View Full Version : Kill one in order to save five?
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
glockmail
03-08-2010, 07:22 PM
1. Switch it, because the noise of the switch will alert the workman.
2. If the fat guy's actions could impact the result, then his screaming and yelling at the workmen should also impact the result. Tell him that you'll push him in front of the train if he does not do so.
1. Switch it, because the noise of the switch will alert the workman.
2. If the fat guy's actions could impact the result, then his screaming and yelling at the workmen should also impact the result. Tell him that you'll push him in front of the train if he does not do so.
The switch will not alert the workmen, nor will yelling ect work there will be death. I would also suggest that if you tell a man you are going to push him off a tram there will be no way he'll stay put, never mind the fact that's he's heavy, you'd have to push him without warning while he is leaning over the front of the tram.
glockmail
03-08-2010, 07:43 PM
The switch will not alert the workmen, nor will yelling ect work there will be death. I would also suggest that if you tell a man you are going to push him off a tram there will be no way he'll stay put, never mind the fact that's he's heavy, you'd have to push him without warning while he is leaning over the front of the tram. Now you're making shit up.
Now you're making shit up.
Its a moral dilemma, its all bloomin made up.
glockmail
03-08-2010, 07:59 PM
Its a moral dilemma, its all bloomin made up.
The made up part stops at your OP; that's how these "moral dilemma" exercises work. After that you're just reacting to my response, dancing around throwing in road blocks and deflections just like you always do.
LiberalNation
03-08-2010, 08:18 PM
depends on who the one is, if it's me the others can go die.
glockmail
03-08-2010, 08:31 PM
That's because you, like most atheists and lib-tards, lack morals.
LiberalNation
03-08-2010, 08:33 PM
I ain't no athiest, I's a catholic. Not sure this ethics class is sticking tho. We have to answer these dumbass question in there.
Gaffer
03-08-2010, 08:33 PM
Let's see in the first one you throw a switch and save five over one. In the second case you commit murder to save five. It seems a very limited scenario. I would chose not to get on the tram in the first place.
The made up part stops at your OP; that's how these "moral dilemma" exercises work. After that you're just reacting to my response, dancing around throwing in road blocks and deflections just like you always do.
Oh whatever, the question was simple, chose one or the other, there was no option to 'pull the switch in the hope that the noise of the line changing will alert the workers blar blar blar....'
You just remind me of one of those people that in response to 'what would you take to a desert island' would reply with 'a boat' or something similar, you know what the sprit of the question is, if you wana give smart answers adding extra conditions then thats your call.
glockmail
03-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Oh whatever, the question was simple, chose one or the other, there was no option to 'pull the switch in the hope that the noise of the line changing will alert the workers blar blar blar....'
You just remind me of one of those people that in response to 'what would you take to a desert island' would reply with 'a boat' or something similar, you know what the sprit of the question is, if you wana give smart answers adding extra conditions then thats your call.
You offered up a scenario as a moral dilemma, so you should expect someone to make choices then explain the rationalization of them. My responses were both ethical and likely to result in lives saved, and that pisses you off.
Kill the fat dude, hell he is eating to much meat anyway, if he ate more veggies he wouldn't be so damn fat, therefore he wouldn't be able to stop the train so it is a no brainier, he decided for us :laugh2:
glockmail
03-08-2010, 08:48 PM
Or just grab whiny Noir by the ears and twist. His screaming would be loud enough to alert folks for miles. :lol:
You offered up a scenario as a moral dilemma, so you should expect someone to make choices then explain the rationalization of them. My responses were both ethical and likely to result in lives saved, and that pisses you off.
But you didn't make a choice and then explain, your whole answer is conditional.
