moral dilemma

[Joe the meek]

If the kidnapper is breaking the law by holding the son against his (son) will, and the son is in fear for his life by being held against his will, the son has every right to utilize any means available to escape.

Now, if the evidence shows that the son could of escaped without using deadly force, well, I can't speak for a jury.

 

[BornReady]

If the kidnapper is breaking the law by holding the son against his (son) will, and the son is in fear for his life by being held against his will, the son has every right to utilize any means available to escape.

What if the son doesn't fear for his life but doesn't want to spend the next several years in captivity. Is he entitled to utilize any means available to escape including deadly force if necessary?

 

[Joe the meek]

Hypothetical situations are a lot like philosophy classes, you may learn something, but vary rarely does it put any money in your pocket LOL

Don't take this the wrong way, but there are a lot of "what ifs" or "let's say" per this scenario.

What if the Stockholm syndrome comes into play after a couple of years, and the son and kidnapper find out they're attracted to each other, realize that they're gay, and get married? Should they invite the murderous father (soon to be father in law to the kidnapper) to the wedding?

As I mentioned before, man will generally use history to justify two wrongs making a right.

 

[BornReady]

Don't take this the wrong way, but there are a lot of "what ifs" or "let's say" per this scenario.

I'm not saying this is likely to happen but it's a simple question. Imo a person has the right to fight for his freedom even if that means killing his oppressor(s). Why the kidnapper is doing what he is doing is irrelevant. Whether the hostage feels like his life is in danger is irrelevant. Of course, if he can escape without using deadly force then he should do so. But he is entitled to use what ever force is necessary.

Here's another hypothetical scenario. One day some slave traders come to your home and kidnap you. They sell you into slavery. Are you justified in using deadly force to escape if necessary? I say yes.

 

[Joe the meek]

Imo a person has the right to fight for his freedom even if that means killing his oppressor(s). Why the kidnapper is doing what he is doing is irrelevant. Whether the hostage feels like his life is in danger is irrelevant. Of course, if he can escape without using deadly force then he should do so. But he is entitled to use what ever force is necessary.

Here's another hypothetical scenario. One day some slave traders come to your home and kidnap you. They sell you into slavery. Are you justified in using deadly force to escape if necessary? I say yes.

No disagreement from me.

 

[BleedingBull]

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?

I dont think he has the right to kill him unless his own life was in danger, if I was the son I would team up with the kidnapper and it would be my father I would kill for murdering my mother

 

[BleedingBull]

I

Here's another hypothetical scenario. One day some slave traders come to your home and kidnap you. They sell you into slavery. Are you justified in using deadly force to escape if necessary? I say yes.

I say yes too.

 

[BornReady]

I say yes too.

I intentionally delayed bringing in the second scenario because it seemed likely I would get unanimous agreement. It's interesting to me that some people back off on the first scenario. Because, imo, the same principle applies to both.

 

[BleedingBull]

I intentionally delayed bringing in the second scenario because it seemed likely I would get unanimous agreement. It's interesting to me that some people back off on the first scenario. Because, imo, the same principle applies to both.

lol I just see the intentions as polar opposite thats all, one is a victim desperate for justice so uses the only way he can to try and prove innocence albeit the wrong way, but the second intention is to enslave for selfish purposes greed, brutality and control etc. Thats why my answers were diff

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

Desperate people, such as the falsely accused individual, do desperate things.

 

[Niamh]

Desperate people, such as the falsely accused individual, do desperate things.

True but you would then have to apply the same logic to the kidnapped son

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

I agree. The son doesn't know if the falsely accused man is going to kill him or not. So yeah, he has the right to defend himself, even if it means killing this man.