I'm going to put you in a "what-if" scenario, and I am interested, not really in which choice you make, but why you make the choice.
~~~
A man calls you up and tells you he has three hostages, and you alone get to save one of them. He has a very sharp eye on you, he says, so don't try to call the police, otherwise none of them will be saved.
The first hostage is the pastor of your local church, although not your church. The second is a pathologist on the brink of discovering a cure for cancer. The third is a newborn diagnosed with with severe mental retardation.
The pastor, if you choose to save him, will be an instrument of God to save souls.
The pathologist, if you choose to save her, will be an instrument of God to save lives.
The newborn, although unable to be an instrument to save souls or lives, is innocent.
Remember, by choosing one, you condemn the other two to death. Based on those details, I ask you, "Which one will you save? Which?"
7 comments:
Hi Existentialist,
All 3 lives are of equal value. So I have to make the choice based on other considerations.
I'd choose #2 prolly.
The pastor I'd trust knows Jesus personally and therefore would be assured of heaven upon death. And he'd probably agree with me that he should die rather than an unbeliever who is assured of hell if they die in unbelief.
If he didn't know Jesus (and notwithstanding were a pastor) then a false teacher would be put to death. There are worse things.
(I'm assuming that when you said "pastor of your local church, although not your church" you meant pastor of A local church.)
The pathologist may or may not know Jesus. Extending her life might lead to life extensions for others as well, so they could have more opportunities to hear the Good News of Jesus.
#3 I'd think there's a good chance that God saves children.
by choosing one, you condemn the other two to death
Absolutely wrong. The murderer condemns them to death, not me.
This dilemma's force is weakened given that I'm not the bad guy no matter what I do. This murderer is the bad guy. My choice is to do a good vs a good vs a good.
What are you getting at?
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
What are you getting at?
I think what I was trying to get at is, On what objective basis do you make your choice?
Knowing that you firmly adhere to sola Scriptura, I would assume your objective basis would be the Bible. You pointed it out yourself, "All three lives are of equal value." So which one do you choose, and what is your objective basis for that choice? If you do choose the Bible, could you provide a passage that would support your choice?
The pastor I'd trust knows Jesus personally and therefore would be assured of heaven upon death.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough (I did write this practically on the way out the door before I went to school). Yes, we are assuming that, if God existed and Jesus were God-incarnate, then this pastor would be a true believer in Jesus Christ.
And he'd probably agree with me that he should die rather than an unbeliever who is assured of hell if they die in unbelief.
Fair enough, but as I pointed out, only the pastor would be the instrument of saving souls, which you resolved with your choice of the pathologist, who would prolong life for a better chance to hear the Gospel.
But I think this begs a fair question: How do you know that any of the people the pathologist saves from cancer will get a chance to hear the Gospel? Maybe God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty, decided that all of them should perish in accordance with their sins. Whereas if you chose the pastor, you know you'd be choosing a man who would be used to save at least one more person. Does that affect your decision?
This discussion is, by default, different than if I had been talking to a non-reformed Christian, you know that? Hahaha! At least we're in a ball-park I'm familiar with.
Extending her life might lead to life extensions for others as well, so they could have more opportunities to hear the Good News of Jesus.
Are you willing to bet two innocent lives (the pastor and the newborn) on a "might," a possibility?
I'd think there's a good chance that God saves children.
But what if He doesn't? As much as I've studied, I haven't read anywhere in the Bible where it specifically tells me God saves infants' souls from hell. And as someone who tried to reconcile that to his sola Scriptura beliefs, I must say it is impossible. But maybe I just missed where it said that.
This dilemma's force is weakened given that I'm not the bad guy no matter what I do.
I'm sorry if that's the impression I was giving. Please don't misunderstand me if that's the case. Certainly you aren't the bad man.
I'm just wondering, as I said, upon what objective basis will you choose? You pointed it out that you are making a good vs. good vs. good type of a choice, but what if you considered choosing not to choose at all? Or what if you tried calling the police, thinking he was just bluffing you, or maybe you'd try to outsmart him and possibly save all three?
Great talk,
-Existentialist
If you choose to save the pastor or the newborn then you may already be a living product of someone having previously chosen to save the retard. I would certainly choose to save the pathologist to improve and wield the instruments of science to increase understanding and reduce suffering.
I'll make sure to remember that your life is worth less than another's based on profession of choice when you are held hostage, CD.
CD's comment reveals a prevalent attitude about the opinion of the value and sanctity of life held by many: one's value is based on what they can DO, not what they ARE.
Why? I'd say at least partly b/c evolution means that man is nothing more than a bunch of cells. Not made in the image of God out of which our value could be based, certainly.
Now, Existentialist, you may be having difficulty with the concept of objectivity, so let me explain further. It may help to contrast it with what we find in an atheistic POV, where the only basis for moral judgment is one's own personal preference. Any question, from what flavor of ice cream it's OK to enjoy to whether it's OK to rape and murder little girls, is settled by asking "What do I like?" Maybe not consciously, but that's the only justification that an atheist POV can offer.
The Bible certainly does offer an objective basis for moral judgments, being the self-revelation of He Who is the source of good. What the Bible says is good is good b/c it's God telling us how He is, Who He is.
At the same time the Bible does not offer exhaustive direction regarding what moral judgment is right in a given situation. God has blessed humans with the ability to reason, pray, and listen to the Holy Spirit. Even to make mistakes (and learn from them). And to work things out. It's part of His plan to make us holier and more like Him.
That said, I can't claim with dogmatic certainty that what I say here would be "Gospel truth" since it's not spoken to directly in the Bible. It's far different than, say, my ability to say that raping and murdering little girls is always wrong all the time in all places for all people (and aliens).
That doesn't mean there's not A Right Answer, it simply means that I'm not 100% confident of the former as I am of the latter, but I at least can offer a justification for making ANY moral judgment as opposed to an atheist. For an atheist to say "If you do that, it's wrong, period," is to act inconsistently with atheism.
I don't know that anyone the pathologist saves will hear the Gospel or accept it.
God can get saving souls accomplished quite without the help of one pastor; He'll use others.
There's not a great answer to your question b/c it's so brutal. It's like, "What can I do in the face of such evil?"
I'm not betting any lives in this. The murderer is solely responsible for it.
The Bible does not say explicitly that God saves children who die in childhood. John Macarthur wrote a good book on the subject - "Safe in the Arms of God."
Having lost a daughter to miscarriage, I *hope* He does, but I don't know for sure. I trust His goodness and good judgment.
I didn't consider not choosing, really, or calling the police. Calling the police might be the best thing I could do, you're right. Let professionals handle it.
I was just responding to the thought experiment.
I invite other follow-up questions, but I'd also be interested in what you'd say and offering critiques.
Peace,
Rhology
Existentialist,
I’m glad to hear it. So, I am sure, would be the millions of families tortured by cancer. But let’s not beat around the bush.
The fact that the pathologist can end that suffering defines that suffering as avoidable at the cost of two other lives, which by the terms of your thought experiment is an unavoidable cost anyway. Whoever is chosen to live at least two others will die and if no one is chosen then all three die. So we have three options.
1) Two unavoidably die by the hands of the hostage taker AND subsequently millions die and millions more suffer from avoidable cancer.
2) Two unavoidably die by the hands of the hostage taker AND one avoidably dies at the hands of the hostage taker AND subsequently millions die and millions more suffer from avoidable cancer.
3) Two unavoidably die by the hands of the hostage taker.
Let’s put this in perspective. The American Cancer Society estimates 559,650 American deaths from cancer for 2007. That’s only Americans, worldwide figures will be MUCH higher, especially considering that cancer treatments are far more available in America than in the majority of other countries. You can check these numbers here: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf
So, just sticking with Americans in 2007 your what-if has three options.
1) 559,652 people die
2) 559,653 people die
3) 2 people die.
Wow, that’s a really difficult choice.
Choosedoubt,
You do realize, I hope, that this question is geared more towards Christians than atheists, right? The whole reason I inserted a pastor, rather than a policeman, is because the pastor would be the instrument to save souls from hell (ie. eternal suffering), where as the pathologist would save lives from temporary (albeit life-long) suffering, and the newborn being innocent.
But you do put things into great perspective.
Post a Comment