I still have no idea what your second answer is, you will push the guy over if he doesn't shout, but not if he does shout and the workers don't hear. So would you rather that one guy died or five? You've made your answer conditional, and thus not answered it, and just as an aside, it in no way pisses me off, if anything its a lil funny,
Or just grab whiny Noir by the ears and twist. His screaming would be loud enough to alert folks for miles. :lol:
NOOOOOO Not my little buddy :laugh2:
Kill the fat dude, hell he is eating to much meat anyway, if he ate more veggies he wouldn't be so damn fat, therefore he wouldn't be able to stop the train so it is a no brainier, he decided for us :laugh2:
I lawled xD
Or just grab whiny Noir by the ears and twist. His screaming would be loud enough to alert folks for miles. :lol:
I fear my accent may impede that, being Norn Irish its pretty darn low, i could maybe warn off some whales, but thats about it,
SassyLady
03-08-2010, 08:56 PM
1. Pull the switch
2. Let the fat man make the decision.
I fear my accent may impede that, being Norn Irish its pretty darn low, i could maybe warn off some whales, but thats about it,
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Have to spread them
BoogyMan
03-08-2010, 09:24 PM
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
A wee moral dilemma? How about we call this what it is for starters, an atheists bit of what-if tomfoolery to try and trap someone into making a foolish pronouncement based on a ridiculous non-existent scenario.
Don't toss the trolls the dope they live for folks.
A wee moral dilemma? How about we call this what it is for starters, an atheists bit of what-if tomfoolery to try and trap someone into making a foolish pronouncement based on a ridiculous non-existent scenario.
Don't toss the trolls the dope they live for folks.
What on earth does this have to do with religion? it all came about from a philosophy lecture i saw from Ted Talks, i'll try and find it and post it up if you like.
Mr. P
03-08-2010, 09:35 PM
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
There will be death in both #1 & #2. The question IS how many will die. Just one if I were there.
I don't see this as an ethical situation but a "best choice" at the time of an emergency.
HogTrash
03-08-2010, 10:47 PM
It depends on what color they are. :laugh2: :lmao: :laugh:
Hey :lol: I'm just trying to live up to everyone's expectations. :coffee:
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 12:13 AM
is the fat guy an atheist?....
Mr. P
03-09-2010, 12:42 AM
is the fat guy an atheist?....
It doesn't matter a bit. Will you save five by killing one? That's the choice.
hjmick
03-09-2010, 01:56 AM
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 07:59 AM
It doesn't matter a bit. Will you save five by killing one? That's the choice.
why?....perhaps the one is of greater value to society than the five......maybe the one is an amateur physicist who had been tinkering with inventing the ultimate battery.....and if you don't throw him under the train he will go home tonight and dream up the final step in solving the world's energy problems....
on the other hand, the five are so stupid that they work on an active rail line without having someone watch for oncoming trains.......definitely candidates for the Darwin award......
for that matter how stupid would you look if you tossed the fat guy under the train only to have the five step off the tracks as the train got closer........leaving you to be prosecuted for manslaughter at the very least......
why?....perhaps the one is of greater value to society than the five......maybe the one is an amateur physicist who had been tinkering with inventing the ultimate battery.....and if you don't throw him under the train he will go home tonight and dream up the final step in solving the world's energy problems....
on the other hand, the five are so stupid that they work on an active rail line without having someone watch for oncoming trains.......definitely candidates for the Darwin award......
for that matter how stupid would you look if you tossed the fat guy under the train only to have the five step off the tracks as the train got closer........leaving you to be prosecuted for manslaughter at the very least......
You're doing the same as Glock, adding conditions, there is no need to, the questions are simple and pretty connectionless.
HogTrash
03-09-2010, 08:32 AM
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.I think that would depend on which group you happen to be in.
You may find yourself in dissagreement with your own statement if someday you happen to be in the wrong group.
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 11:24 AM
You're doing the same as Glock, adding conditions, there is no need to, the questions are simple and pretty connectionless.
"conditions" are inherent....pretending there are no conditions is itself a condition......we have no right to assume there are no conditions, just as we have no right to presume that the death of one is of lesser impact than the death of five......choosing to kill one to save five is not a "moral" decision because it is not a "right/wrong" choice....they are both always "wrong"........
Abbey Marie
03-09-2010, 11:47 AM
Why did you, or whoever wrote this, make the guy fat? I doubt that extra pounds will really make any difference in terms of stopping a train/tram.
Methinks he was really described as fat, because people don't like fat and it makes it easier in their minds to toss him over.
HogTrash
03-09-2010, 11:59 AM
Why did you, or whoever wrote this, make the guy fat? I doubt that extra pounds will really make any difference in terms of stopping a train/tram.
Methinks he was really described as fat, because people don't like fat and it makes it easier in their minds to toss him over.Being "fat" certainly didn't matter to me in the least.
