Philosophy Now Forum

This is a real life situation from WW2.

A small group of soldiers got trapped behind enemy lines. They were hiding away in an old farmhouse. An enemy soldier wandered in, unaware of their presence. They captured him, tied him to a chair and gagged him.

They planned to sneak back to their own side during nightfall, but they had a problem.

They had to move in absolute silence, so they could not risk dragging an unwilling prisoner with them.

They did not dare to leave him there either, just in case he would be found and then sent his buddies after them before they were back in safety.

They did not dare to shoot him because of the sound of the gunshot would be heard by the enemy.

They had only 2 options:

- cut his throat with a knife
- surrender to the enemy

Question: how many of you think that you would have been able to walk up to an unarmed man, your age, tied to a chair, totally helpless, and cut his throat with a knife while he was watching you?

Depends, how long have I been in the war? What theatre am I in? Is he SS or Wehrmacht? Am I Jewish?

Not sure you have to cut his throat tho' as I thought they trained them to push it up into the brain i.e. cut the spinal column in some way.

Ned wrote:This is a real life situation from WW2.

A small group of soldiers got trapped behind enemy lines. They were hiding away in an old farmhouse. An enemy soldier wandered in, unaware of their presence. They captured him, tied him to a chair and gagged him.

They planned to sneak back to their own side during nightfall, but they had a problem.

They had to move in absolute silence, so they could not risk dragging an unwilling prisoner with them.

They did not dare to leave him there either, just in case he would be found and then sent his buddies after them before they were back in safety.

They did not dare to shoot him because of the sound of the gunshot would be heard by the enemy.

They had only 2 options:

- cut his throat with a knife
- surrender to the enemy

Question: how many of you think that you would have been able to walk up to an unarmed man, your age, tied to a chair, totally helpless, and cut his throat with a knife while he was watching you?

With proper military training it would be part of the job, it would only be difficult for a civilian, but then not for all. And since I've never been in the military I really can't answer, but tell me he was one of a certain group of my former students, and I would have done it gladly.

thedoc wrote:

Ned wrote:This is a real life situation from WW2.

A small group of soldiers got trapped behind enemy lines. They were hiding away in an old farmhouse. An enemy soldier wandered in, unaware of their presence. They captured him, tied him to a chair and gagged him.

They planned to sneak back to their own side during nightfall, but they had a problem.

They had to move in absolute silence, so they could not risk dragging an unwilling prisoner with them.

They did not dare to leave him there either, just in case he would be found and then sent his buddies after them before they were back in safety.

They did not dare to shoot him because of the sound of the gunshot would be heard by the enemy.

They had only 2 options:

- cut his throat with a knife
- surrender to the enemy

Question: how many of you think that you would have been able to walk up to an unarmed man, your age, tied to a chair, totally helpless, and cut his throat with a knife while he was watching you?

With proper military training it would be part of the job, it would only be difficult for a civilian, but then not for all. And since I've never been in the military I really can't answer, but tell me he was one of a certain group of my former students, and I would have done it gladly.

Doc, you're too much.

thedoc wrote: And since I've never been in the military I really can't answer, but tell me he was one of a certain group of my former students, and I would have done it gladly.

Actually that's not quite true, but it would have made considering it easier, though I probably would not do it in the end.

thedoc wrote:

thedoc wrote: And since I've never been in the military I really can't answer, but tell me he was one of a certain group of my former students, and I would have done it gladly.

Actually that's not quite true, but it would have made considering it easier, though I probably would not do it in the end.

Of course not doc, I never thought so for a minute. I just thought your joke was a bit funny, as I imagined one of your unruly students, hitting you in the back of the head with a spitball. Little pecker heads!!!

Not hard at all, in the scenario you provided. In the face of circumstances that can prove to be fatal, humans with weak ethical disposition tend to lose their moral sense in proportion with the potential of fatality. While the ethical dilemma would certainly be the cause of much dissonance with lower chances of death, the scenario given is simply too overwhelming. Humans with stronger ethical disposition would not be able to decide so easily under normal circumstances, but humans who oppose murder so strongly would certainly not be soldiers fighting in a war. A soldier's primary goal is to serve his country - why else would you be killing people you don't know in a foreign land? I think it would be hard to keep serving your country if you are captured or killed, and thus any soldier would kill the captive enemy soldier and escape.

Starfall wrote:humans who oppose murder so strongly would certainly not be soldiers fighting in a war.

It is not always voluntary to be in a war, such as WWII -- which is what we are talking about right now.

It is voluntary. If your ethical disposition is so strong that you do not kill another human even when it can mean losing your life, you would do anything to avoid forced conscription into the army.

Starfall wrote:It is voluntary. If your ethical disposition is so strong that you do not kill another human even when it can mean losing your life, you would do anything to avoid forced conscription into the army.

You're correct Starfall, no one can force you to do anything you really don't want to do, some people are just weak minded. They make trade offs. They decide what's good for themselves, which is all that matters to them. If part of the trade off is killing people, so be it in their minds, as it's better than being seen as weak in their peers eyes, or being disgraced, as if these ideals are real in any universal sense. They are just the force of the current construct, subject to revision at any particular time. Once one would have to face a firing squad for desertion, gays weren't allowed to join, and women weren't allowed to serve in combat roles, today none of that exists. So was it ever necessary, justified. Not at all, it was just the current ignorance of mankind's construct at that time. Some unenlightened men always try to force people into socially bound situations of pressure, so as to get their way, their desires and wants. One can always tell them to go to hell, and walk away proud, for not being cowed by the mob, instead answering to a more universal truth. Look to Socrates, hemlock in hand, the victim of the fear of a new regime. Yet he still stands tall, a great man amongst common men.

But Socrates didn't have to drink the hemlock?

I agree with your statements on weak-minded people, more specifically, people with weak ethical disposition (you can also call this weak will.) As they have little to no individual view of the world, their actions are often for the sake of continuing the act of living, if possible with greater prosperity. This is the one desire that is common to all mentally healthy humans - we all want to live, and we all want to live in a better way if possible. A person has strong ethical disposition if his opinions are more valuable to him than his desire to live. Even though many people would claim they would rather die than kill their parents, you would be surprised at the results if the situation was to come about. Socrates was offered the means to escape to southern Italy in order to avoid execution, but he declined, believing that would make his opinions weigh less in the eyes of the public. He valued his ideas and his teachings more than his life. As such, Socrates was indeed a person with strong ethical disposition/a strong will. If such a person opposed murder, he would never find himself in the scenario described in the OP.

It is worth noting that the actions of a person with strong ethical disposition are not necessarily ethical in the eyes of the people. Adolf Hitler certainly was a strong willed person - he massacred millions of Jews and started the bloodiest war in the history of mankind in order to achieve his vision of the world. This does not, in any way, make his actions ethical - not in the slightest. However, he was willing to sacrifice everything, even his own life, in order to realize his wishes. Ultimately, admitting his defeat, he committed suicide in an underground bunker beneath Berlin; even though he had serious escaping chances - Stalin firmly believed that Hitler had escaped to Argentina, and even ordered the Soviet intelligence to look for him.

When people with strong ethical values acquire power, they become either great men or madmen - and the line between those two is surprisingly thin.

(The post went slightly off-topic, but I wanted to elaborate on what I meant by "strong ethical disposition". Such terms can become the subject of debate if left ambiguous.)

Arising_uk wrote:But Socrates didn't have to drink the hemlock?

Oh but he believed he did.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:But Socrates didn't have to drink the hemlock?

Oh but he believed he did.

I think that he believed that by doing so, he was making a statement, that was based on the principles he lived by.

Of course what is written could be an idealized version of the real events? Did Socrates escape to Argentina to live next door to Hitler?

The only reason this would ever be asked is because humans are such a fucked-up species.You should really ask a US police officer, because they do it all the time. They would just say 'easy' (then shoot you).