Morally grey questions
-
The following questions are taken from the 'Time' magazine. I was wondering how Singaporeans would answer these questions. Here:
You are adrift in a life raft after your cruise ship has sunk. There are too many survivors for the lifte rafts, and yours is dangerously overloaded. The raft is certain to sink, and even with the life vests on, all the passengers are sure to die because of the frigid temperature of the water. One person on the boat is awake and alert but gravely ill and will not survive the journey no matter what. Throwing that person overboard would prevent the raft from sinking. Could you be the one who tosses the person out?
Added by me: what if you are unsure whether or not that illed person could be save if a doctor is found in time? what if you are unsure whether or not throwing that person aboard is enough to prevent the raft from sinking? would you kill that person swiftly and cleanly before throwing him abroad to spare him the pain of being in the icy cold water?A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who can't be warned in time. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but there is a single unsuspecting workman there. Would you throw the switch, killing one to save five? Suppose the workman was on a bridge with you and you could save the men only by pushing him onto the tracks? (He's large enough to stop the train; you're not.) Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor-thus not physically pushing him?
It's wartime, and you're hiding in a basement with your baby and a group of other people. Enemy soldiers are outside and will be drawn to any sound. If you're found, you will all be killed immediately. Your baby starts to cry loudly and cannot be stopped. Smothering him to death is the only way to silence him and save the lives of everyone in the room. Could you do so? Assume the baby is not yours, the parents are unknown and there will be no penalty for killing him. Could you be the one who smothers this baby if no one else would?
These questions are hypothetical and it's unlikely that we'll run into such situation. But these questions serves to question what we define as 'morality', 'right' and 'wrong'. -
hmm interesting.
personally ah. i really don't know. if i did those actions, i probably will be stricken by conscience for a long time -
veri scary leh.. either choice i make i tink i will go crazy coz i will hallucinate tt the dead person will come and find me i hum one..
-
Sometime decisions have to be made
-
i'll throw myself overboard
-
I cover the baby mouth
-
as above be a man and throw myself overboard lol i think the last few are very closed... why can't you throw something on the track to derail it? why can't you run out into enemy fire to create a distraction from the godforsaken little shit?
-
The first qn:
i will throw the sick overboard no matter what. In the vast sea, it is unlikely to find a doctor. Even if there is, there is no medication to save him. But if there is medication, do u think he will survive in the extreme condition?
The second qn:
i will press the switch[/color]. One person die is better than five people. However, the qn boils down to which groups have more obligations. As in family, parent etc.
The third qn:
i will surrender kill the baby given all the people with me is elderly. But the qn also lies in whether the enemy is humane enough not to kill the baby.
Provided all the people are young enough, i will no doubt kill the baby as, if we are caught, all will die no matter what. Unless again the enemy is humane enough not to kill the baby. -
first qs: no, though i hope someone will. Doing this kind of act = help others, but will be despise by them, even though their heart wishes u to do so.
two qs: no, the five men are destinated to die and whatsmore, killing to save others is not good either. (if saving my own self, it's another diff issue)
third qs: yes. i detest children and babies.
i'm being honest. -
All questions: yes for the greater good
-
this brings up the question of sacrificing the few to save the many. like kira in the death note series.
-
You are adrift in a life raft after your cruise ship has sunk. There are too many survivors for the lifte rafts, and yours is dangerously overloaded. The raft is certain to sink, and even with the life vests on, all the passengers are sure to die because of the frigid temperature of the water. One person on the boat is awake and alert but gravely ill and will not survive the journey no matter what. Throwing that person overboard would prevent the raft from sinking. Could you be the one who tosses the person out?
Self sacificed lor
A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who can't be warned in time. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but there is a single unsuspecting workman there. Would you throw the switch, killing one to save five? Suppose the workman was on a bridge with you and you could save the men only by pushing him onto the tracks? (He's large enough to stop the train; you're not.) Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor-thus not physically pushing him?
Instead of pushing that man, why not push oneself?
It's wartime, and you're hiding in a basement with your baby and a group of other people. Enemy soldiers are outside and will be drawn to any sound. If you're found, you will all be killed immediately. Your baby starts to cry loudly and cannot be stopped. Smothering him to death is the only way to silence him and save the lives of everyone in the room. Could you do so? Assume the baby is not yours, the parents are unknown and there will be no penalty for killing him. Could you be the one who smothers this baby if no one else would?
As a forumer has answered, just cover the baby's mouth will do.
-
Q1.I dont think I will push the guy out...but will see if he's gone...if he is...I will push...
Q2. dunno.