I was only concerned with what color he was. :lmao:
Sorry, I couldn't resist Abbey. :poke:
Abbey Marie
03-09-2010, 12:00 PM
Being "fat" certainly didn't matter to me in the least.
I was only concerned with what color he was. :lmao:
Sorry, I couldn't resist Abbey. :poke:
No problem. But I was addressing Noir, as he posted the original scenario.
glockmail
03-09-2010, 12:10 PM
You're doing the same as Glock, adding conditions, there is no need to, the questions are simple and pretty connectionless.
That's the way the world works. We're not given a set of conditions in a box only. Smart folks are resourceful and think outside the box.
glockmail
03-09-2010, 12:11 PM
A wee moral dilemma? How about we call this what it is for starters, an atheists bit of what-if tomfoolery to try and trap someone into making a foolish pronouncement based on a ridiculous non-existent scenario.
Don't toss the trolls the dope they live for folks.
This. :lol:
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 02:37 PM
Methinks he was really described as fat, because people don't like fat and it makes it easier in their minds to toss him over.
why do you think I asked if he was an atheist?......
Mr. P
03-09-2010, 03:03 PM
why do you think I asked if he was an atheist?......
Because you nor Glock nor Abby can address a simple question without convoluted BS.
That's my guess. :laugh2:
Abbey Marie
03-09-2010, 04:16 PM
Because you nor Glock nor Abby can address a simple question without convoluted BS.
That's my guess. :laugh2:
Mr. P, if you still think Noir posts simple questions, you haven't been paying attention.
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 05:47 PM
Because you nor Glock nor Abby can address a simple question without convoluted BS.
That's my guess. :laugh2:
/shrugs.....well.....you aren't much better at guessing than you are reasoning things out.....:poke:
3 pages and only 3 people (mrskurtsprincess, Mr.P, hjmick) have answered the question as presented to them, jezy crezy, i know the art of politics is 'not answering the question' and this is a political board, but all the same this is just silly.
why?....perhaps the one is of greater value to society than the five......maybe the one is an amateur physicist who had been tinkering with inventing the ultimate battery.....and if you don't throw him under the train he will go home tonight and dream up the final step in solving the world's energy problems....
on the other hand, the five are so stupid that they work on an active rail line without having someone watch for oncoming trains.......definitely candidates for the Darwin award......
for that matter how stupid would you look if you tossed the fat guy under the train only to have the five step off the tracks as the train got closer........leaving you to be prosecuted for manslaughter at the very least......
Righto, in which case do doubt you will talk to the fat guy, find out what sorta he is, what his future plans are, and then jump out of the tram, run down to the 5 workemen and do the same, then when you're running back to the tram you can decide which option would be better for society, right?
If you don't want to answer the question then just stay out of the thread.
I think that would depend on which group you happen to be in.
You may find yourself in dissagreement with your own statement if someday you happen to be in the wrong group.
Well that rasies another interesting point, as to if it were you on one trark and 5 others on another trak, what would you rather the people on the tram did...no doubt that would be an interesting thing to postulate, however, given most of the replies in this thread people would end up saying 'i'd rather they switched to my line, because i'm particularly observant and would notice the tram and gte out of the way' :slap:
"conditions" are inherent....pretending there are no conditions is itself a condition......we have no right to assume there are no conditions, just as we have no right to presume that the death of one is of lesser impact than the death of five......choosing to kill one to save five is not a "moral" decision because it is not a "right/wrong" choice....they are both always "wrong"........
Indeed they are, the point is, is one 'more wrong' than the other. And the difference between the first and second scenario, both are at there most basic level the same, and yet people always seem to have a much easier time answering the first one,
Why did you, or whoever wrote this, make the guy fat? I doubt that extra pounds will really make any difference in terms of stopping a train/tram.
Methinks he was really described as fat, because people don't like fat and it makes it easier in their minds to toss him over.
It was a question from a lecture i sat (i have been looking but can't find it again) the 'fat man' was to add a bit of humour, the talk was going something like 'Now this time imagine there is only one tram line, none to switch to, and 5 workers further down the line and if only you could get a weight infront of the tram then you could stop it, you look around and find the only weight you can see is a particularly fat man [audience laughter], leaning over the front of the tram quite precariously [more laughter]' and so on.
Now i'm not stupid, ofcourse throwing a man of any size infront of the tram would do nothing but get that man sliced up, however, that is not the sprit of the question, and i find it amazing juts how many people will deliberately go out of their way to answer two wee questions.
Mr. P
03-09-2010, 07:46 PM
Mr. P, if you still think Noir posts simple questions, you haven't been paying attention.
Apparently it's not that simple for some.
/shrugs.....well.....you aren't much better at guessing than you are reasoning things out.....:poke:
Shrug all ya want..That works for some if they just can't come up with an answer.
chesswarsnow
03-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Sorry bout that,
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
1. Here's what you do, first you toot the horn, and slam on the breaks.
2. All trams have horns and breaks, you do that first, then you as a last resort, pull the switch to run the single guy over.
3. Thats what I would do,...think about it!
4. You didnt say there were no brakes or a horn to use, so they have to be there, and you didn't say they were all deaf and blind, so they should hear the horn or breaks squealing.
5. Check & Mate!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
revelarts
03-09-2010, 08:48 PM
A comment then answer.
These kinds of questions aren't really MORAL dilemmas they are IMMORAL dilemmas. They ask people to choose between 2 evils. Watching people die and doing nothing or murder.
There is no good moral answer to the question. Just different types of tragedy.
My answer would be that I don't think I could pull the lever and I would vainly try to warn the 5.
I would not push a man into a train to save others and I doubt I would have the courage to do the High moral thing of throwing myself in front of the train to save them. (if a body on the track would stop it.).
Now a far more practical everyday moral issue is something like abortion. The medical question of is the unborn fetus is human is not in question medically anymore. The fact that it has separate DNA from the mother shows that it's not the "woman's body" it just resides there. Partial birth abortions shows that abortion proponents really don't see the difference between in the baby's body physical location since all but the head is out of the womans body.
SO under what conditions is it OK to kill an unborn child?
When the the mother doesn't have a job or education?
When the mother wants to have a career?
After the man and wife are married a few more years?
If having the baby will cause the mother serious mental stress?
If the baby is the wrong gender (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231&fsrc=rss)?
If the baby is sick or handicapped?
If the baby MIGHT be sick or handicapped?
If the mother was raped?
If the life of the mother is in real danger?
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231&fsrc=rss
Sorry bout that,
1. Here's what you do, first you toot the horn, and slam on the breaks.
2. All trams have horns and breaks, you do that first, then you as a last resort, pull the switch to run the single guy over.
3. Thats what I would do,...think about it!
4. You didnt say there were no brakes or a horn to use, so they have to be there.
5. Check & Mate!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
You know what, i also didn't say that superman was not on the tram, ergo just call out to superman and he will save everyone
Ckeck & mate
/Sark
Don't you hate it when people think they are being smart =/
Mr. P
03-09-2010, 09:06 PM
A comment then answer.
These kinds of questions aren't really MORAL dilemmas they are IMMORAL dilemmas. They ask people to choose between 2 evils. Watching people die and doing nothing or murder.
There is no good moral answer to the question. Just different types of tragedy.
My answer would be that I don't think I could pull the lever and I would vainly try to warn the 5.
I would not push a man into a train to save others and I doubt I would have the courage to do the High moral thing of throwing myself in front of the train to save them. (if a body on the track would stop it.).
Now a far more practical everyday moral issue is something like abortion. The medical question of is the unborn fetus is human is not in question medically anymore. The fact that it has separate DNA from the mother shows that it's not the "woman's body" it just resides there. Partial birth abortions shows that abortion proponents really don't see the difference between in the baby's body physical location since all but the head is out of the womans body.
SO under what conditions is it OK to kill an unborn child?
When the the mother doesn't have a job or education?
When the mother wants to have a career?
After the man and wife are married a few more years?
If having the baby will cause the mother serious mental stress?
If the baby is the wrong gender (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231&fsrc=rss)?
If the baby is sick or handicapped?
If the baby MIGHT be sick or handicapped?
If the mother was raped?
If the life of the mother is in real danger?
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231&fsrc=rss
Please don't derail this thread with the old abortion stuff..start another.
revelarts
03-09-2010, 10:19 PM
no problem, its just that I can't think about these fantasy scenarios without thinking off present day real ones. Just cause Hitler's dead doesn't mean there aren't real moral questions of consequence to be answered nowadays.
HogTrash
03-09-2010, 10:29 PM
no problem, its just that I can't think about these fantasy scenarios without thinking off present day real ones. Just cause Hitler's dead doesn't mean there aren't real moral questions of consequence to be answered nowadays.This is true and even though Hitler is dead we now must deal with Obama.
Marxist ideologues have been responsible for much worse attrocities than even Hitler could manufacture.
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 11:14 PM
If you don't want to answer the question then just stay out of the thread.
amazing....he doesn't believe in God, yet he thinks someone died and made him one.....
amazing....he doesn't believe in God, yet he thinks someone died and made him one.....
...say what?
PostmodernProphet
03-09-2010, 11:26 PM
...say what?
can I respond or do I still not have permission to post on your thread.....
can I respond or do I still not have permission to post on your thread.....
I suggested you stay out of the thread if you were not going to answer the question because it is both a waste of our time and clogs up the thread.
buuut if you really wana post your tosh i can do nothing to stop you.
Pericles
03-10-2010, 12:08 AM
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
This is a fascinating and important thought-experiment moral dilemma.
It forces us to think about how we reach our conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. It throws into relief that we approach moral dilemmas with both a rationalistic interpretation, and emotive attitudes. How do we decide what is the best thing to do, in a certain circumstance? By pure calculation, or by empathy?
Of course people can go on (and they have, on this thread) about how the two alternatives presented are not the only ones; and of course, in real life, they are not necessarily the only ones. But we need to keep in mind that this a thought-experiment - and we should try to answer honestly the question, within the parameters that the question poses. Because there are going to be times when there are only two such alternatives - and we have to think, what would be the best choice to make.
What is so important and valuable about the example Noir cites, is that neurobiologists have discovered different neural pathways for the ways in which we come to decide to save the many by sacrificing the one.
What Noir's example shows, even before you make a choice, is that there is no single, unique way of deciding what is the reasonable thing to do, when confronted with a moral dilemma. Sometimes you have to use cold reckoning; sometimes you may have to use cold reckoning in the face of our rational instinct for compassion.
Propers to Noir for encouraging us all to think about the complex roots of our decision-making process in deciding what is right.
Even if it's lost on most of you Christian rubes.
SassyLady
03-10-2010, 12:46 AM
When I was in college our ethical question was:
You take a group of children on a field trip through some caverans. While on the field trip there is an earthquake. There is a cave in and only one way left to get out and water is filling the cave. Some of the children are able to get out but one child gets stuck in the opening. There is no way to get that child out without killing them. Do you kill that child to save the rest?
There are no qualifications of how many children are left, what sex they are, what color they are, etc. Just.........do you sacrifice the life of one child to save the rest? Or do you just sit and wait and let everyone left behind drown?
Noir - I might have missed the post where you told us what you would do. In my example....what would you do?
In my own examples i would flick the switch, to kill one rather than five.
In the second one and in your example i would really hope that in such a situation i'd have the inner straight to commit the murder in order to save other lives.
So i'd in each case i'd do what i could for their to be as little death as possible.
SassyLady
03-10-2010, 12:55 AM
In my own examples i would flick the switch, to kill one rather than five.
In the second one and in your example i would really hope that in such a situation i'd have the inner straight to commit the murder in order to save other lives.
So i'd in each case i'd do what i could for their to be as little death as possible.
In this I agree with you totally........except I don't believe I could do it if it were my child or grandchild. I truly don't think I could do it even to save the lives of many.
In this I agree with you totally........except I don't believe I could do it if it were my child or grandchild. I truly don't think I could do it even to save the lives of many.
Yeah i'd likly be the same, like Christ i couldn't kill a shrew never mind a human xD
SassyLady
03-10-2010, 01:07 AM
Yeah i'd likly be the same, like Christ i couldn't kill a shrew never mind a human xD
Oh, I wouldn't have trouble taking a life Noir....just couldn't take the life of one of my own.
revelarts
03-10-2010, 02:46 AM
This is true and even though Hitler is dead we now must deal with Obama.
Marxist ideologues have been responsible for much worse atrocities than even Hitler could manufacture.
Obama - Bush, 6 or half dozen. Neither have quite lived up to Hitler... yet, but they both are following totalitarian game plans.
