Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Group 2 discussion 1/27

Similar to group 3, our group discussed what would we do in the mayor's situation. About half of the group talked about killing the two guerillas IF it was definite that the colonel would not kill the eighty people. We thought that Fox news would be the first to announce the murders that the mayor committed because he is a political figure. Also, killing the guerillas wouldn't really set the eighty people free. They would be enslaved for life. This is where the other half of the group came in. We thought that there isn't any certainty in whether or not the colonel would do what he said. A better thought to the other half was to take an act of defiance against the colonel. Dying trying to protect the people is better than letting them get enslaved. Basically, pull a super hero maneuver or in more humane terms, possibly pull what Denzel Washington did when he starred in the recent movie The Equalizer. If the mayor could pull killing the colonel and his army, he would be a hero to his people, and he will have shown that their lives mean a lot to them. Even if he were to die trying, he would still show the people in his town that he cared for them. The people would most likely be enslaved and if they are, after witnessing the mayor's example of defiance, they would have the courage to plan their own act of defiance against the colonel and their men. It would then be similar in context to the history of the American Revolution or the Haitian Revolution.


  1. The Mayor's Dilemma sounds very similar to the Trolley Problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

    As far as the Mayor's Dilemma goes, I don't think that anyone could blame you for any decision that you make. Every decision has an unknown outcome, and it is just a matter of who you think might kill who. However, in the end, someone has to die, so I honestly think that any outcome is technically not good.

  2. From the situation given to us, and the unknown nature of the results (i.e. if the colonel will keep his word), I think showing an act of defiance is one method of showing a "moral" action. At the end of it all, whether you succeed or not, you are doing it for the greater good, so to speak. If you succeed, you will have killed the "bad guys" and saved your people, even if technically you murdered the colonel. And if you fail and die, you would have still set an honorable example for the prisoners.

    However, at this point we also have to consider the definition of murder. If one finds it difficult to kill the 2 people as the colonel said, how can one deem it fitting to kill the colonel and his men? Of course, you can call the colonel and his army "the villains," but if they would have kept their word, but you ended up killing them instead, wouldn't that make you a murderer, just as you would have been if you had killed the 2 people? That's just a stance I thought was interesting.

  3. DQ: do you think cultural/religious and feminist perspectives could ever clash?
    FQ: what is the name of scandal that led to women not being used as often in medical drug testing and what is the reasoning?
    DQ: How do you think society thinks about these different perspectives?

  4. DQ: Should parents be forced to vaccinate their children?
    FQ: What is the purpose of chicken pox parties and chicken pox lollipops?
    FQ: What ingredient used to be cocaine?
    Link: http://patch.com/pennsylvania/perkiomenvalley/chicken-pox