Avenge or Rescue?

[Erik Mesoy]

This poll has now been obsoleted because people have rules-lawyered holes in it at a rate comparable to a genie twisting a wish, and so I've realized that I was not able to accurately convey the question I was trying to ask.

Original post:

Spoiler :

This is a specific, hypothetical example that I later intend to generalize to a range of situations.

You're walking around somewhere, late at night. You see one person attack another with a knife. He fights back and loses. The attacker is obviously hurt, looks around, sees you and begins hobbling away. You look at the wounded man on the ground, who's unconscious, bleeding and has a loaded gun [which he didn't manage to draw]. (Tranquilizer, for those who don't like shooting with real guns, or don't want to kill the attacker, only stun him, or other reasons.)

Do you hunt down the attacker, or bandage the wounded man?

Assume that the options are generally equal - the man running away isn't bin Laden or someone else it's specially important to catch, the wounded man isn't a known philanthropist who will give you a million dollars for saving him, you know you're capable of either chasing down the attacker or staunching the attackee's blood loss, the attacker WILL get away if you stop to play doctor, the wounded man WILL die if you decide to play hero, etc, etc.

If you want to walk away from the situation, just abstain from the poll.

Edit - And to make it absolutely clear, you can't do both.

 

[Synobun]

Well, you say has a loaded tranq gun, so...

I would first get the wounded man under condition, take the gun, paralyze the attacker, and come back to the wounded to finish stabilizing.

 

[JonnyB]

I'd save the wounded man. However, if I somehow knew for a fact that the attacker was going to try to kill more people before anyone else could stop him, I'd probably take him down.

 

[EdwardTking]

Not your job (judge & jury) to avenge, and you might get stabbed too.

Best to go to the wounded man and/or dial for ambulance.

 

[Godwynn]

Save the life.

 

[Stegyre]

Well, you say has a loaded tranq gun, so...

I would first get the wounded man under condition, take the gun, paralyze the attacker, and come back to the wounded to finish stabilizing.

I believe that's referred to as fighting the hypothetical. The choice is clearly stated:

the attacker WILL get away if you stop to play doctor, the wounded man WILL die if you decide to play hero

I think I should save the wounded.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I'd help the wounded man, it would seem more important at the moment.

 

[Sophie 378]

If I can't do both, I'd try to save the wounded, of course. Let someone die over letting someone else escape? I'd try to take a snap of the attacker with my mobile camera-phone (takes only three seconds), and then do first aid, calling for an ambulance as soon as he seems stable. I'd then call the police and try to be a helpful witness.

 

[Perfection]

May I kill both and loot thier corpses?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

May I kill both and loot thier corpses?

Sure, if you want some Dark Side Points.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'd save the wounded man. However, if I somehow knew for a fact that the attacker was going to try to kill more people before anyone else could stop him, I'd probably take him down.

Well, the next person may think the same way (someone else will stop him, I'll save the wounded man).

Not your job (judge & jury) to avenge, and you might get stabbed too.

Hence the optional tranquilizer gun in the OP, and the fact that the attacker had a knife, not a gun, so you're not putting yourself at risk.

 

[JonnyB]

Well, the next person may think the same way (someone else will stop him, I'll save the wounded man).

I know, but I can't in good conscience let the wounded man die because it will hypothetically save more lives, I would need to be fairly certain it will.

 

[Perfection]

Hence the optional tranquilizer gun in the OP, and the fact that the attacker had a knife, not a gun, so you're not putting yourself at risk.

Well if the attacker managed to get a gun-toting man he could get an incompetant gun-toting man.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well if the attacker managed to get a gun-toting man he could get an incompetant gun-toting man.

Fine; I've added the phrase "which he didn't manage to draw" to the OP. Are you happy now?

Maybe I should have asked something more abstract so that people wouldn't keep bringing in things like mobile cameras. (Yes, it's a handy modern item, but it wasn't meant to appear in the hypothetical.)

Something like: "While playing a computer simulation, you notice A expend 10 energy units to severely damage B to the point where B is not self-sustaining. If you had 10 energy units to spare, would you damage A to the same point, or restore B?"

 

[Turner]

My first inclination would be to help the wounded man. But I'd really rather go after the attacker.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's an excellent question.

I'd say I have an animalistic urge to subdue the attacker; but morally I feel inclined to help the victim. I would have to go with my morals on this one.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That's an excellent question.

Thank you; it's been floating around in my head for some time now, in relation to various threads.

I'd say I have an animalistic urge to subdue the attacker; but morally I feel inclined to help the victim. I would have to go with my morals on this one.

Interesting. Some of the posts in this thread and my observations of other humans suggest an opposite response, ie. a moral obligation to do "justice", opposed to a basic reaction of "hurt person! must help!"


I would go after the attacker. Then he won't kill more people. If I save the wounded man, I'm leaving a source of wounded men alone.


And the generalization is... do you patch the problem, or do you stop it ocurring again and then deal with the consequences of what you left unfixed? (Talking to next of kin, etc.)
This floated into my head during my reading of a bunch of recent threads here. It seems to be a strong human trait to take the short-term fix now and postpone the long-term fix. Poll options confirm it somewhat, although I can't control how people interpreted the hypothetical. Long-term fixes generally require large investments of time and money and should probably be left to someone else. Economic reforms fall under this too - most politicians across the world will apply fixes for now, and schedule reforms to take place under their successor. One could apply it to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, in which the US tried to fix something wrong (Osama, Saddam) rather than stop the source. (Afghanistan is falling back to warlord control, Iraq is a training ground for insurgents.) Not that the group out of power in the US seems much better, with a tendency towards "Impeach Bush!" over things like educating people (easier to slander the opposition) or putting forwards better candidates.
[Insert disclaimer that the above is simplified to clarify the point.]

OT: El_Machinae, have you bumped into memetic engineering much? I've got a draft I'd like to send to you and aneeshm both.

 

[El_Machinae]

Glad to see you back, btw.
I don't know if you could say I've had much experience with memetic engineering - I don't know how to compare my exposure levels to the average person; I'm pretty sure I understand the concept, but I think I would be much more successful in life if I were good at it.

Interesting. Some of the posts in this thread and my observations of other humans suggest an opposite response, ie. a moral obligation to do "justice", opposed to a basic reaction of "hurt person! must help!"

Well, I factored in the fact that my "fight or flight" would kick in, making me more prone to aggression.

As well, I believe that neutralising a threat (potentially to you, or to your family) is a more instinctive response.

Your question has an excellent real-world example; bombing innocent people to kill the terrorists. Many people seem willing to sacrifice innocent people in order to neutralise potential future threat to themselves, or to their family.

However, I can easily see your interpretation too; though (when I read the OP) I did not perceive much difference in relative efforts. There was no 'harder task' to leave to someone else (the way I interpreted it).

 

[Ansar]

I'd want to take down the attacker, but realizing that the guy is probably going to kill me, I'd help the dying person.

 

[.Shane.]

Save the life.

Its pretty easy. If I thought the victim was going to die and I could save him, I would.