Q3. I wouldnt kill the baby. In war...there will be casualties...without the baby...there is no telling if I can survive... -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who can't be warned in time. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but there is a single unsuspecting workman there. Would you throw the switch, killing one to save five? Suppose the workman was on a bridge with you and you could save the men only by pushing him onto the tracks? (He's large enough to stop the train; you're not.) Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor-thus not physically pushing him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
i would always sacrifice one to save all, thats my moral rule
the one that is sacrificed to save others will be remembered as a hero
while i will be remembered as a murderer for causing that guy to die
however i will oso be remembered as a hero cos i saved all the others
SEE SO balanced -
1) Gotta push. It's basic survival. Rest assured when push comes to shove, most people would push HEALTHY unsuspecting people off the raft to save themselves in this scenario. The fact that the victim is almost certain to die anyway is an out. Take it.
2) Do nothing. Someone's going to die here, and it might as well be the people who were supposed to die in the first place. There is no justification, ever, for playing god. You do not get to decide who dies.
3) This one is easy. Baby dies. End of story. Even if you do escape the soldiers here, it is unlikely you'll be able to smuggle the baby out alive later anyway. Survival of the fittest in extreme scenarios. And the baby ain't that fit. -
He will not survive.
So I would choose to throw him overboard to * at least * save those on boards. -
I agree with you on point 1 and 3 but not 2. This is not about playing god. It is simply a case of reducing unnecessary casualtiesOriginally posted by deathbait:1) Gotta push. It's basic survival. Rest assured when push comes to shove, most people would push HEALTHY unsuspecting people off the raft to save themselves in this scenario. The fact that the victim is almost certain to die anyway is an out. Take it.
2) Do nothing. Someone's going to die here, and it might as well be the people who were supposed to die in the first place. There is no justification, ever, for playing god. You do not get to decide who dies.
3) This one is easy. Baby dies. End of story. Even if you do escape the soldiers here, it is unlikely you'll be able to smuggle the baby out alive later anyway. Survival of the fittest in extreme scenarios. And the baby ain't that fit. -
actually, there's a huge difference between killing one guy and doing nothing and watching 5 die.Originally posted by korusu:I agree with you on point 1 and 3 but not 2. This is not about playing god. It is simply a case of reducing unnecessary casualties
It's not a pure numbers game.
If you pull the lever and kill one guy, you ARE a murderer. You knowingly condemned him to die, when he otherwise would not have.
If you stand idly by as the 5 guys die, you are only an observer. No one, not even yourself, can blame you for not making the choice to sacrifice the innocent man. Because like i said, it's not a numbers game. It's a moral one.
It's all easy to say "kill one guy" now, but just imagine if you REALLY were in the situation. Five will get you ten that you won't be able to bring yourself to condemn a man to die. There's a reason why it's easier to just do nothing and let the 5 man die. It's not your responsibility to decide who dies. Don't make it yours when you don't have to. -
i have no idea.
i really do not know what my actions will be when thrown into such desperate scenarios for real. -
Some dictionary define murder as 'The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice'.Originally posted by deathbait:actually, there's a huge difference between killing one guy and doing nothing and watching 5 die.
It's not a pure numbers game.
If you pull the lever and kill one guy, you ARE a murderer. You knowingly condemned him to die, when he otherwise would not have.
If you stand idly by as the 5 guys die, you are only an observer. No one, not even yourself, can blame you for not making the choice to sacrifice the innocent man. Because like i said, it's not a numbers game. It's a moral one.
It's all easy to say "kill one guy" now, but just imagine if you REALLY were in the situation. Five will get you ten that you won't be able to bring yourself to condemn a man to die. There's a reason why it's easier to just do nothing and let the 5 man die. It's not your responsibility to decide who dies. Don't make it yours when you don't have to.
In this case, if you kill the one guy to save the five lives, it is for the greater good, not for some malicious intent. Hence, you're saving lives, not murdering people.
Even if you decided to stand by to do nothing, you are already making a concious decision to let the five guys die. Because of your action (of inaction), you have caused the death of five guys. You could stop their death, but you chose not to. In a way, aren't you similarly responsible for their death?
It's just like when a person is drowning. If nobody is nearby to notice him and save it, that drowning person's death is just an accident. However, the situation is different when there's so many people who witness the incident but decided not to play god and not to save the person. By making a concious decision not to save that person, everyone who witness the incident has to pay some responsibility for the person's death.
I may not have the rights or the power to decide who dies and who survives in this world. Through inaction, however, we are too already deciding who is to die. As such, I will chose to make sure as little people as possible dies in this case.
Maybe the public will see me as a murderer for sacrificing that one person (without his consent) to save the five person. But I rather be labeled as a murderer by the public than be labeled as a murderer by myself. I'll just be doing what I think is right, therefore, my concience is clear. -
I like your signatureOriginally posted by lost.soul:i would always sacrifice one to save all, thats my moral rule
the one that is sacrificed to save others will be remembered as a hero
while i will be remembered as a murderer for causing that guy to die
however i will oso be remembered as a hero cos i saved all the others
SEE SO balanced -
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
I'm not sure the innocent man minding his own business would agree with your "greater good" statement, but I digress.
Some dictionary define murder as 'The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice'.
In this case, if you kill the one guy to save the five lives, it is for the greater good, not for some malicious intent. Hence, you're saving lives, not murdering people.
Even if you decided to stand by to do nothing, you are already making a concious decision to let the five guys die. Because of your action (of inaction), you have caused the death of five guys. You could stop their death, but you chose not to. In a way, aren't you similarly responsible for their death?
It's just like when a person is drowning. If nobody is nearby to notice him and save it, that drowning person's death is just an accident. However, the situation is different when there's so many people who witness the incident but decided not to play god and not to save the person. By making a concious decision not to save that person, everyone who witness the incident has to pay some responsibility for the person's death.
I may not have the rights or the power to decide who dies and who survives in this world.[b] Through inaction, however, we are too already deciding who is to die. As such, I will chose to make sure as little people as possible dies in this case.
Maybe the public will see me as a murderer for sacrificing that one person (without his consent) to save the five person. But I rather be labeled as a murderer by the public than be labeled as a murderer by myself. I'll just be doing what I think is right, therefore, my concience is clear.[/b]
The situation is far removed from your drowning example. In your example, the life cost of saving a life is 0. Obviously you need to save the person. If you don't you condemned him to die.
In this scenario, however, the men are already condemned to die. There's nothing that you can do to save them without incurring extra lives. You can't put lives on a balance like that and measure out which is more effecient.
The solitary man is not supposed to die. You are not saving 5 people if you throw the lever. The act you are commiting is murder. The 5 people in the way are just having a bad day.
Like i said. Really imagine hard the situation. If you were REALLY put in that situation, could you push yourself to pull the lever? And it's a good thing that you can't. It's not because you can't do math. It's because your instincts are accurate that life is not a balance sheet. -
I don't think I agreee with what you're saying, if you say life is not a balance sheet, then does that mean you don't think 5 lives are worth more than one? What if you could kill one to save a thousand? Would you still let the thousand die? The 5 men aren't condemned to die, it's just an accident that's about to happen; the effects of which could be lessened if you just pull the lever.Originally posted by deathbait:I'm not sure the innocent man minding his own business would agree with your "greater good" statement, but I digress.
The situation is far removed from your drowning example. In your example, the life cost of saving a life is 0. Obviously you need to save the person. If you don't you condemned him to die.
In this scenario, however, the men are already condemned to die. There's nothing that you can do to save them without incurring extra lives. You can't put lives on a balance like that and measure out which is more effecient.
The solitary man is not supposed to die. You are not saving 5 people if you throw the lever. The act you are commiting is murder. The 5 people in the way are just having a bad day.
Like i said. Really imagine hard the situation. If you were REALLY put in that situation, could you push yourself to pull the lever? And it's a good thing that you can't. It's not because you can't do math. It's because your instincts are accurate that life is not a balance sheet. -
Frankly whatever it is, best to make sure the man himself stays alive. Heroes may turn legend but in my humble opinion, every man for himself makes a better mantra to live by.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:I don't think I agreee with what you're saying, if you say life is not a balance sheet, then does that mean you don't think 5 lives are worth more than one? What if you could kill one to save a thousand? Would you still let the thousand die? The 5 men aren't condemned to die, it's just an accident that's about to happen; the effects of which could be lessened if you just pull the lever.You are adrift in a life raft after your cruise ship has sunk. There are too many survivors for the life raft, and yours is dangerously overloaded. The raft is certain to sink, and even with the life vests on, all the passengers are sure to die because of the frigid temperature of the water. One person on the boat is awake and alert but gravely ill and will not survive the journey no matter what. Throwing that person overboard would prevent the raft from sinking. Could you be the one who tosses the person out?
Reminds me of The Devil and Miss Prym. Circumstances in life are results of time and chance but sometimes you need to know when to go it alone (even if everyone else is against you). If I believe in the possibility of survival by killing the injured man before tossing him into the water, I will. Especially if there is family on board the raft with me.