Marxist ideologues Fascist ideologues, Totalitarianism by any name stinks just as bad. Both have got a lot of blood on there hands.
I'll mention this little abortion Fact and then leave the issue out this thought experiment thread for good, seriously.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.. Over 35% of pregnancies are aborted. That is a moral problem.
OK
many of you have answered that you'd kill an innocent, for the life of the many.
Would it be "wrong" for someone to make the opposite choice in your opinion?
If so, should they or how should they be punished?
Do you believe in Man made global warming?
Wouldn't letting 5 die decrease the "carbon footprint" and possibly save many more lives?
Mr. P
03-10-2010, 03:11 AM
Obama - Bush, 6 or half dozen. Neither have quite lived up to Hitler... yet, but they both are following totalitarian game plans.
Marxist ideologues Fascist ideologues, Totalitarianism by any name stinks just as bad. Both have got a lot of blood on there hands.
I'll mention this little abortion Fact and then leave the issue out this thought experiment thread for good, seriously.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.. Over 35% of pregnancies are aborted. That is a moral problem.
OK
many of you have answered that you'd kill an innocent, for the life of the many.
Would it be "wrong" for someone to make the opposite choice in your opinion?
If so, should they or how should they be punished?
Do you believe in Man made global warming?
Wouldn't letting 5 die decrease the "carbon footprint" and possibly save many more lives?
Man, back off that Jack or wine or whatever. Geeezzzzz
Oh, I wouldn't have trouble taking a life Noir....just couldn't take the life of one of my own.
Indeedy, but one could make this even more complex, by saying that if the person stuck in the opening is a family member, but what if the people that are trapped behind them are also family?
glockmail
03-10-2010, 09:31 AM
In my own examples i would flick the switch, to kill one rather than five.
In the second one and in your example i would really hope that in such a situation i'd have the inner straight to commit the murder in order to save other lives.
So i'd in each case i'd do what i could for their to be as little death as possible. By taking those actions you'd be liable for murder.
By taking those actions you'd be liable for murder.
Indeed. And if i were to serve time in jail then i would serve it with the knowledge that while i did murder by the letter of the law i also saved 5 people from dying, which would not weigh as heavy on my conscience as the thought that i let 5 men die because i was worried about going to jail.
Am i also to assume by your post that you would do nothing in the 2nd situation or in mrskurtsprincess scenario?
Monkeybone
03-10-2010, 10:09 AM
Indeed. And if i were to serve time in jail then i would serve it with the knowledge that while i did murder by the letter of the law i also saved 5 people from dying, which would not weigh as heavy on my conscience as the thought that i let 5 men die because i was worried about going to jail.
Am i also to assume by your post that you would do nothing in the 2nd situation or in mrskurtsprincess scenario?
it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't question, which is not always part of a moral dilema (two cents). but many over the few i would have to say.
DragonStryk72
03-10-2010, 11:16 AM
*ahem*, 1. I use my own weight to knock the tram off the track entirely, I'll see some harm, but hey, whatever works.
2. Me and the fat guy use our combined weight to knock over the tram, since it can obviously be effected by weight. We'll both likely come to some degree of harm, but we will have saved the lot.
These "moral dilemnas" always end up being false, because really, there's never an either/or to any real scenario. The only reason we're stuck to this choice is because that's all the person coming up with it thought of.
*ahem*, 1. I use my own weight to knock the tram off the track entirely, I'll see some harm, but hey, whatever works.
2. Me and the fat guy use our combined weight to knock over the tram, since it can obviously be effected by weight. We'll both likely come to some degree of harm, but we will have saved the lot.
These "moral dilemnas" always end up being false, because really, there's never an either/or to any real scenario. The only reason we're stuck to this choice is because that's all the person coming up with it thought of.
Righto, very witty.
/sark
So what for mrskurtsprincess' question?
(as a side note i am on the prowl for a dilemma that will not be so easily dogged by people, when i find it i will post it.)
Abbey Marie
03-10-2010, 11:32 AM
This is a fascinating and important thought-experiment moral dilemma.
It forces us to think about how we reach our conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. It throws into relief that we approach moral dilemmas with both a rationalistic interpretation, and emotive attitudes. How do we decide what is the best thing to do, in a certain circumstance? By pure calculation, or by empathy?
Of course people can go on (and they have, on this thread) about how the two alternatives presented are not the only ones; and of course, in real life, they are not necessarily the only ones. But we need to keep in mind that this a thought-experiment - and we should try to answer honestly the question, within the parameters that the question poses. Because there are going to be times when there are only two such alternatives - and we have to think, what would be the best choice to make.
What is so important and valuable about the example Noir cites, is that neurobiologists have discovered different neural pathways for the ways in which we come to decide to save the many by sacrificing the one.
What Noir's example shows, even before you make a choice, is that there is no single, unique way of deciding what is the reasonable thing to do, when confronted with a moral dilemma. Sometimes you have to use cold reckoning; sometimes you may have to use cold reckoning in the face of our rational instinct for compassion.
Propers to Noir for encouraging us all to think about the complex roots of our decision-making process in deciding what is right.
Even if it's lost on most of you Christian rubes.
Ah yes, another Christian-phobic. There must be breeding programs somewhere... :rolleyes:
Ah yes, another Christian-phobic. There must be breeding programs somewhere... :rolleyes:
When you say 'another Christian-phobic' i do hope you are not referring to myself as one of the 'other' ones.
I just doesn't seem to matter how many times someone says something point blank, you just refuse to listen.
HogTrash
03-10-2010, 11:51 AM
Obama - Bush, 6 or half dozen. Neither have quite lived up to Hitler... yet, but they both are following totalitarian game plans.True, and thankfully we survived Bush, but we are still staring down the barrel of Obama's gun and untill he is no longer in power, the world is in danger.
Marxist ideologues Fascist ideologues, Totalitarianism by any name stinks just as bad. Both have got a lot of blood on there hands.Fascism is all but dead except in the minds of liberals who love to hurl the word around at will to attack anyone who disagrees with their far left ideology.
Marxism is the greatest threat to the human race and no matter what we do it refuses to die and rears it's ugly resilient head whenever we drop our guard.
I'll mention this little abortion Fact and then leave the issue out this thought experiment thread for good, seriously.
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.. Over 35% of pregnancies are aborted. That is a moral problem.
OK
many of you have answered that you'd kill an innocent, for the life of the many.
Would it be "wrong" for someone to make the opposite choice in your opinion?
If so, should they or how should they be punished?There are historical examples of sacrificing many lives, either voluntarily or by force, for the survival of one life for various reasons, some good, some not so good.
Scenario...Would or should 100 people die, either voluntarily or by force, to save the life of a doctor who has discovered a cure for cancer?
If me or my loved ones weren't any of the hundred I would probably say yes, so I suppose Einstein would say it's relative...LOL!
Do you believe in Man made global warming?
Wouldn't letting 5 die decrease the "carbon footprint" and possibly save many more lives?Since I don't buy into "Man made global warming", I do not believe human sacrifice would have an affect on climate one way or the other.
Abbey Marie
03-10-2010, 01:19 PM
When you say 'another Christian-phobic' i do hope you are not referring to myself as one of the 'other' ones.
I just doesn't seem to matter how many times someone says something point blank, you just refuse to listen.
Actions speak louder than words, Noir. If your actions change over time, I will be glad to believe differently. I hope they do. :)
DragonStryk72
03-10-2010, 01:39 PM
When you say 'another Christian-phobic' i do hope you are not referring to myself as one of the 'other' ones.
I just doesn't seem to matter how many times someone says something point blank, you just refuse to listen.
you are christian-phobic, Noir, to the point of obsession. This isn't to say you're a bad person, I mean, you're a gamer, but the point does stand on its own merit.
Luna Tick
03-10-2010, 01:40 PM
Ran across this wee moral dilemma, and thought i would post it to see what y'all would do. Two scenarios,
1 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a switch. The switch will put you onto a different line, which has one man working on it. Do you pull the switch to kill one man to save five?
I pull the switch and sound my horn like crazy to see if I can scare the one man off the tracks. There's a chance I can save all six.
2 -You are on a run away tram, further down the tracks you can see 5 workmen, unaware of the approaching tram, they will all die, you are however standing by a fat man leaning over the front of the tram, if you push him over the front then his weight with cause the tram to slow to a stop, killing the fat man to save the 5 men down the line. Do you push the fat man, to kill one and save five?
No, I don't push him. The weight of one fat man won't be enough to stop a tram, which is much, much heavier than even a very large man. The tram would barely be impacted by his weight. If you push him in front, you'll just end up killing six people instead of five.
revelarts
03-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Fascism is all but dead except in the minds of liberals who love to hurl the word around at will to attack anyone who disagrees with their far left ideology.
Stealth Facsism isn't really. Mussolini sometimes defined Fascism as "corporatism" the Corp and gov't rule. And the uber patriotism, militarism and imperialist drives. Are echoed in the phases "get them before they get us" and "we need the oil" and denials of U.S. killing and torture as wrong if Americans do it,,
are alive and well for it's brand of totalitarianism. "give up some Freedom for Safety" is almost classic Fascism.
Marxism is the greatest threat to the human race and no matter what we do it refuses to die and rears it's ugly resilient head whenever we drop our guard.
It's More pervasive in the U.S. and less denied. People want to be kept, fed, doctored and clothed by taking from others -OPPS- I mean for free.
Fascism says throw the other country/group on tracks or good faithful soldiers of the our group throw yourselves on the track for the state because we are better than others.
Socialism says that all groups should push their fat guys onto the tracks for the good of all. Because they are have more than others.
There are historical examples of sacrificing many lives, either voluntarily or by force, for the survival of one life for various reasons, some good, some not so good.
Scenario...Would or should 100 people die, either voluntarily or by force, to save the life of a doctor who has discovered a cure for cancer?
If me or my loved ones weren't any of the hundred I would probably say yes, so I suppose Einstein would say it's relative...LOL!
You see this is where i think the real question should turn in ones thinking turn is in posing these Immoral dilemmas.
the golden rule is, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
instead of working from that position down many start looking at the question like an accountant. Numbers = moral value. I think there's a problem there.
People are not commodities are they?
Is 1 soul worth less than 1000 souls.
I'd say both are priceless.
Like i said it's an immoral choice either way.
Since I don't buy into "Man made global warming", I do not believe human sacrifice would have an affect on climate one way or the other.
I don't buy "Man made global warming" either. But the last thing you said really puts into perspective what it is that we are doing with these immoral dilemmas. HUMAN SACRIFICE. almost as pagan and dark as the Incas or Babylonians. That is, We kill this innocent one for someone elses better ___________ fill in the blank, and that aint right.
NOir
Sophie's Choice is another immoral dilemma. no good answer.
Mr P.
old macdonald had a farm e i e i ooo,
mm hmm that's some good homemade Rum Cake my neighbor makes.
glockmail
03-10-2010, 04:25 PM
Indeed. And if i were to serve time in jail then i would serve it with the knowledge that while i did murder by the letter of the law i also saved 5 people from dying, which would not weigh as heavy on my conscience as the thought that i let 5 men die because i was worried about going to jail.
Am i also to assume by your post that you would do nothing in the 2nd situation or in mrskurtsprincess scenario?
I've already stated my answer to the scenario. I end up likely saving everyone as well as save myself from any prosecution. You failed miserably, killing at least two and spending the rest of your life as the wife of your cell-mate, named Tiny.
HogTrash
03-10-2010, 06:21 PM
Stealth Facsism isn't really. Mussolini sometimes defined Fascism as "corporatism" the Corp and gov't rule.I believe all facism is now "stealth" because it is an unintended consequence of a larger goal...Globalism.
I believe all nations governments are being infiltrated by a new power structure called elitism to bring about a globalist world ruled by the mega-wealthy.
They are using marxist tactics to bring the people of the world into government dependency, one socialist program at a time.
They have been making steady progress for a hundred years and giant strides for the last 50.
Another tactic has been man caused global warming thats policies would have destroyed America overnite and given enormous power to government...That seems to have flopped, thank goodness.
The people have finally awakened and mounted a defense...Even the socialist European nations are revolting...This may be our last chance.
The two nations that will resist globalsim the most is China because they will not want to break from their communist roots and America because we fear losing our freedom and are armed to the teeth.
It's More pervasive in the U.S. and less denied. People want to be kept, fed, doctored and clothed by taking from others -OPPS- I mean for free.It only seems that way because the only people making lots of noise about it has been those wanting something for nothing, but it now seems that main stream America has awakened with the Tea Party movement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.