing anyway and/or be detrimental to my country/comrades?
In the original scenario, if there's any possible advantage to be gained....Allah? I love that guy! And you say I get a harem of virgins as well? Amazing!. Just hand me one of those AKs and let's get started! :laugh:
If it's a case of "read this speech denouncing the Great Satan" and all that crap.... No. And I'm not a soldier, that's just not my thing. Plus as mentioned, it would be a moral victory for the enemy.
jklaughrey
09-07-12, 01:27
Would you honestly think less of an honorable man who was clearly "taking a shot at it?"
When I see film of guys at Hanoi Hilton talking about "crimes against the peaceful people of Vietnam" I know the deal.
I think is this sense I would. If you are in the service of our country you are duty bound to uphold your oath. If you are a civillian I suppose some acceptance could be afforded. However, we are Americans. The enemies we face as a nation want us to turn to ash. No quarter should be given nor asked. I refuse to dishonor those before me and those presently. Making deals to serve your own self preservation is cowardice no matter how much you dress it up.
I think is this sense I would. If you are in the service of our country you are duty bound to uphold your oath. If you are a civillian I suppose some acceptance could be afforded. However, we are Americans. The enemies we face as a nation want us to turn to ash. No quarter should be given nor asked. I refuse to dishonor those before me and those presently. Making deals to serve your own self preservation is cowardice no matter how much you dress it up.
What if concessions are made to spare fellow inmates who are often used as bargaining tools by the captors?
I don't think any of us are discussing those who sell out to get light duty or better food. Nor are we talking about POWs who are being treated "as" POWs under the accepted conventions.
So when one talks of honor one must ask if it is better served by ones death or by one who lives to see things made right.
As for Hanoi, I personally feel if you weren't there (or someplace just like it) that it is dishonorable to question the honor of those who were and did what they had to do.
It is like criticizing those in the death camps who walked to their fate without fighting. We all think we'd do otherwise, but we weren't there. And whose to say we'd still fight after everything was taken from us, our wives and children killed and we were slowly being starved and worked to death. Several people found them in the predicament before the realized the reality of their situation. And at that point I can understand a man who might walk to his own death as there was nothing left to struggle for.
And at the same time, I can understand the Sonderkommando who seemingly made a deal with the devil to feed the gas chambers in exchange for being the last ones to die. Some call them dishonorable, but having never been in their place I cannot condemn them.
Codes of conduct are important. They give one a meaning and a purpose when all else is taken from you. Ironically in many instances they are what allows a prisoner to survive. They can become a sole source of strength and resolve. But the same can sometimes be true of "playing the game" and putting one over on Charlie.
jklaughrey
09-07-12, 02:21
While I agree on some points made, and fully understand the situations in Hanoi and the Nazi death camps. I cannot in spite of bring myself to dishonor. Without honor a man has nothing. To quote a saying I once heard. Honor is a gift a man gives to himself. No one else gives that to him. He is also the only one who can take it away. I cannot, will not do it.
I find it interesting you bring up prisoners or fellow hostages. Having worked briefly at a maximum state prison where my mother was head psychologist . I was asked if she was taken hostage if I would release or give in to demands. This is my mother. I told them no let her die or get raped or what have you. Funny thing it is exactly what she told the warden I'd say or do. She said it wasn't because I didn't love her, it was because I loved her and I wouldn't taint my honor that she raised me to have.
Sorry, but our opinions differ Steyr. On this one my stubborn Irish ass won't budge.
So hypothetically, if you were in a school that was on lock down because two shooters were killing kids for fun and you knew were a bunch of kids were hiding from them, you'd tell the shooters?
I would suggest that lying to evil people who wish to do harm in an effort to undermine their evil is not only justified but it would be evil not to lie to them.
And why would I be talking to these shooters? I suppose one option would be to shoot the shooters if possible. I consider lying to be itself evil, so no I would not do evil that good would supposedly come from it, but then we have different standards don't we?
