I have always been curious about the way in which people on this forum might answer a very interesting question, one that I came across whilst reading a book I was given as a gift.
If you're not really interested in taking this seriously, then find somewhere else to go, because here isn't the place.
It might be a question you have come across in different forms in the past, and it isn't exactly unusual, but I am really interested to see what answer people give to it. So here goes...
In July 2005, a Special Forces team set out on a secret reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, in search of a Taliban leader. According to reports, their target commanded 140-150 heavily armed fighters and was staying in a village in the forbidding mountains region.
Shortly after the special forces team took up a position on a mountain ridge overlooking the village , two afghan farmers with about 100 bleating goats happened upon them. With them was a boy about 14 years old. The Afghans were unarmed. The American soldiers trained their rifles on them, motioned for them to sit on the ground, and then debated what to do about them. On the one hand, the herders were unarmed civilians. On the other hand, letting them go would run the risk that they inform the Taliban of the presence of US Soldiers.
They had no rope, so they couldn't tie them up, the only choice was to kill them or let them go free.
One argued: "We're on active duty behind enemy lines. We have a right to do everything we can to save our lives"
Another, Luttrell, said in retrospect: "In my soul I knew he was right. We could not possibly turn them loose. But I also thought it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood"
In the end the second soldier cast the deciding vote against killing them, and let them go.
An hour and a half later, the four soldiers found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred Taliban fighters, and a firefight ensued. All soldiers except for Luttrell were killed, and Luttrell escaped severely wounded. Afterwards, he said that the decision to let the herders free was the stupidest decision he had ever made in his entire life.
From this there are a few questions that need to be answered:
1. If you were in their position, without knowing what the farmers would do, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
2. If you knew that they were innocent farmers, but would be tortured by the Taliban to reveal your location, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
3. Do you think it's acceptable to use the utilitarian approach, and suggest that killing three goat herders to save the lives of the group of four or so soldiers is morally acceptable?*
Try to think of this question as a hypothetical, in that there are only TWO solutions, to kill or not to kill. (i.e. there are no other ways out of it) Also, try to think of what YOU would do, if you were one of the soldiers. This might mean assuming that you have taken all the training and have changed your mindset, or that you still have the same mindset as you would right now.
*Story taken from Michael J Sandel's book Justice
If you're not really interested in taking this seriously, then find somewhere else to go, because here isn't the place.
It might be a question you have come across in different forms in the past, and it isn't exactly unusual, but I am really interested to see what answer people give to it. So here goes...
In July 2005, a Special Forces team set out on a secret reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, in search of a Taliban leader. According to reports, their target commanded 140-150 heavily armed fighters and was staying in a village in the forbidding mountains region.
Shortly after the special forces team took up a position on a mountain ridge overlooking the village , two afghan farmers with about 100 bleating goats happened upon them. With them was a boy about 14 years old. The Afghans were unarmed. The American soldiers trained their rifles on them, motioned for them to sit on the ground, and then debated what to do about them. On the one hand, the herders were unarmed civilians. On the other hand, letting them go would run the risk that they inform the Taliban of the presence of US Soldiers.
They had no rope, so they couldn't tie them up, the only choice was to kill them or let them go free.
One argued: "We're on active duty behind enemy lines. We have a right to do everything we can to save our lives"
Another, Luttrell, said in retrospect: "In my soul I knew he was right. We could not possibly turn them loose. But I also thought it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood"
In the end the second soldier cast the deciding vote against killing them, and let them go.
An hour and a half later, the four soldiers found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred Taliban fighters, and a firefight ensued. All soldiers except for Luttrell were killed, and Luttrell escaped severely wounded. Afterwards, he said that the decision to let the herders free was the stupidest decision he had ever made in his entire life.
From this there are a few questions that need to be answered:
1. If you were in their position, without knowing what the farmers would do, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
2. If you knew that they were innocent farmers, but would be tortured by the Taliban to reveal your location, would you let them go, or would you kill them?
3. Do you think it's acceptable to use the utilitarian approach, and suggest that killing three goat herders to save the lives of the group of four or so soldiers is morally acceptable?*
Try to think of this question as a hypothetical, in that there are only TWO solutions, to kill or not to kill. (i.e. there are no other ways out of it) Also, try to think of what YOU would do, if you were one of the soldiers. This might mean assuming that you have taken all the training and have changed your mindset, or that you still have the same mindset as you would right now.
*Story taken from Michael J Sandel's book Justice
Last edited:
