Would you compromise your ideology for survival?

[The Alma Mater]

There are things that I would rather die than do.

Idolatry.
Adultery
Murder

Mine would be:

Enslave another being
Rape
Be forced to bow down and worship a thing I do not believe in.

How about reaping the benefits from others doing these things ?
E.g. - would you buy stuff produced by slaves not owned by you ?

[Krasny-Volny]

I would certainly compromise my political or social ideologies to survive, as I don't really consider myself an ideologue anyway.

I would not compromise my religion.

My family actually lived through a very similar situation being described in the OP during WWII. They were an ethnic minority in a country overrun by the fascists. The fascists thought everybody in that minority was a communist or a collaborator with the communists, so they started murdering them in large numbers.

Now the main differentiation between groups in that country was language and religion. It was possible to pass yourself off as a member of another ethnic group if you wanted to and I'm sure some people tried. But my family did not trust members of other ethnic groups, especially the dominant majority which had controlled the nation prior to the fascists. So they fled out into the wilderness and hid there for four years until the war ended.

More than likely I would attempt the same thing. I'm aware that the OP says my chances are almost nil, but since it's been done before - by relatives I have that are still living - I would be of the mindset that it could be done again without having to put yourself at the mercy of another ethnic group (in this tribalist situation).

[Yagon]

I would certainly compromise my political or social ideologies to survive, as I don't really consider myself an ideologue anyway.

I would not compromise my religion.

My family actually lived through a very similar situation being described in the OP during WWII. They were an ethnic minority in a country overrun by the fascists. The fascists thought everybody in that minority was a communist or a collaborator with the communists, so they started murdering them in large numbers.

Now the main differentiation between groups in that country was language and religion. It was possible to pass yourself off as a member of another ethnic group if you wanted to and I'm sure some people tried. But my family did not trust members of other ethnic groups, especially the dominant majority which had controlled the nation prior to the fascists. So they fled out into the wilderness and hid there for four years until the war ended.

More than likely I would attempt the same thing. I'm aware that the OP says my chances are almost nil, but since it's been done before - by relatives I have that are still living - I would be of the mindset that it could be done again without having to put yourself at the mercy of another ethnic group (in this tribalist situation).

The chances were set at nil just for purposes of the thought exercise (meaning to examine if one would risk one's life substantially rather than capitulate).

I find it reasonable (and likely with ample historical example) that people could find a way to survive or flee; the OP was merely to test those scenarios in which it came down to compromising or likely dying.

So if for some reason there were no means to flee, and it was your religion they wanted you to compromise, you would rather die?

[Krasny-Volny]

I would certainly compromise my political or social ideologies to survive, as I don't really consider myself an ideologue anyway.

I would not compromise my religion.

My family actually lived through a very similar situation being described in the OP during WWII. They were an ethnic minority in a country overrun by the fascists. The fascists thought everybody in that minority was a communist or a collaborator with the communists, so they started murdering them in large numbers.

Now the main differentiation between groups in that country was language and religion. It was possible to pass yourself off as a member of another ethnic group if you wanted to and I'm sure some people tried. But my family did not trust members of other ethnic groups, especially the dominant majority which had controlled the nation prior to the fascists. So they fled out into the wilderness and hid there for four years until the war ended.

More than likely I would attempt the same thing. I'm aware that the OP says my chances are almost nil, but since it's been done before - by relatives I have that are still living - I would be of the mindset that it could be done again without having to put yourself at the mercy of another ethnic group (in this tribalist situation).

The chances were set at nil just for purposes of the thought exercise (meaning to examine if one would risk one's life substantially rather than capitulate).

I find it reasonable (and likely with ample historical example) that people could find a way to survive or flee; the OP was merely to test those scenarios in which it came down to compromising or likely dying.

So if for some reason there were no means to flee, and it was your religion they wanted you to compromise, you would rather die?

For the purposes of this mutually exclusive thought exercise (assuming practicing one's religion in secret while outwardly embracing another is not an option) yes, I'd rather die a proverbial Moor than live as a Morisco.

[Yagon]

The chances were set at nil just for purposes of the thought exercise (meaning to examine if one would risk one's life substantially rather than capitulate).

I find it reasonable (and likely with ample historical example) that people could find a way to survive or flee; the OP was merely to test those scenarios in which it came down to compromising or likely dying.

So if for some reason there were no means to flee, and it was your religion they wanted you to compromise, you would rather die?

For the purposes of this mutually exclusive thought exercise (assuming practicing one's religion in secret while outwardly embracing another is not an option) yes, I'd rather die a proverbial Moor than live as a Morisco.

The idea of feigning the religion was presented as an option and was discussed at other places in the thread.

I apologize for not understanding how the thought exercise is mutually exlusive, please help me understand better. (I'm not very smart, I have diagnosed cognitive difficulties, I'm acknowledging up front that you are smarter than me, without sarcasm).

The thought exercise was to isolate an instance where it was compromise or likely die. Help me understand better where its mutually exclusive. (I acknowledge in several instances there have been sub-branches of the exercise where various alternative instances have been put forward and explored, I'm honestly sorry if that has resulted in contradiction across sub-branches).

Could a non-mutually exclusive thought exercise be constructed to examine whether someone would compromise a particular thing rather than die?

[Krasny-Volny]

For the purposes of this mutually exclusive thought exercise (assuming practicing one's religion in secret while outwardly embracing another is not an option) yes, I'd rather die a proverbial Moor than live as a Morisco.

The idea of feigning the religion was presented as an option and was discussed at other places in the thread.

I apologize for not understanding how the thought exercise is mutually exlusive, please help me understand better. (I'm not very smart, I have diagnosed cognitive difficulties, I'm acknowledging up front that you are smarter than me, without sarcasm).

The thought exercise was to isolate an instance where it was compromise or likely die. Help me understand better where its mutually exclusive. (I acknowledge in several instances there have been sub-branches of the exercise where various alternative instances have been put forward and explored, I'm honestly sorry if that has resulted in contradiction across sub-branches).

This thought exercise is mutually exclusive because its two options are mutually exclusive. You must pick one. You cannot derive a third option or propose some combination of both.

Maybe I'm speaking from the perspective of an ESL instructor here rather than a law or an ethics instructor (law schools are where I see these exercises the most), but I believe mutual exclusivity is inflexible and stifles critical thinking. I would've never presented a hypothetical to any of my students...not that this is the sort of thing my curriculum ever covered in the first place.

A non-mutually exclusive thought exercise would encourage the participants to realistically propose third options, support some combination of the two existing options (ie remaining a crypto adherent of their own faith, as I mentioned above) and explain why, etc.

Could a non-mutually exclusive thought exercise be constructed to examine whether someone would compromise a particular thing rather than die?

Yes. An exercise with immediate consequences. A squad of soldiers are holding guns pointed at your head and are about to pull the trigger unless you choose A or B, etc. The participants may propose various third options, but ultimately the majority will be forced to choose A or B in the spur of that moment because the consequences are immediate and there will be no time to make elaborate preparations to stave off the decision.

[Yagon]

The idea of feigning the religion was presented as an option and was discussed at other places in the thread.

I apologize for not understanding how the thought exercise is mutually exlusive, please help me understand better. (I'm not very smart, I have diagnosed cognitive difficulties, I'm acknowledging up front that you are smarter than me, without sarcasm).

The thought exercise was to isolate an instance where it was compromise or likely die. Help me understand better where its mutually exclusive. (I acknowledge in several instances there have been sub-branches of the exercise where various alternative instances have been put forward and explored, I'm honestly sorry if that has resulted in contradiction across sub-branches).

Could a non-mutually exclusive thought exercise be constructed to examine whether someone would compromise a particular thing rather than die?

This thought exercise is mutually exclusive because its two options are mutually exclusive. You must pick one. You cannot derive a third option or propose some combination of both.

Maybe I'm speaking from the perspective of an ESL instructor here rather than a law or an ethics instructor (law schools are where I see these exercises the most), but I believe mutual exclusivity is inflexible and stifles critical thinking. I would've never presented a hypothetical to any of my students...not that this is the sort of thing my curriculum ever covered in the first place.

A non-mutually exclusive thought exercise would encourage the participants to realistically propose third options, support some combination of the two existing options (ie remaining a crypto adherent of their own faith, as I mentioned above) and explain why, etc.

Thank you. I apologize, I had understood "mutually exclusive" to mean that the scenario was somehow logically unsound and internally contradictory, but I think what you're saying makes sense.

It definitely is inflexible to only permit two options, so you're right. In the poll options I tried to include some other options, but I'm also interested in those things that people would commit to dying over. Religion seems to come up a lot.

The purpose of isolating the only two options was to illuminate the comparative valuation of the two by narrowing it to them (sort of like creating an artificially controlled experiment to examine a particular aspect, information about which could then be incorporated into the system as a whole). You're very right that in real life it would not be useful in terms of forming an actual response, it was more to examine how much someone valued something over another by narrowing the dynamic.