And why would I be talking to these shooters? I suppose one option would be to shoot the shooters if possible. I consider lying to be itself evil, so no I would not do evil that good would supposedly come from it, but then we have different standards don't we?
Why is killing so that good can come of it less problematic than lying so that good can come of it?
Why is killing so that good can come of it less problematic than lying so that good can come of it?
Because killing in and of itself is not evil, context and motive speak to that. Lying is evil because it destroys the truth. Even though the motive for lying could be good (save a life) it still always destroys the truth.
Magic_Salad0892
09-07-12, 04:37
My opinion is as follows:
In this situation: Lying, and killing are tools. Use them as needed.
Honor isn't a factor when the lives of others are at stake. Be that your enemy, or comrades. I'd gladly degrade myself, and forego my honor so that friends can survive. Or I can force the enemy to underestemate me, and tip the scales.
Lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are not evil. It's just about application.
Voodoo_Man
09-07-12, 06:52
In this particular scenario jihadists will probably kill you anyway and while it does suck you are in that position, death is probably your only out. Having said this, anything on camera will be a big "suck my constitution loving dick" statement.
No way im renouncing my religious beliefs in that moment, thats when I need my beliefs the most. Check my sig.
My opinion is as follows:
In this situation: Lying, and killing are tools. Use them as needed.
Honor isn't a factor when the lives of others are at stake. Be that your enemy, or comrades. I'd gladly degrade myself, and forego my honor so that friends can survive. Or I can force the enemy to underestemate me, and tip the scales.
Lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are not evil. It's just about application.
Just for understanding more clearly. Would the statement "The ends justify the means" accurately describe your position?
CarlosDJackal
09-07-12, 10:04
Renouncing convictions is temporary. Dying is permanent.
There was a time when Soldiers were told that they could not say anything against the United States under the threat of a Court Martial or charges of Treason if they became POWs.
Around the time of the Vietnam War this was changed because they finally realized that you can only hold out for so long under the type of duress our heroes had to endure at places like the "Hanoi Hilton". As long as they hold out for as long as they can humanly can - and they do not actually defect in the process (just like those dozens of GIs who defected to North Korea when they were captured during the Korean War).
A dead Soldier is of no use to anyone, especially to the Army he belongs to. But if they managed to stay alive and escape back to their lines - they are going to be invaluable for multiple reasons.
Just because I tell a bunch of Godless scum that I renounce my religion, country, or core beliefs; it doesn't mean that I have lost my faith in my religion, country or God Almighty. Even if they make me sign a statement in blood. YMMV.
And why would I be talking to these shooters? I suppose one option would be to shoot the shooters if possible. I consider lying to be itself evil, so no I would not do evil that good would supposedly come from it, but then we have different standards don't we?
Ok, you were running for the door and got shot in the leg. They are now asking you where the kids are that you were with earlier. You know because you told them where a good hiding place was before you tried to get away and go for help.
Further assume that your recommended "hiding place" is on one end of the school near a window that they could escape from IF the coast was clear and you have the OPTION of telling a lie that would send the shooters to the other end of the school into a basement section which would provide a "best chance" for the kids to escape.
You can of course say nothing and take another bullet. Or you can BS two evil killers and give a bunch of kids a much better chance at living. Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't do that to try and save a bunch of kids?!?
If that is what you are saying, then you are correct that we have two VERY different standards.
No way im renouncing my religious beliefs in that moment, thats when I need my beliefs the most. Check my sig.
If I "claim" to accept God but in my heart and mind don't believe a word of it, is that going to fool your God?
Just for understanding more clearly. Would the statement "The ends justify the means" accurately describe your position?
I suspect it depends upon the ends and the means.
If the ends are more valuable, such as human life having greater value than not lying, then yes. If we are talking about the reverse and killing innocent people to prevent having to tell a lie, then no.
I don't want to fall off a house, I could get hurt. However, if there was a small child or a puppy up there wandering around the edge I'd go up there anyhow to try and save them even though I'd really rather not risk the fall. The ends would justify the means.
If I "claim" to accept God but in my heart and mind don't believe a word of it, is that going to fool your God?
Why don't you just choose to believe it? :ph34r:
But on topic, as far as ends justifying means - I agree that sometimes they can. Right and wrong are rooted in the consequences of an action. It just takes some cogent thought and foresight to get it right. Lying to a murderer in order to save innocent children is clearly such an example. Asking "why" to that is called hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.
Why don't you just choose to believe it? :ph34r:
Under certain conditions I could. But currently I do not.
Magic_Salad0892
09-07-12, 18:42
Just for understanding more clearly. Would the statement "The ends justify the means" accurately describe your position?
That's a very dangerous thing to say, because that can lead to unintended consequences. But I'm going to have to say yes. In this perticular situation.
Magic_Salad0892
09-07-12, 18:43
No way im renouncing my religious beliefs in that moment, thats when I need my beliefs the most. Check my sig.
I think God undertands my motives in this case.
I would say whatever they want me to say, even on camera, that did not sacrifice other people for my own gain, such as the telling the hostage takers where the kids are hiding kind of thing.
Making statements, videos, whatever, are instantly discredited by the fact that you are a hostage. You can say America kills babies on video, the two masked guys with AKs behind you and the black eyes discredit the whole thing. It's an opportunity to get a message or proof of life out. Same thing with written statements.
If I can "return with honor" I don't care what it takes.
And in THAT scenario (a very likely one) I think we all agree. But the scenario presented in the original post was different.
To more closely answer a hypothetical of you will live for sure if you renounce your convictions (and open up opportunity to escape, kill them, send some sort of message to friendlies that will help, etc not to mention "live to fight another day") I would go with renouncing convictions.
The means are worth the ends in my opinion. Although I am a "do the ends justify the means" kind of guy, I also keep in mind all the different paths that can be taken and the different end results.
Don't really see it as dishonoring yourself anyway under the given conditions.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-07-12, 19:35
I would do whatever my conscious mind allowed at that given moment. I hope I would do the right thing, but I haven't always chosen righteousness in the past.
Ok, you were running for the door and got shot in the leg. They are now asking you where the kids are that you were with earlier. You know because you told them where a good hiding place was before you tried to get away and go for help.
Further assume that your recommended "hiding place" is on one end of the school near a window that they could escape from IF the coast was clear and you have the OPTION of telling a lie that would send the shooters to the other end of the school into a basement section which would provide a "best chance" for the kids to escape.
You can of course say nothing and take another bullet. Or you can BS two evil killers and give a bunch of kids a much better chance at living. Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't do that to try and save a bunch of kids?!?
If that is what you are saying, then you are correct that we have two VERY different standards.
I would remain quiet as a matter of principle, I don't always live up to the principles I profess.
Here's one for you, the shooters have captured you and them. They will let all but one go including you if you kill that one. If you refuse you all die. Would you kill the one?
montanadave
09-08-12, 05:56
Time to take a breather and go rent Sophie's Choice.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-12, 07:18
I would remain quiet as a matter of principle, I don't always live up to the principles I profess.
Here's one for you, the shooters have captured you and them. They will let all but one go including you if you kill that one. If you refuse you all die. Would you kill the one?
Yep. Then probably kill myself for what I'd done. But at least I saved a bunch of other kids.
I'd have made the hardest choice a person can make.
I would remain quiet as a matter of principle, I don't always live up to the principles I profess.
So you value "not lying" above an opportunity to send them on a wild goose chase that might save others?
Here's one for you, the shooters have captured you and them. They will let all but one go including you if you kill that one. If you refuse you all die. Would you kill the one?
Well that's a bit more than lying isn't it? Now I have to choose "one to die" in order to save others. More importantly "I" have to become the killer. Well I'm not gonna play that game, and while it might get others killed (including myself) that is a "**** it we are going for it" situation.
I would think that would probably be obvious to most. Of course most people wouldn't try and draw a parallel between "lying to the bad guys" and "becoming a murderer yourself."
Yep. Then probably kill myself for what I'd done. But at least I saved a bunch of other kids.
I'd have made the hardest choice a person can make.
I don't think I'd have it in me to single out and kill an innocent kid.
I might make a ploy that I am going along with it and once gun in hand do my best to kill the bad guys and give the kids a fight / haul ass opportunity.
This is assuming there isn't some convenient banger in a 81 Jersey among the student body.
So you value "not lying" above an opportunity to send them on a wild goose chase that might save others?
No, I value God's glory and His commandments more than even more than my own life.
Well that's a bit more than lying isn't it? Now I have to choose "one to die" in order to save others. More importantly "I" have to become the killer. Well I'm not gonna play that game, and while it might get others killed (including myself) that is a "**** it we are going for it" situation.
I would think that would probably be obvious to most. Of course most people wouldn't try and draw a parallel between "lying to the bad guys" and "becoming a murderer yourself."
I'm not trying to play a game. The original post seem to be trying to bring out what principles people operate under at least in extreme cases. Utilitarianism seems to be that operating principle even for some Christians. The scenario above was only meant to show that. Is right and wrong just a matter of "The greatest good for the greatest number". If so, then the one child's right to life is superseded by the rights of the many. Or do people have anything like true inalienable rights at all, regardless of the supposed goodness of the outcome? The U.S. has been heading in this direction, imo, and I don't consider it good.
I would not underestimate the evil of lying, lying has and will continue to lead directly to not saving life but murder and on a huge scale.
I don't think I'd have it in me to single out and kill an innocent kid.
I might make a ploy that I am going along with it and once gun in hand do my best to kill the bad guys and give the kids a fight / haul ass opportunity.
This is assuming there isn't some convenient banger in a 81 Jersey among the student body.
No gun allowed, it defeats the exercise.
I'm not trying to play a game. The original post seem to be trying to bring out what principles people operate under at least in extreme cases. Utilitarianism seems to be that operating principle even for some Christians. The scenario above was only meant to show that. Is right and wrong just a matter of "The greatest good for the greatest number". If so, then the one child's right to life is superseded by the rights of the many. Or do people have anything like true inalienable rights at all, regardless of the supposed goodness of the outcome? The U.S. has been heading in this direction, imo, and I don't consider it good.
I would not underestimate the evil of lying, lying has and will continue to lead directly to not saving life but murder and on a huge scale.
By "playing a game" I meant the killers trying to turn me into a killer. I'm not gonna play "their" game.
And again, you and I have very different world views. I don't view lying as an absolute any more than killing.
We kill bad people (those who prey upon the innocent) because it is good and it saves lives.
Similarly I would lie to bad people because it is generally good to NOT help them and it is more LIKELY to save lives.
If you would not "lie" to killers trying to harm the innocent, would you shoot them if given the opportunity?
If you would be willing to shoot and kill them to prevent them from killing the innocent but would not be willing to lie to them to attempt the same then to me that is a serious logical disconnect.
And if you would be unwilling to shoot them if given the opportunity then I honestly don't know what to say about that.
Do you actually find lying to be more "wrong" than killing?
No gun allowed, it defeats the exercise.
Then I would use whatever means I have. Again, not gonna play that game.
By "playing a game" I meant the killers trying to turn me into a killer. I'm not gonna play "their" game.
Understood.
asdfg
And again, you and I have very different world views. I don't view lying as an absolute any more than killing.
Yes, we have definitely established through the many posts to each other that our worldviews are different. As I said in an earlier post I do not view killing in and of itself good or evil apart from the context. Lying always has the effect of destroying truth.
We kill bad people (those who prey upon the innocent) because it is good and it saves lives.
You seem to be using the words good and bad in some absolute way here. Is this true?
Similarly I would lie to bad people because it is generally good to NOT help them and it is more LIKELY to save lives.
I don't hold to this type of pragmatic approach. Again the words bad, good, help can mean all kinds of things to different people. For instance....Nazis thought Jews were bad people, and to exterminate them was a good thing to help the German empire and ultimately the world. Your worldview seems to define good,bad, and help in a subjective way agreeable to your preferences.
If you would not "lie" to killers trying to harm the innocent, would you shoot them if given the opportunity?
Absolutely
If you would be willing to shoot and kill them to prevent them from killing the innocent but would not be willing to lie to them to attempt the same then to me that is a serious logical disconnect.
Illogical in what way? Are the means to an end always subservient to the "goodness" of the outcome?
And if you would be unwilling to shoot them if given the opportunity then I honestly don't know what to say about that.
I would shoot them.
Do you actually find lying to be more "wrong" than killing?
I find murder to be more wrong than lying, not killing. But my worldview doesn't allow "do evil that good would come of it". Not only does God set the definition of what is good, He also sets the means to achieve that good.
Yes, we have definitely established through the many posts to each other that our worldviews are different.
I think we have again arrived at the point where nothing can be gained by further debate or explanation. From this point on regardless of how we explain our positions we aren't going to move any closer to agreement.
The following is only offered as clarification:
As I said in an earlier post I do not view killing in and of itself good or evil apart from the context. Lying always has the effect of destroying truth.
To me "lying" is an act, just like "killing." Killing always has the effect of destroying life. Just as we can offer justification for killing, we can offer justification for lying. And certainly we can tell the full truth after the fact.
Unlike killing, lying can be corrected and undone.
I find murder to be more wrong than lying, not killing. But my worldview doesn't allow "do evil that good would come of it". Not only does God set the definition of what is good, He also sets the means to achieve that good.
You recognize distinctions in killing and understand it isn't always murder. But for whatever reason you don't recognize similar distinctions regarding "lying" and "deceiving an enemy" (although you accept what you refer to as "lawful deceptions" like camouflage).
My views are simply different from yours.
You mentioned the Nazis earlier to suggest that flexible values could lead to atrocity. I can only assume you object to the lies that were told to deceive the Nazis about a great many things during the war that brought their actions to an end.
Within that context, lies saved lives.
This whole conversation reminds me of:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151771/scruples
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-12, 19:18
I don't think I'd have it in me to single out and kill an innocent kid.
I might make a ploy that I am going along with it and once gun in hand do my best to kill the bad guys and give the kids a fight / haul ass opportunity.
This is assuming there isn't some convenient banger in a 81 Jersey among the student body.
If I have to play their games to save lives, then that's what I have to do. Even if it means destroy myself mentally in the process.
If there is no other way. I can't let more people die than absolutely necessary.
I think we have again arrived at the point where nothing can be gained by further debate or explanation. From this point on regardless of how we explain our positions we aren't going to move any closer to agreement.
The following is only offered as clarification:
To me "lying" is an act, just like "killing." Killing always has the effect of destroying life. Just as we can offer justification for killing, we can offer justification for lying. And certainly we can tell the full truth after the fact.
Unlike killing, lying can be corrected and undone.
You recognize distinctions in killing and understand it isn't always murder. But for whatever reason you don't recognize similar distinctions regarding "lying" and "deceiving an enemy" (although you accept what you refer to as "lawful deceptions" like camouflage).
My views are simply different from yours.
You mentioned the Nazis earlier to suggest that flexible values could lead to atrocity. I can only assume you object to the lies that were told to deceive the Nazis about a great many things during the war that brought their actions to an end.
Within that context, lies saved lives.
It's true that you and I may have hit the wall, but others hopely look into these things. I actually put no confidence in my ability to convince anyone of anything, I have no faith in me. And although talking about such things is work for me, I find it profitable.
I do recognize distinctions in lying. Some truths are more precious than other truths. Lying to Nazis to "save lives" is not heinous compared to the lies of evil doers who use their lies to murder. I would not rush to condemn a person who under some extreme duress lied to save someone, I might do the same thing. But since my God says He can not lie, and Jesus never lied, I can not justify lying. Lawful deception happens many times in Bible, no untruth is actively told. An example would be Jesus' parables. The parables were truthful in what they taught, but were used in such a way that certain people rejected by God would not understand.
It's true lying can be corrected sometimes, although the person lied to who was killed won't be on the receiving end of that correction. As important as protecting life is, it's not my highest priority, it's high just not the highest. Abraham was willing to kill Issac his only son because God told him to. I trust God with the outcome of events, and work on obeying Him even in extremely bad situations.
Killing someone for a righteous purpose comes at the end of a situation where no other correction is viable, at that point killing is the ultimate and proper correction, there is no need to undo it.
If I have to play their games to save lives, then that's what I have to do. Even if it means destroy myself mentally in the process.
If there is no other way. I can't let more people die than absolutely necessary.
You've told us that you would murder the one (I call it murder since that one has done nothing worthy of being killed by your hand) to save the many. If there were 30 total, would you kill 2? How about 3? Up to 14? At what point do the means stop being justified by the ends?
And this is the problem, it's not just lying we're justifying to save life. We're now justifying murder to save life. We rationalize a supposed good outcome with even murder in the end. Societies rationalize all kinds of behavior and actions based on some supposed good outcome. Isn't this the very argument Democrats use against guns...The greatest good for the greatest number. Your rights are subservient to the greater good.
The_War_Wagon
09-08-12, 20:40
I have a wife and 4 kids... I'm READY to die... :o
You've told us that you would murder the one (I call it murder since that one has done nothing worthy of being killed by your hand) to save the many. If there were 30 total, would you kill 2? How about 3? Up to 14? At what point do the means stop being justified by the ends?
And this is the problem, it's not just lying we're justifying to save life. We're now justifying murder to save life. We rationalize a supposed good outcome with even murder in the end. Societies rationalize all kinds of behavior and actions based on some supposed good outcome. Isn't this the very argument Democrats use against guns...The greatest good for the greatest number. Your rights are subservient to the greater good.
Not "all" of society.
While I understand the logic of numbers, sacrifice 5% to save 95%, and can even see how people can and do subscribe to such notions, there is a line that I and many others won't cross. But don't think it isn't done all the time.
How many times in hostage negotiations do they wait until they actually kill somebody before they commit to decisive action? Is that not a sacrifice of an innocent? How many in law enforcement accept the idea of "collateral damage"? Is that not the sacrifice of the innocent?
If it happens to be your child who is among the 95% rescued at the cost of 5% I think a lot of people will find a way to reconcile that loss with their beliefs. Those same people are just as likely to be upset with anyone (like myself) who wouldn't act for the "greater good" to rescue as many as possible with acceptable levels of "collateral damage."
Obviously, if your child happens to be among the 5% who get sacrificed, you're likely to feel very different about collateral damage or sacrifice moves.
Magic_Salad0892
09-08-12, 23:12
You've told us that you would murder the one (I call it murder since that one has done nothing worthy of being killed by your hand) to save the many. If there were 30 total, would you kill 2? How about 3? Up to 14? At what point do the means stop being justified by the ends?
I cannot answer that, because I'm not in that situation. Maybe I would. Maybe having to do it more than once would cause me to crack. I don't know.
And this is the problem, it's not just lying we're justifying to save life. We're now justifying murder to save life. We rationalize a supposed good outcome with even murder in the end. Societies rationalize all kinds of behavior and actions based on some supposed good outcome. Isn't this the very argument Democrats use against guns...The greatest good for the greatest number. Your rights are subservient to the greater good.
I understand what you're getting at... but it isn't the same. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and saying ''TAKE THEIR GUNS OR WE'LL KILL ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!''
What is in your heart does not reflect the lies you must utter in order to survive. Your God and your country can forgive you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.