Is it really right to run and hide when people face murderers?

[AqD]

I read about Benjamin Constant's murderer case (against Kant's theory) and feel very disappointed with Kant's reply. If you haven't read before, it's case about whether you should lie to a murderer when he comes to ask you the location of his prey - both sides simply focus on the lying itself, completely ignoring the moral issue of running away and tolerating a murderer! It also makes lying unavoidable because you wish everyone lie for you to hide - if you fight back alongwith the one pursued by the murderer, lying wouldn't be needed in the first place.

So here is the poll, what do you think?

I believe running away or to tolerating anyone who violates other people's freedom and lives is the most immoral thing one can make, and even worse than murder - whereas murder itself hurts a few at one time, such behavior (running from murderer etc) is the real reason why we have seen so many mass murder, tyranny and oppression in history - when one person begins to violate another's live and freedom, his target runs instead of resists, and others either help him hide or keep silence and watch, and so the first person would eventually believe that violating others' natural rights is just cost-effective, and he would do more and more!

[Meneth]

What if the murderer has a gun, and you don't?
Attacking him would be incredibly stupid, and only end with you dead or crippled and the murderer still at large.
Get away, and call the police.

[Biggreenfellow]

I'd like to think I'd have the balls to fight back, as that would be the right thing to do, but I don't know. I'd certainly lie about the victims whereabouts and try to warn him somehow. Truth is, if someone is holding a gun, it would be dump to attack him, unarmed, without any special training. There are just so many variables; can you get away yourself safely to call the cops? That might do more good then trying to take him on by yourself, assuming there is time before he finds his victim.

[molonthegreat]

I have never been in such a situation but knowing myself and seeing how much I care about myself and how little I care about other I would probably run away and call the police instead of letting the murderer have two victims.

[Viking Prince]

Where in Kant's moral universe do you assume that it is a moral imperative to risk your life to make an uncertain attempt to save a life? If anything, based upon Benjamin Constant's murderer case involving being truthful to the murderer, Kant would distinguish between the lives of known people and strangers since you could not know how they have lived their lives.

[AqD]

The poll is kind of useless, as it is not about running away or fighting back, but about telling the truth or lying, as Odovacar correctly stated.

Because it shouldn't be about truth or lying IMHO. If everyone just run and hide, today we'd all be slaves under a totalarian regime with no right of any kind, and there wouldn't even be a need of law systems because nobody dares to maintain justice - they'd just run away whenever they encounter or witness danger.

Apply the third maxim and you'll see that.

Where in Kant's moral universe do you assume that it is a moral imperative to risk your life to make an uncertain attempt to save a life?

Absolute none, that is why I feel very disappointed on him.

It is not to merely risk your life to save some others, but to stand up against those who threaten humanity as a whole! How can one be moral when he isn't willing to defend humanity, the root of his morality?


PS: according to Kant's theory, what you risk as conquences for a moral action doesn't matter

[Necromancer]

I'd run, but that doesn't mean I'd be out of the fight. After giving the guy false information, I'd get away ASAP and get a hold of the police. If I couldn't get a hold of the police, then I'd get a group of people who will trust me (friends), get some bats and pipes, and try and ambush him from multiple sides while he's walking down a dark street, or a narrow alley, or anywhere his gun would be of little use. After he's knocked out, or at least sufficiently bloodied and out of action, we'd take his weapon, hold him down and one of us would go to the police.

[General George Monck]

So here is the poll, what do you think?

Dear aqd,

Please provide a link to the original texts you are refering to so that I can more clearly grasp what your objection is.

Yours hopefully,

GGM

[Kjertesvein]

Dear aqd,

Please provide a link to the original texts you are refering to so that I can more clearly grasp what your objection is.

Yours hopefully,

GGM

I suspect we are talking about A supposed right to lie from altruistic motives. It was Kant's response to an article written by Benjamin Constant.

~Wille

[Thanatos]

You do what you can. To make definitive assertions either way past this is making somewhat of a generalizing statement.

[iudas]

You aren't a murderer if you don't manage to kill anyone.

[basics]

" I believe running away or to tolerating anyone who violates other people's freedom and lives is the most immoral thing one can make, and even worse than murder - whereas murder itself hurts a few at one time, such behavior (running from murderer etc) is the real reason why we have seen so many mass murder, tyranny and oppression in history - when one person begins to violate another's live and freedom, his target runs instead of resists........."

aqd,

I think you must differenciate between the individual who murders from those in power that use it to commit murder because there are distinct variables there. There are those that murder because they have a mental deficiency, those that kill within the gang system, those that kill accidentally and them that kill because they have the power to do so.

It would be great to think that in the first case the victim could run but the type they might run from usually only strike when least expected. The gang guy on the other hand always seems to be asserting his position within the fold so is looking to further his esteem. The accidental could happen to anyone in any class or creed and the last of all by the craving to hold power and keep hold of it.

So, a witness in the case of the first is quite unlikely. A witness in the case of the second is fairly possible but whether they would be that is also dependent on other factors such as his or her immediate family being affected, even them themselves by intimidation from the gang. Would you put your family at risk because of your actions? Accidental murder comes down to the legal system believing and accepting it was accidental. The last is something that most of us are only bystanders in because we have no power.

[Tacitursa]

I believe running away or to tolerating anyone who violates other people's freedom and lives is the most immoral thing one can make, and even worse than murder - whereas murder itself hurts a few at one time, such behavior (running from murderer etc) is the real reason why we have seen so many mass murder, tyranny and oppression in history - when one person begins to violate another's live and freedom, his target runs instead of resists, and others either help him hide or keep silence and watch, and so the first person would eventually believe that violating others' natural rights is just cost-effective, and he would do more and more!

There could be any number of reasons why that person is being persued are you really going to put your neck on the line without knowing? What if the person being persued is a paedophile or rapist and the so called murderer is a father or husband of the victim.

In any case i dont think people really have a choice. It's easy to sit here behind a keyboard and talk about being a hero but when your in the situation and your tense , adrenaline is pumping and fear is present your brain doesnt really care whats immoral or not it cares about avoiding bullets which isnt bad thing let's be honest.

Ive been in danger a few times and you just have very little control over what happens. Your brain and body just go on autopilot. Moving or hiding isnt a choice it's an automatic reaction to danger. Survival overides all other emotions and trains of thought.

[Khassaki]

I'd answer truthfully to minimise risk to myself, and then call the authorities once it was safe to do so. I might do something stupid at the time, but that would be a spur of the moment thing rather than a rational decision.

[Taiji]

Is it right to run or right to get murdered? Choices, choices...

[Odovacar]

I know Kant's response but not Constant's text.

Here is the subject of the debate. Murderers chase one of your friends. You behold him hiding somewhere nearby. The murderers didn't see him but ask you whether you know his whereabouts.
Would you lie: I don't?
Or would you say the truth: he is hidden over there!

Kant wouldn't make a distinction between a stranger and a friend. The dilemma is: by lying you break categorical imperativ, thus general moral law. Every lie is a hole in truth and such holes lead to even more holes. Lying is morally wrong acc. to Kant.

Of course if you say the truth your friend probably dies. But Kant argues that since we can't know what will exactly happen we cannot be saure. Maybe your friend will meanwhile scape from the previous hiding place.

I think Kant here used sophism to defend his moral rigorism which won't function in the real world. Constant was right. Lying is much less of a moral failure than to assist in murder.

[Fev]

The poll is kind of useless, as it is not about running away or fighting back, but about telling the truth or lying, as Odovacar correctly stated.