Does not wanting to die outweigh not wanting to kill?

I believe this question can't be answered unless you're put in that situation. I'd really like to say I would not actively end a random person's life to prolong mine... but that'd be quite holier-than-thou, especially since I'm well aware that I already passively do that just by being a first world kid living of the sweat and blood of people who had the misfortune of being born somewhere else.

Coincidentally, a video from a soldier in a current war surfaced a couple days ago. He gets into a knife fight, and loses. It's harrowing to watch, and made me realize that no matter how highly I think of myself and my moral code, I do not want to get killed and would probably be willing to do things that would not look good on my life resume if it lets me save my skin.

I won't do someone else's bidding, but if my family has been put on the line, well... there are two choices:

(a) kill the victim to save my family
(b) refuse, and die along with my family

although there might be a 3rd choice...

(c) kill the guy who is threatening me

===

something has to give, and we're all going to ride all the way to hell.

I'm not taking an innocent person's life to save my own.

In before someone says they use the knife to fight off the guy with the gun lol

I would simply shoot the person who pulled the gun on me, then save the person in the rug.

Depends how I would die, if quick and painless I would choose my death, if slow and painful I would choose the stranger.

I would not kill just to spite the person holding a gun on me. I am a very spiteful and generally suicidal man. In fact, if you told me I could get 10 million dollars for a random murder, I would feel that a more compelling reason than because my life is on the line.

Do I have any option to seek alternative measures? Is there a guarantee that person will spare my life? My answer will depend on these 2 variables.

the milgram experiment proven that many people would obey the authority even if its against their personal beliefs (same with soldiers and police i guess) so i think i would too but if the one that i will kill is not some random stranger but a love one i think i might not do it and i rather die

Well the point if that don't know anything about the potential victim. It might be a random stranger or it might be someone you know.

@Cielord There are none. You either kill or die.

Who knows, but it remains your only chance for survival. Do you take it or not?

@Zarutaku So if the killer shoot you in the balls first you would rather stab someone to death?

@PeripheralVision Well now, I've been reminded that this question doesn't matter much for people that don't value their lives.

Nobody cares about moral code. People only pretend to care to keep up their good image in society. I can guarantee 99% of people would do anything to preserve their own life.

@fleurbleue Depends on the timespan until they finish me off.

Either from me or them.

If I don't have a firearm, I could seize theirs and take control of the situation. (Possibly without needing to discharge it. I could hold them there until police arrive, assuming I had a phone.)

Here are some videos about how to disarm guns pointed at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9CwqTshyiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU21JMZRwDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsoXy_AElB0

Even if that was not an option, movement is important in dangerous situations, so it could be more dangerous to just stand there. It would be better to quickly move around and use the environment to your advantage.

Of course, if I was restrained and not able to move freely, and truly had to kill the person in the rug or be killed, I would do what needs to be done...but there is no guarantee the person threatening me would keep their word even after that.

It's also conceivable to trick the criminal and kill them with the knife before they are able to shoot me...or at least injure them enough to get their gun.


This seems like an unnecessary personal question, but I assumed I would be able to be armed in such a scenario.

I think it would help a lot to know what that criminal is after, and what he would gain from me killing that random hostage as opposed to him doing the killing instead. Also, it would depend on whether his face is covered or not, and whether I know his full name or not.

Realistically, I think there's an extremely slim chance that I would get myself into a situation like that to begin with, but hypothetically, if I were to somehow be in that situation, and negotiations are completely out of the question, then I may have no choice but to either find a way to escape, disarm his gun, or, get a hold of his gun somehow without getting shot. If I were to get a hold of his gun, it would also depend on where exactly he's pointing that gun. Is his gun at point-blank range or at a very far distance from me, and is he in front of me or behind me, etc. Knowing the visual would help me determine what I would do in that instance.

@Zarutaku Pretty soon after I guess. So, you choose death if it's fast and painless and choose to murder if it's to be slow and painful. What will it be for relatively fast and painful?

I would say it is an instance of principle of double effect. It's a scenario in which a good end (protecting oneself against unjustified aggression) is necessarily tied to a foreseen but not intended side effect.

It is a good analogy perhaps to use just war theory, wherein, a nation knows for a fact that responding to a attack on their territory with a retaliatory strike is likely to kill some innocents, but it is in pursuit of a good end (to deter attacks on your nation), and the deleterious side effects are foreseen, but not intended, such that you would avoid it if you could.

In both instances, I would say that the moral guilt lies in the person that instigated this coercion, either the nation that made a unjustified preemptive strike to force your hand to respond, or the person coercing you to kill so that you may live.

And as we all know from Japanese media, デスゲーム (desu geemu) often showcase scenarios where people are forced to kill, and we often do not think of them as having done immoral things! Nor that they should be obligated to lay down their life in a sort of suicidal act of altruism.

Why is it always a rolled-up rug with victims? They are supposed to be cut into pieces and not being stabbed.

The person with the gun is obviously unprofessional.

@Exhumatika Hmm, it wouldn't make much sense if the hostage was already dead from the start. Cutting them is actually your job in this scenario.

If we're bringing war for examples, then it could be seen as if your country was coerced into a proxy war to attack another nation enemy. If you're an unwilling third-party, are you really not responsible for any war atrocities you're committing?

Your initial post states that the guy with the gun wants you to stab the victim, not cutting them on parts.

@GinInYourJuice Let's say the criminal is a psychopathic anthropologist who likes to observe human behavior in very fucked up ways (the lore is getting a little weird). They would have no problem killing you and it's not the first time they have done it. If you yap to them to try to get out of it they will countdown from 10 until you make a choice. The hostage is completely covered by the rug and you can't know anything about them. The criminal is about two meters behind you and point the gun at your head. Any suspect movement on your part would be seen as a refusal and will result in you getting shot down.