marieldraconis

First, if you lost anyone in the most recent shootings, I'm very sorry for your loss. Unfortunately for you, the exercise I'm about to propose will be that much easier.

Second:
The next time you are in a position to affect (vote on, send out of committee or allow to come up for a vote, veto, write, anything) any bill affecting guns in America, consider the following in your actions:
Pick someone you love, someone whose life and happiness you care about. Convince yourself that they'll be one of the victims of the next mass shooting. Maybe they're a kid going to school, maybe their commute passes by the shooter's target, maybe they're the good guy with a gun the NRA keeps talking about, and they try to pick off the shooter but the shooter gets them first (if you have a loved one who is both a qualified sniper and always carries their gun everywhere, even to the bathroom, they are ineligible as the example for this exercise, because making sure everyone is a qualified sniper and never leaves their guns behind isn't feasible).
If you've ever shot a gun, or seen the aftermath, on a mammal (human, deer, or any other), picture those wounds on your loved one. If you've ever seen such wounds in real life (not as a Hollywood depiction), use that to inspire your imagination.

Now you've horrified yourself, and maybe are crying or throwing up or similar. Now you're in the right frame of mind for that bill.
Would this bill affect your loved one's chances? If he or she is a victim of the next mass shooting, would you be able to honestly say you've done everything you can to ensure his or her safety? If not, how can you change the bill to improve his or her chances?

It's not about the government taking away your guns, it's about the value of human life. The MSD kids have it right--if you accept NRA money, then you're putting a price tag on your consituents' lives, and it's a very low price. How many lives is your gun worth? How many lives is your next reelection worth? How many lives if not nameless individuals but people you love?

In the wake of the Parkland shooting, I'd like to propose a game. Instead of demanding thoughts and prayers, or action, I instead suggest that anyone responsible for laws in the United States consider this: think of your children, or grandchildren, or nieces or nephews--someone of the right age to be in a school, or a family member who's a schoolteacher. (If you have no one like this, part of the exercise is to imagine someone you care about somehow ending up in a school shooting, so I'll wait while you conceive of a scenario. Maybe this loved one is invited to an awards ceremony at the school?)

Now that you have a loved one who is at a school--convince yourself that they'll be in the next school shooting. Spend all day tomorrow absolutely convinced that he or she is one of the victims. Now, reevaluate your attitude towards gun control knowing that someone you care about (picture their face, their bleeding body, while you think about this) will be the next victim.
If your attitude was "nothing can be done about this"--do you still think so, knowing that someone you love is going to die and that you can do nothing?
If your attitude was "thoughts and prayers", do you trust your god (or gods, or goddess) to save your loved one when you won't lift a finger to save people? (The saying goes "God helps those who help themselves", not "God helps those who sit on their hands")
If your attitude was "more guns in schools," do you trust armed teachers to 1) keep their guns out of the hands of curious students, and simultaneously 2) be able to get to the gun when needed, right away, and not be trapped across the room from it? Or, maybe you're thinking cops with guns in schools--do you trust them to never misinterpret a situation, and, say, shoot a twelve-year-old playing with a toy? Do you trust them with your loved one's life? And either way, armed teachers or cops in schools, will your loved one feel safe, or scared with the ever-present reminder of danger? Shouldn't school be a safe space?
If your attitude was "restrict gun access in X way", would that restriction save your loved one's life? Or at least give him or her a better chance? If not, then what restrictions will? (If you think none will, are you really comfortable with either the "thoughts and prayers" viewpoint, or the "nothing can be done" viewpoint, when you know for certain that the next victim is someone you love?)

I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm just saying that, rather than object to people who nearly died last week, saying they don't know what they're talking about, try putting yourself in their places. Or in the place of the parents of their classmates and family of their teachers, the ones burying loved ones this week.
And vote with the certainty that someone you love will be the next victim, if you can't stop the next school shooting. Because those kids will be.

With only one answer to the previous ethics problem, I waited a little to post the next one. Same rules apply as before.

You are the democratically elected leader of a democratic, liberal, secular Western European nation. Your national police force has just captured a terrorist ring that planned to blow up Parliament, your residence, all the major government buildings. If they had succeeded, your country would effectively have no government. However, this group is linked to several sleeper cells planted around the city. If word leaks of their capture, or if the deadline of blowing up the buildings passes with no action, these sleeper cells will act, strategically sending out suicide bombers so that thousands of people will die. You have no other information on these cells, and no way to learn anything about them. However, your experts assure you that with 48 hours of "special interrogation techniques", your prisoners will crack and reveal what you need to know about the cells.
In a recent poll, 90% of your population has stated that they would not condone torture under any circumstances. Remember, you are their elected leader. What do you do?
Please tune in next time for "Return to the Nazis".

Edit: I forgot to mention earlier, but there is no risk that the populace will find out about your actions.

OK...so far, so good. I have given my own answer to problem 1. Now, here's a slight scenario shift.
You are soldiers in Iraq. For the moment, ignore any moral opinions that you have about the war and accept that point. "Larry" is your commanding officer. "Johnny" is a group of Iraqi terrorists that you have captured. Larry wants, instead of killing them, to torture them for information.
These terrorists have killed a lot of your friends in the war. Maybe not these ones personally, but definitely the organizations they work with. Do you go along with the torture, or do you oppose Larry and risk court-martial?

Again, please feel free to bring friends in on this scenario or copy it over into your LJ. I want to see reactions.

Here we go...this is a series of ethical dilemmas posed in a class I'm taking. I want to invite participation of any sort, on any level, because I think this sort of discussion could be fun. That means that anyone who sees this can comment, tell their friends to comment, tell their worst enemies to comment, whatever. The only problem is that people will see your reaction--but if you mind, you can just discuss it in school, with your friends, etc.
Problem #1 has multiple parts. I'll post the first part, let you discuss it, then in a while post my reaction/decision and the second part. So, here we go:

You've known Johnny since pre-school, and hated him just as long. He stole your favorite truck in pre-K, your top prize at the middle school science fair, and in high school, stole your girlfriend--and married her. [feel free to change details and/or genders as appropriate for the situation] You really hate him, and might even think the world would be better off without him in it.
You also have a friend from high school named Larry. No matter how much you hate Johnny, Larry hates him worse. One day, Larry gets his hands on a gun. You walk into a room/deserted alley/forest clearing...and Larry is pointing the gun at Johnny. You may hate Johnny, but you personally don't want to kill him--however, there is the risk that Larry will turn on you if you try to stop him. What do you do?

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Entries tagged with ethics riddle

To Texan lawmakers

To All United States Lawmakers

Ethics Problem #2: Terrorism from a Leadership Position

Ethical Problem #1a

Ethics Problem #1

Profile

May 2018

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags