I'm starting this thread because of some of the email responses I've received to this story-and because the story presents some moral questions. There are some spoilers in this post, so if you want to read the story first:

The Tank (http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/T/ea_10254the_tank.htm)

In one email I received, the reader said that he didn't like the story. He thought it was a senseless horror story. That's not what I intended. I did intend for it to be a horror story, but my underlying purpose was much more than that. One of the boys was going to have to make a choice: either to cut off his own balls, or to cut off the other boy's balls. Else they would both die. Only one boy had it in him to make such a decision. If the knife had been in Shawn's hands, they would have both died, because he wouldn't have had the will to either cut himself or to cut his friend.

Kerry had the will to act. He sacrificed Shawn's balls, not his. He justified it by thinking that he had much more to offer than Shawn; he was class president; more athletic; more intelligent; had a girl friend; was a better Christian. He probably did have more to offer and would have accomplished more in life than Shawn ever would. What was the moral decision? Should any of that had any bearing on the decision?

Shawn died in the story. I didn't kill him off without reason. He had to die to exacerbate the consequences of Kerry's actions. If Kerry had cut off his own balls, he might have died. Shawn wouldn't have been strong enough to help Kerry as Kerry was able to help him. Shawn would have never been able to get Kerry out of the tank-or carry him as Kerry carried him.

Given the choice, what would most people do? Would they do as Shawn would have-nothing-allowing both himself and his friend to die? Would they do as Kerry did, sacrificing his friend rather than himself? Is it a matter of self preservation? If it's your life or another person's life, what choice do you have the right to make? Remember the only choices are: do nothing and both of you die; sacrifice your friend so that you can live; or sacrifice yourself so that your friend can live. Tough choices.

Final question: What should happen to Kerry? The cops receive the video tape showing that he castrated Shawn. Shawn's death was a direct consequence of that castration. Did Kerry commit murder-or did the position they were put into by their abductor mitigate his responsibility for Shawn's death?

Putting yourself into Kerry's position, a boy who has his whole life in front of him, a boy who wants to some day have a wife and family, what would you have done?

O.K., Slammr,

Since you asked, this is my opinion.

Who lost their balls and who did what to whom is of no consequence.

Both boys were victims. The true hero would, of course, be the one who sacrificed theirself for their friend. Since neither boy did that, neither are heros.

Nevertheless, they were still both victims. Kerry only did what he had to do to survive, but he did not wish his friend to die so, he tried to save him after what he did, and in addition, he did not believe that it would kill Shawn.

I do not blame Kerry, except to say that he was no better than Shawn. There is no way that either of them could be blamed for what happened.

Bottom line, they were both victims, and neither was superior to the other.

ALso, these fictional characters were youths who were put into a terrible situation. That stinks.

A-1

A-1 (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:16 pm O.K., Slammr,

Since you asked, this is my opinion.

Who lost their balls and who did what to whom is of no consequence.

Both boys were victims. The true hero would, of course, be the one who sacrificed theirself for their friend. Since neither boy did that, neither are heros.

Nevertheless, they were still both victims. Kerry only did what he had to do to survive, but he did not wish his friend to die so, he tried to save him after what he did, and in addition, he did not believe that it would kill Shawn.

I do not blame Kerry, except to say that he was no better than Shawn. There is no way that either of them could be blamed for what happened.

Bottom line, they were both victims, and neither was superior to the other.

ALso, these fictional characters were youths who were put into a terrible situation. That stinks.

A-1

Of course, the real sicko is the guy who put them into the situation, but let's change the senario a little: say the boys are over eighteen-just to remove the sympathy angle for it's happening to kids-does that change anything? One of them has caused the death of the other-to save his own life. Is he guilty of murder? Should he be punished? This reminds me somewhat of Patty Hearst. She was a victim. She wouldn't have been involved in the bank robbery, if she hadn't been-yet she was set to prison. In the story, are you allowed to put another-innocent-person's life in danger to save your own?

Hi Slammr!

La quesstion du jour...

Slammr (imported) wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:02 pm In the story, are you allowed to put another-innocent-person's life in danger to save your own?

Well, consider the philosophy of the aviation industry pre 9-11. In those days the answer would have been a definite no. However, I am not sure what the moral position is on this issue.

Our government has embraced this option for all Americans with it's pre-emptive strike stance. However, from the point of view of a private citizen, I would believe that you could be alright IF, and that is a big IF, nobody actually died as a result.

However, in your story "the tank" the moral dilemma is not one of murder, certainly. No prosecuter in their right mind would ever prosecute even an adult under such circumstances unless there were political gain involved.

Consider this.

Did they not call a medical doctor to the wreckage of the World Trade Center to rescue a man by amputating his leg?

How then, is this different?

Well, it is loss of a body part, but it is the loss of a body part against one's will.

If the video is deemed admissible evidence, yes, charges could be brought, however, I doubt if you would ever get a jury to convict somebody under the circumstances that you present in "the tank". Even an adult.

Now from a moral standpoint, I stick to my previous position.

Age notwithstanding, both Shaw and Kerry were still victims.

What do you think?

A-1

Slammr,

Let me take some of the emotion out of this so that you can think clearer with this joke...

A game warden noticed how a particular fellow named Sam consistently caught more fish than anyone else. Whereas the other guys would only catch three or four fish a day, Sam would come in from the lake with a boat full of fish. Stringer after stringer was packed with freshly caught trout. The warden, curious, asked Sam his secret. The successful fisherman invited the game warden to accompany him and observe.

So the next morning, the two met at the dock and took off in Sam's boat. When they got to the middle of the lake, Sam stopped the boat, and the warden sat back to see how it was done.

Sam's approach was simple: He took out a stick of dynamite, lit it, and threw it into the air. The explosion rocked the lake with such a force that dead fish immediately began to surface. Sam took out a net and started scooping them up.

Well, you can imagine the reaction of the game warden. When he recovered from the shock of it all, he began yelling at Sam, "You can't do this! I'll put you in jail, buddy! You will be paying every fine there is in the book!"

Sam, meanwhile, set his net down and took out another stick of dynamite. He lit it and tossed it in the lap of the game warden with these words: "Are you going to sit there all day complaining, or are you going to fish?"

Now, was the Game Warden guilty of killing all of the fish after he threw the ddynamite in the water to save himself?

A-1