hotaka's tags:

There you are at a hospital. Doctors and nurses have just rushed in with a boy on a gurney, an oxygen mask held to his face, his parents running after in a panic, calling his name. The parents have minor cuts and scratches, some blood on their faces. Behind some hospital staff is dragging what is clearly a drunken man. His head is lolling from side to side. He’s is speaking but slurring his words and he is making an attempt in his drunken stupor to fight away the staff.

You watch as the parents plead for their son’s life. The father turns and suddenly tries to attack the drunkard but a police officer holds him back. The drunkard kicks at a supply cart and violently pushes a nurse to the floor. The excitement in the doctors’ voices is not good. It seems the boy will die, a victim of a car crash caused by the drunken driver who shows no remorse and only maintains an obnoxious attitude to any who try to assist him. You see he has some bad lacerations on his right arm however he refuses all help.

Then a young man appears next to you. He says he can help the boy. He can save him. He has the power and you know he speaks the truth because you know there are people like him who can heal and save lives. You know it’s true because you are the opposite. You have the power to kill with a pulse that stops the heart dead. It’s not a gift you are glad to have and the one person who knows about your power won’t let you touch her or her daughter, even when the daughter has fallen down. She is afraid of what might happen if you do touch her.

The man next to you says he will save the boy if you will kill the drunken man. You respond with shock and repulse. The young man explains that the drunken man is clearly remorseless and even if he goes to prison he will likely repeat the same again. He is a scourge upon society. You protest and argue that a human life is of equal value no matter what wrong the individual may have done. But you see the drunken man continue to fight those who wish to help him while the boy’s parents are in tears of desperation to have their son’s life saved. Is this a game? Have you no respect for human life? You ask the young man these things. But you realize that the only way to save the boy and spare his parents agonizing grief is to do what the young man asks you to and hope he carries out his part of the bargain.

The drunken man escapes from the nurse and comes out into the hall where you stand as he approaches. He bumps your shoulder hard and turns to sneer at you, “You gotta problem?” as he grabs you by the collar. You take his wrist in your hands and with your special power you send a pulse through his body that stops his heart. One of his eyes crosses to the side and with a gentle push he slumps into the bench where you sat a moment ago. The young man has gone. A nurse comes out to see the drunken man and discovers he is unresponsive and has no pulse. She calls for the doctor who comes rushing out and with shock finds the man is dead. You look around for the young man but he is no where to be seen. You were tricked. He has reneged on his part of the deal.

But then you see the boy in the emergency room sit up suddenly. His parents jump and gently place their hands on him for support. “Are you OK?” they ask. “Yeah, I feel fine.” The parents burst into tears of relief and thank God for the miracle.

You discover soon after that all children in the children’s ward have suddenly become healed of broken bones and other injuries. “It doesn’t hurt anymore,” a little girl cries out as she stands on her cast-bound leg. The young man did keep his promise. At the cost of one reckless soul an innocent boy’s life was spared and many other children were healed of their injuries. All because you agreed to kill a man.

 

This was the end of the second episode of a Japanese drama that airs on Fridays. I thought the moral question here was interesting, so I will ask it here:

If you had the power to kill and someone you knew had the power to heal, would you agree to kill someone with your power in order to have him heal someone? Let’s take it a step further and say that he can only heal someone, that is save them from death, if you kill someone. It must be an exchange of a life for a life. It didn’t matter whom you killed, just as long as someone died. How many people would you be able to help save?



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • superbozo said on Aug 04, 2009....
    Now thats some twisted shit :)
     
    The first sceneario is a no brainer for me. At least on the surface it seems that way. Then you begin to think a little more and is this really just a mindless drunk with no repect for anyone including himself. Or a severely disturbed individual who is failing to come to terms with his own grief at the loss of a loved one. Still hind sight is a wonderful thing. Sometimes you can only deal with what is in front of you and hope that time proves you correct.
     
    It's strange, I think the question you ask is played out everyday to a certain extent. People right now are killing and being killed to ensure the safety of others. If I had to kill a hundred men to ensure my little girl lived a long, happy and safe life. Would I apply my death touch. Probably. Then that realist that knows this could never happen kicks in. Would I kill a complete stranger to save a complete stranger. What possible justification could I have. Then the Squaddie in me kicks in. It reminds me that people have put their life on the line for me in the past and I for them and others paid the price. I could do it but I'd need to know the whys and what ifs.
  • quietone said on Aug 04, 2009....
    wow, hotaka, this is a heavy one.  Maybe I would (if possible) end my own life to save all those children?  I don't think I could kill someone else when it came right down to it, even if it meant saving another.  In a way, this is like "war"  we kill unknow people for the sake of saving our country, on a bigger scale.
  • Hegemone said on Aug 04, 2009....
    I think in a scenario like what has been described I'd be able to do it.  If it was just anybody though, I don't know, because I'd want to know about how each person led their lives.  Who lived morally, fully, etc.  That's not to say I'd choose the more 'moral' person or anything, but without really, truly knowing how can you say who deserves to live and die.  A drunk driver is a drunk driver, he knew what he was getting himself into when he started drinking and intended to drive.  Maybe I'd just make a deal that I only will kill drunk drivers, but they have to actually be drunk and driving at the same time.
  • uniquely-ironic said on Aug 04, 2009....
    The knee jerk reaction is to say sure I'd kill those who were hopeless sociopaths and serial killers.  Eventually they're going to die, why not before they take more with them.  But ......
     
    no one's life story is done until it's truly done.  The same drunk derelict might some day clean up and do great things, discover great cures, etc.  The innocent boy dying might grow up to be a serial killer. 
     
    I don't think I could make the decision to take a life.
  • moonriver said on Aug 04, 2009....
    hotman, let me just mark this for now.
    i'll read more closely, and write a more substantial comment later.
    i can only say for now that there's a close analogy in war, decisions which combat commanders have to wrestle with almost on a daily basis...

  • diabolicdame said on Aug 04, 2009....
    Wow.. that's one cool episode! Thats not an easy question either.. but I think I would not kill a person to save another.. even a child. Nobody is hopeless until they are dead.. everyone deserves a second chance. Also if you believe in god to any extent at all.. you gotta think that its not your job to decide who lives and who dies. Only thing is.. if the person I was saving was my family or someone I loved.. them my answer would be different I think.. selfish motives.
  • gingersoul said on Aug 04, 2009....
    Hottie.....If i had to kill someone to save a loved one.....i would kill with no hesitation.
     
    Like Moon said...in war, choices of this kind happens at any moment....and doctors in many occasions have to let go a baby's life to save the mother. 
     
    Who has never been confronted with such dramatic choice is lucky.
  • queenparanoia said on Aug 04, 2009....
    death is never the answer... we dont have need to kill in order to save...
  • hotaka said on Aug 04, 2009....
    Wow, I am pleased to see several people left comments. I am glad some people decided to leave their thoughts.

    First I'll say that I agree that we don't know enough about the drunk. Maybe he was trying to deal with a great loss and is just having a hard time in his life now. A serial killer would have been an easier choice. Like some people said, we don't know how people might change in their lives to be able to say who can stay and who should go.

    superbozo, like you, I felt the more you think about it the more conflicting answers that come with the question. But to save my son, wife, or any family member, good friend or even my young students I would not hesitate to at least attempt to seriously incapacitate a violent or threatening individual and if he died in the process then whoops! Of course I'd feel some remorse, however, I'd feel worse if through inaction I had let any of the people mentioned above come to harm.

    Yes, whenever I see war movies and see people die I always think that those people had families and friends and if it hadn't been for war they would be leading normal lives. I think Austin Powers addressed that in a way by showing that henchmen working for Doctor Evil had lives outside of work.

    quietone, wasn't that like "The Seventh Seal" or "Seventh Sign" (I forget)? Demi Moore's character has to give up her life to add her soul to the "Guff" in order to save humanity? Or Bruce Willis in "Armageddon"?

    Hegemone, but then you'd have to chase them down the street, trying to grab their arms so you could "pulse" them to death. And not all drunk drivers are bad people. They are just doing a bad thing. Maybe it would be better if we could just purge the temptation to sin from their minds.

    UI, right. Still, there are some people who commit crimes, are punished, released, and the next day commit the same heinous crimes again. The cycle repeats. Is there a chance that someday they will see the light and change? It's a tough call. But them by granting them the right to live and hopefull change we are putting innocent people at risk. What a dilemma, eh?
  • hotaka said on Aug 04, 2009....
    moonie, glad to see you are typing the right way around again. Got the howling out of your system? Yes, there is a war analogy going on here. But as most people don't have to think about those things in their daily lives I think the drama is trying to put that kind of thinking in the laps of its audience. Perhaps this drama is also in response to the almost daily reports of people in Japan and abroad (specifically the U.S. but also terrorist countries) who take lives of innocent people, justified by their own means.

    What is interesting in this drama is that the guy with the power to kill is played as a good guy whereas the guy with the power to heal and save so far seems like a kind of devil in his manner. But there is still much to learn. Japanese dramas are usually 13 episodes and this was only the second. There is likely to be some twist.

    diabolicD, I like that, "Nobody is hopeless until they are dead." "Well, is he going to change?" "I guess not. He's dead." "Then he's bloody well hopeless now." Yes, it's hard to decide who should live and die if you believe in God. But then again, that hasn't stopped so many people of various religions over the centuries. Killing in the name of God is fashionable and in vogue at times.

    ginger, I like your last sentence. Yes, I agree. The person who has never had to make that decision is indeed lucky. In a way, it reminds me of the pilots of the Enola Gay, who only knew they were going to drop "some kind of new bomb". When they saw the explosion they thought, "Oh, my God. What have we done?"

    queenP, in daily life no, I think you're right. But what if a madman was threatening to slice the throats of 10 captive school children and the only weapon you had to stop him was something that would definitely kill him. You can do as long as you are willing. Would you use that weapon or let him do as he threatened to do? Sometimes, some people like police or military officers have to make such decisions.
  • RollingC said on Aug 04, 2009....
    I honestly don't know.  I'd like to think (and probably correct) that I'd kill without hesitation to save the life of a loved one or if put in a scenario where I had to kill someone who was threatening the life of another...specially an innocent child.
    But I honestly don't know and hope that it never happens to me.
    Rc
  • UnicornForm said on Aug 04, 2009....
    I wouldent take a life. Aint my choice, i am in no shape to play god.
  • diabolicdame said on Aug 05, 2009....
    See.. that is why I put very little stock in fashion anyway.. hehe.. and yes its ironic that if you believe in god, you wouldnt kill anybody but most of the killings these days are actually in the name of god.. people are strange!
  • scipio said on Aug 05, 2009....
    Surprised that a good man would want to make a commercial bargain to save a life. The drunkard will be sober the next day and then perhaps realise the result of his actions and may be repent - who knows ? But to kill a drunken  person in a state of anger would only be a burden on your conscience. An eye for an eye will make everyone blind. The fact that the other people also got healed in the process will always be at the cost of one life
  • Hegemone said on Aug 05, 2009....
    Hot, somewhat my point exactly.  They'd almost have to get into an accident that I witnessed for me to be able to catch them, and at that time ... I'd be able to better judge who was really at fault and what was going on.  So in essence, I probably wouldn't wind up doing it all that often.   But, heh, from reading one of Uni's posts last night, who can really say unless we're in the situation.  But, that's the fun in thinking about things I suppose.  :-)
  • fragglesrock said on Aug 05, 2009....
    this one makes my hands feel clammy. i think about different scenarios of this and just get all stressed and upset. i'm going to wimp out and just not think about it anymore :)
  • moonriver said on Aug 05, 2009....
    hotman, i read this post again, more carefully this time.
    i read the other comments too.

    short answer:
    no, i won't kill someone so that a healer can use his power to save lives, even if it was my loved one he was going to save. (sorry, ginger, but we differ on this point.)

    long answer:
    you see, my friend, i'm a very logical man.
    and in your story, the quid pro quo involves warped logic.
    i mean, why should the healer require that i kill the drunk before he could heal the injured boy (and all other kids in the children's ward besides).
    i don't see any good reason for that.

    the two things here (healing a kid and killing a drunk) are simply unconnected.
    his argument that the drunk is remorseless and will kill again, won't hold water in any modern court of law.
    he wants to become judge and jury, and for me to become his executioner.
    if he really wanted to heal people, then he should fucking do so without quid pro quos that are non fucking sequitur.
    (sorry for the sudden onslaught of latin... :-)

    as for your modified scenario:
    Let’s take it a step further and say that he can only heal someone, that is save them from death, if you kill someone. It must be an exchange of a life for a life. It didn’t matter whom you killed, just as long as someone died.

    all the more is this unacceptable to me -- to kill just anybody so that another life is saved... an arbitrary exchange of lives... simply unacceptable to me.
    if some cosmic time warp (not to mention logic warp) suddenly required this quid pro quo, i wouldnt want to live inside that warped zone.

    i retract my combat analogy.
    war is nonsensical too, in the ultimate sense.
    but at least in rules of combat, you don't simply kill the enemy for the sake of killing him.
    you kill the enemy because there is no other way (in a war situation) to achieve a certain objective that will help win the war, or at least defend yourself and your people, and thus save lives.
    cold-blooded though it may sound, there is logic in combat killings.
    i see none in that tv episode.
    or maybe i have yet to appreciate the subtleties of japanese culture...?

  • gingersoul said on Aug 05, 2009....
    Moon...i think you are letting your analytical side rule too much...:-)
     
    And I have some resistance in believing you would not kill to save one of your loved ones.
     
    You mean......even the life of a serial killer or a serial rapist or a bloody dictator like Franco or Pinochet should be spared, even if that death would save one of your loved ones? Just because would it be arbitrary?
     
    Sorry, I don't see much logic in this too..
     
    If killing a person so that one you love could be save is illogic, how much illogic is NOT to do it?
     
    In name of what?
     
    At least killing somebody to save a loved one has a very clear logic to me.  
     
     
  • moonriver said on Aug 05, 2009....
    ginger, there's a huge difference between (a) killing an incorrigible criminal e.g. a bloody dictator, a proven serial killer or serial rapist, and (b) killing a drunken driver because his reckless negligence put a kid into the emergency ward, or (c) killing just anybody, no matter who, to save a loved one.

    scenario (a) has a legal, moral, and practical logic to it. i can imagine myself taking up a gun and giving the damn bastard a helping hand on his way to hell.

    scenario (b) has questionable logic. it's based on an unproven premise, some arbitrary cosmic rule. i will have compunctions and a guilty conscience killing the guy. if you think you can do it without compunction to save a loved one's life, well, you are you, and i am me... :-)

    scenario (c) is, for me, downright illogical and immoral. you mean this option is acceptable to you?
    for me it isn't.

  • gingersoul said on Aug 05, 2009....
    Moon.......the dictator thing has been brought up just to stretch the concept.

    And putting aside the a and b...what really interests me is c......your adamant statement that killing a stranger to save a person that you know very well, somebody that you  love and cherish like you kids or your wife......that act is illogical and immoral.

    I agree that is immoral....but illogical? No.
    It follows a precise logic.
    The logic of love.
    And we all know that there is always logic in madness....;-)   
  • moonriver said on Aug 05, 2009....
    ginger, i think everyone knows about the mad logic of love, especially you.
    so let's just agree to disagree on this point, and leave it at that, ok?
    oh, and remind me to make myself scarce in case you need to save a loved one.
    i wouldn't want to be your next unlucky victim... ;-)

  • hotaka said on Aug 06, 2009....
    Ginger and Moon, thanks for the dialogue. I was hoping to get at least somebody thinking this through and to read two differing opinions is great. You see, I thought the program was playing on the everyday logic of its audience (sure kill the obnoxious remorseless drunk to save the boy) but I was hoping that people would see that this was not so clear a conundrum to solve. Also, the drama has the healer playing the role of an evil calculating person and the potential killer as a gentle and lonely guy who struggles to lead an ordinary life, aware of his power. By presenting that situation in the drama and adding my own variation I was curious to see what kind of responses they would elicit. I think the two of you did a marvelous job of arguing two different points of view. Thank you both!

    RollingC, somebody on SC recently said something like, "You'd like to think you know what you would do in a certain situation but you never know until you are in it how you will really react." I have always believed that I am not an aggressive person and I could never physically harm someone but I think there would be cases where I simply would lose it and go on a rampage in order to save another.

    Unicorn, I think that is one thing the drama is putting toward its audience. Are we in a position to play God? With all the violence that is in the news - people killing others over small ridiculous things - as well as the issue of capital punishment, who are we to decide that the world is better without certain people? I think the drama is challenging people to think beyond simple solutions that are really not so simple.

    diabolicD, I guess you have to be a religious fanatic in order to understand the logic of killing for God. You'd think God woudl take care of His own killing if it were that important to Him.

    scipio, the twist is that the healer is actually not a good man. He's a kind of a devil with the power to save lives. He uses his power, or the potential of his power, to force people into making hard decisions that they'd rather not have to make. He's actually rather cruel.

    Hegemone, it is interesting to try these thought experiments. Take it a step further and another step further... Where does it get you? I think this drama is trying to get people to think more about the value of life. I never liked the show Alley McBeal much but I liked how it presented two sides to each case and got people thinking (hopefully) about both sides of the story and not just the one that is easiest to cling to.

    fraggles, at first I thought you wrote "makes my head feel clammy". Well, thanks for thinking and sharing. Now back to real life.
  • javadewd said on Aug 10, 2009....
    I would have killed the man who appeared beside me and tried to cut the deal. He is the devil. The children who rose from the ward are now possessed, and they will all die in a twisted fashion because of this twist of faith. If someone tries to make you a deal that seems to good to be true, it most likely is and there are always strings attached. There are very few exceptions.
  • UnicornForm said on Aug 10, 2009....
    Umm..Its not your fault they aqire the taste for shit.

Comment on "You Have the Power to Kill"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

why?...
stop on by yal......
QUESTION?...
My Halloween party pictures....be very careful in watching them...i warned you....*will be up only for a limited time*...