“Would You Rather” is an odd 2012 film that sets up a film-long set of unlikely ethical dilemmas for its characters to solve. Desperate to save her dying brother with expensive medical treatment she can’t afford, the heroine (played by Brittany Snow) finds herself at a dinner party with seven other desperate strangers, hosted by a wacko family of millionaires who will help one of them after the others have been “eliminated” during the course of the evening. As what is described as a game progresses, each contestant is put through escalating rounds of risk, pain and torture in which they must make various Sophie’s Choices, such as…
- Would you rather administer a painful shock to yourself with high-voltage electricity, or the person next to you? What if that person has been weakened by a previous shock? What if she is in a wheelchair?
- What if she hurt you in a previous round?
- Would you rather stab the person on your right in his thigh with an ice pick, or whip the man on your left three times with a hard wooden stick—or get shot dead if you refuse?
- Since you know that the game is an elimination contest, and it is either kill or be killed, do you choose to live or die—or, like Captain Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru test, find a way to cheat so as to avoid two mutually unacceptable outcomes?
Many issues discussed on Ethics Alarms come into play—restraint bias (the tendency to think you are less corruptible than everyone else), non-ethical considerations, the Saint’s Excuse, the ends justify the means and other rationalizations, absolutism, sacrifice, courage, and the importance of Ethics Chess, among others. (Ethics Chess tip: If you’re at a dinner party that begins with the host using money to persuade a vegetarian to eat meat and a recovering alcoholic to drink scotch, and he says, “This is your last chance to quit the game I have in store for you; a car is waiting outside,” LEAVE!)
I wouldn’t add it to my list of 25 ethics movies, but it would sustain a lively seminar, and its a lot easier to follow than “Homeland.”
Ethics Alarms 
If it involved saving a family member I actually liked (don’t you judge me, we all have family we would leave to their own devices), I would make the effort to Kirk the solution, but if it didn’t work there isn’t a limit to what I would do to save them.
Save them first, living with what I did is something I’d deal with later.
Not terribly ethical, I know…
If “none of the above” was excluded, self of course. I don’t see this as being a hard question.
And…? This is supposed to matter how?
None of those are acceptable – going berserk and doing as much damage to the person with the gun as possible is the only option. By dodging and weaving, it may be that none of the bullets that hit various parts of the body would send the victim into immediate neurological shock and immediate incapacitation.
Yes, I have collected a bullet in my leg once, from a light machine gun. I don’t recommend it. It hurts. As does walking with an ankle broken in a dozen places. But it’s doable, in an emergency. I know, personal experience again.
I’ve also been scared witless, very little blood in my adrenaline stream. I know my reactions. My main fear is that I’d hurt innocents before my sanity returns. When you’re in that state, anything perceived to be a threat will be countered by involuntary muscle movement long before conscious thought can be involved. Martial Artists can train so they have pre-planned reflexes like this. I’m no martial artist, it takes sheer terror to induce it.
I’ve only been in that situation once. I could have escaped, but the person I was with could not, so again, not a hard question.
I try really hard to avoid such situations.
Me too.
The rich wackos shoot those who choose “none of the above.” And yes, the group tries a revolt. It gets one killed, and one briefly escapes. Then back to the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook
I’m not saying I have it memorised, but you never know when some of the recipes will come in handy.
You seem to be leaving out the variable that you are doing this to save the life of someone else. Standing alone those decisions are easy, but don’t forget the key motivation.
I bet any lefty on here finds the notion of being in a room where you can hurt others to pay for the health needs of your loved ones appalling. Yet every single one doesn’t mind it if it spread across the nation in a compulsory system.
Do the scaling, other than the direct physical abuse of others, the analogy and scenario are the same.
The Killing Room
Ugh, this “game” is too much for my head right now. I’ll just keep watching The Last Days of World War II (history series) – and let my imagination run with the stories told by the troops who were on the front, then consider the ethical dilemmas I would likely face on the battlefield (with split seconds available to respond to them).