Thank you for your patience and your input.

[Romanum Dominium]

I suppose this depends on how repugnant I find the new ideology as well as how gruesome my death would be. I would almost definitely refuse to convert to a new religion if refusal means getting shot or stabbed but I'd agree to damn near anything to avoid being burned as a heretic. I wouldn't compromise with a Stalinist or Nazi government, but would probably submit to a run-of-the-mill dictator.

[Yagon]

I suppose this depends on how repugnant I find the new ideology as well as how gruesome my death would be. I would almost definitely refuse to convert to a new religion if refusal means getting shot or stabbed but I'd agree to damn near anything to avoid being burned as a heretic. I wouldn't compromise with a Stalinist or Nazi government, but would probably submit to a run-of-the-mill dictator.

That's interesting, I hadn't considered factoring in how painful the death would be, I can see where a more painful one might change the calculation.

As for the kind of dictator, how about in each of the following:

Duterte-esque

Theocratic dictator (preacher ruler like the guy in Poltergeist II or something)

Feudalistic Baron dictator (Quinn from "Into the Badlands")

[Democratic Communist Federation]

No, not really, they're all Christian Churches but in the Middle East like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian Churches in Europe.

The reason I asked is because Armenian Orthodoxy and the Coptic Orthodox Church are both a part of Oriental Orthodoxy (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodoxy).

[Corpus Magnus]

There are things that I would rather die than do.

Idolatry.
Adultery
Murder

Mine would be:

Enslave another being
Rape
Be forced to bow down and worship a thing I do not believe in.

I'll add a few more:
Denounce my religion
Help someone seriously harm another human in any way (even if I am not involved in the process)
Any sort of assault
Stand by and watch someone kill/seriously harm/sexually assault someone else

But I would not compromise my ideology for survival. All sin, no matter how great, is sin before God.

[Senkaku]

See, if I'm dead, that precludes the possibility of me ever getting revenge on whoever's putting me in whatever awful position. And if they're making me compromise my core beliefs or die, then I'd probably like to be able to turn the tables on them at some point. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, there probably are scenarios where I'd choose death instead, but death's finality is quite frustrating if you want to see some measure of justice against someone who's wronged you.

[Yagon]

See, if I'm dead, that precludes the possibility of me ever getting revenge on whoever's putting me in whatever awful position. And if they're making me compromise my core beliefs or die, then I'd probably like to be able to turn the tables on them at some point. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, there probably are scenarios where I'd choose death instead, but death's finality is quite frustrating if you want to see some measure of justice against someone who's wronged you.

I can see where payback could be a good motivator. Definitely worked for Mel Gibson where he gets revenge on that guy who fucked him over for $70,000. I forget what it was called.

[Principality of the Raix]

See, if I'm dead, that precludes the possibility of me ever getting revenge on whoever's putting me in whatever awful position. And if they're making me compromise my core beliefs or die, then I'd probably like to be able to turn the tables on them at some point. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, there probably are scenarios where I'd choose death instead, but death's finality is quite frustrating if you want to see some measure of justice against someone who's wronged you.

I can see where payback could be a good motivator. Definitely worked for Mel Gibson where he gets revenge on that guy who fucked him over for $70,000. I forget what it was called.

Revenge is best served cold.

[Luziland]

Mine would be:

Enslave another being
Rape
Be forced to bow down and worship a thing I do not believe in.

I'll add a few more:
[...]
Help someone seriously harm another human in any way (even if I am not involved in the process)
[...]

well, i mean, technically, if you help them, you are already somehow involved in the process.

[Corpus Magnus]

I'll add a few more:
[...]
Help someone seriously harm another human in any way (even if I am not involved in the process)
[...]

well, i mean, technically, if you help them, you are already somehow involved in the process.

That's not what I meant. For example, if someone was planning to stab someone else, I would not tell the murderer where the victim is, even if I am not there when the man is stabbed and I am not the one stabbing him.

[The Sauganash Union]

I already do for my job.

[Zottistan]

You'll likely achieve more by living to fight another day. Integrity's not worth all that much if all it does is get you killed pointlessly. So barring exceptional circumstances no. There are things I would die for but integrity is probably not one of them.

[Sounstian]

tribe>ideology
As much as it pains me to tolerate my people for the decadent hypocritical mess they've become, it's the right thing to do and to do the opposite would be abandoning them.