Suppose a man murdered his wife and framed someone else for the crime. The man has a son who he dearly loves. So the falsely accused man kidnaps the son of his accuser and demands his accuser confess to the murder. The son is aware the man is innocent of the murder. An opportunity presents itself for the son to kill his kidnapper and escape. Does the son have the right to do so?
moral dilemma
- Thread starter BornReady
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
31Replies
-
581Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Can the son escape without killing the kidnapper?
alice in chains
Active Member
I say yes because one scenario becomes another. The sons main priority is to escape at all costs aside from any previous problems involving his family.
Joe the meek
Active Member
I really don't see the moral dilemma.
For whatever reason the son knows the kidnapper is innocent of the woman's murder. The son should go to the authorities and speak on behalf of the accused man to clear his name.
Considering the murderer framed someone else, and the son actually knows about it , if the son were to do absolutely nothing to let the innocent man hang the son is as guilty as the father.
Just trying to figure out how an accused man of murder gets away with a kidnapping without the authorities involved or how this is related to the Bible. To early to think and hadn't had any coffee yet is my defense.
For whatever reason the son knows the kidnapper is innocent of the woman's murder. The son should go to the authorities and speak on behalf of the accused man to clear his name.
Considering the murderer framed someone else, and the son actually knows about it , if the son were to do absolutely nothing to let the innocent man hang the son is as guilty as the father.
Just trying to figure out how an accused man of murder gets away with a kidnapping without the authorities involved or how this is related to the Bible. To early to think and hadn't had any coffee yet is my defense.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
It doesn't seem like the son's life is in danger. Is it?
I don't understand why the son has to kill his kidnapper in order to escape...can't he just incapacitate him in some way.
Also the age of the son poses another question to me. If he is three or five years old, and knows the other man is innocent, and given that he knows his dad did it; is different than if he is say a teen, or older, knows his dad did it this is why he is being used as leverage for the man to prove innocence... don't you think?
If ability to reason and act due to age plays in, then this is a factor in the face of morality. The same if the son has experienced any other limitations in effort to expose the real murderer...given that he knows who it was.
There are too many things unsaid.
Also the age of the son poses another question to me. If he is three or five years old, and knows the other man is innocent, and given that he knows his dad did it; is different than if he is say a teen, or older, knows his dad did it this is why he is being used as leverage for the man to prove innocence... don't you think?
If ability to reason and act due to age plays in, then this is a factor in the face of morality. The same if the son has experienced any other limitations in effort to expose the real murderer...given that he knows who it was.
There are too many things unsaid.
Joe the meek
Active Member
Man, in general, will always use history to justify that two wrongs DO make a right.
Realistically you would think that would be possible. But for the sake of the dilemma, let's say no. The only way to escape is to kill his kidnapper.
He promised the kidnapper he would go to the authorities if the kidnapper let him go. But the kidnapper said he has no proof. The police will only listen to his father. So sorry he can't go.
I didn't intend this to be related to the bible. But I suppose it is in the sense of the commandment thou shalt not kill.
The son does not believe his life is in danger. However, unlike the kidnapper, he doesn't believe his father loves him dearly. He does believe the kidnapper is going to hold him hostage until his father confesses which could take years.
Let's say the son is 18 years old.
Let's say he doesn't know his father is guilty but believes his kidnapper is innocent.
Suppose the son has done nothing wrong. He wasn't convinced of the man's innocence until after he was kidnapped and heard the man's side of the story. The man is holding him captive and treating him like a slave. How long must he bear this before trying to escape even if it means killing the man?
Last edited by a moderator:
Accountable
Well-Known Member
No. I can't imagine a scenario where the only way to escape from a man who is unwilling to kill you is to kill him.
Okay, let's say the son steals one of the man's guns and tries to escape. The man catches him and tells him to drop his gun. The man foolishly looks away for a moment and the son realizes he could take him out. His only other option is to drop his gun and return to captivity. It was a fluke that he gained this opportunity to escape. It may be a long time or never before he gets another chance. Is he justified in taking the shot?
If not, suppose it's another five years before he gets another chance and is faced with the same situation. Is he justified in taking the shot now? How long must he be a slave in order to avoid killing the man?
It would be hard to determine in an unstable situation such as hostage holding, whether the person is going to harm him or not. The thing that keeps coming up for me is the reason only killing will result in freedom. If it were me in this scenario as hostage, I would try to get away...if I couldn't, and were in a position where killing them meant my freedom, I might do it, but would have to snap psychologically. That is they would have to break me internally to that point...like I would think they were going to kill me anyway or torture me or keep me hostage forever.
There would be no winner in that case, and it would be as if the dad committed two murders. If the dad did not take that position (as the cause of both kllings), then he is a moral ingrate. The moral responsibility is on him...not the hostage. If he is capable of love, then he will produce the evidence against himself, and save his innocent son, and get the framed person somewhat off the hook.
There would be no winner in that case, and it would be as if the dad committed two murders. If the dad did not take that position (as the cause of both kllings), then he is a moral ingrate. The moral responsibility is on him...not the hostage. If he is capable of love, then he will produce the evidence against himself, and save his innocent son, and get the framed person somewhat off the hook.
What a messy situation.
If one is being held against his or hers will, then they have every right by natural law to do whatever is necessary to become free ... however ... written law may not see it that way.
If I was in the son's shoes, I would take the shot and then place a large knife and baseball bat (ensuring that the father's finger prints are on them) next to the body and claim self defense.
Then again ... being able to sit here and look at words on a forum sure is a lot easier than actually facing such a scenario.
If one is being held against his or hers will, then they have every right by natural law to do whatever is necessary to become free ... however ... written law may not see it that way.
If I was in the son's shoes, I would take the shot and then place a large knife and baseball bat (ensuring that the father's finger prints are on them) next to the body and claim self defense.
Then again ... being able to sit here and look at words on a forum sure is a lot easier than actually facing such a scenario.
I agree with both of you. I think both the father and the kidnapper are morally wrong. But all that needs concern the son is his freedom has been taken away. I think a person has the right to fight for freedom even if it means killing his oppressor(s).
True. I've never killed anyone and can't really imagine what it would be like to do so.
I haven't either, and feel that if put in a situation that I feared for my own life and had to kill to live, I might feel a part of me was dead from the action. If I were defending a child or other person from death, say, and the person (I was defending them from) died due to my actions, I might feel different though I know I'd have remorse. If it were my own self, I wonder why I think I'd feel a crushing remorse?
Joe the meek
Active Member
You're giving a set of circumstances that is nearly, if not impossible to happen.
The police will only listen to the murderer?
Let's say the father can prove he killed his wife. The son can not.
Then I'll reiterate that if he is actually capable of love (you say he loves his son), he will try and ammend the horrendous damage of the three lives he so far ruined....his wife (too late for that)...the guy he framed (will carry the burden for the kidnapping anyway), and his son (who is now in a really bad situation that could become fatal). He will have to turn himself in to untangle the ball of yarn at all. He's the one that got the ball rolling in the first place.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members