Morally grey questions
-
Very thought provoking concept.Originally posted by deathbait: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. -
For the sake of argument, let's assume we live in some fantasy world. A volcano will erupt, destroying a village of a thousand unless you push a certain man into it.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.
This man has no knowledge of the volcano eruption, or the danger a thousand men are facing at this moment. You will have me believe it is proper to push him in just to save a thousand people already destined to die.
Like i said, it's not about sacrificing one to save a thousand. It's about sacrificing an innocent to save a thousand condemned. You don't make choices like that. Sure, generals can make those hard choices because everyone expects to die going to battle. But not innocents. You cannot play god with the life of innocents. And your body knows it. Your mind knows it. That's why when you really find yourself in the situation, the path of least resistance is to just let the volcano erupt. -
Life isn't a balance sheet. That is true, but would you let a 1000 people, consisting of innocent men, women and children, be extinguished because you refused to push a man into a volcano? You have to look at the bigger picture. Let those people die and that might be it for their race and culture. Would you want to be responsible for letting this genocide happen?
-
It's about who gonna do it and it must be fast as the boat will sink and enemy will kill all of u.
Many will not want to take the responsibility.
I will, do or die together. -
wow strawman argument. Now it's about genoxide?Originally posted by Demonight:Life isn't a balance sheet. That is true, but would you let a 1000 people, consisting of innocent men, women and children, be extinguished because you refused to push a man into a volcano? You have to look at the bigger picture. Let those people die and that might be it for their race and culture. Would you want to be responsible for letting this genocide happen? -
If I have to kill that one person to save the life of a thousand, I'll do it without hesitation.
It's just like the police. They are ordered to shoot to kill a potential suicide bomber. Whether or not that person is indeed a suicide bomber doesn't matter because hundreds and thousands of lives are at stake here...you can't take the risk.
If you decide not to kill that potential sucide bomber and let him blow up the place, you can't say it's god's will because it is because of your decision to inaction that those person die. It is your will. -
this situation is a very poor substitute for the original situation.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:If I have to kill that one person to save the life of a thousand, I'll do it without hesitation.
It's just like the police. They are ordered to shoot to kill a potential suicide bomber. Whether or not that person is indeed a suicide bomber doesn't matter because hundreds and thousands of lives are at stake here...you can't take the risk.
If you decide not to kill that potential sucide bomber and let him blow up the place, you can't say it's god's will because it is because of your decision to inaction that those person die. It is your will. -
Morally justified action lah.Originally posted by Demonight:Life isn't a balance sheet. That is true, but would you let a 1000 people, consisting of innocent men, women and children, be extinguished because you refused to push a man into a volcano? You have to look at the bigger picture. Let those people die and that might be it for their race and culture. Would you want to be responsible for letting this genocide happen? -
Same. You have to kill a few to save the mass.Originally posted by deathbait:this situation is a very poor substitute for the original situation. -
So, like the policeman example, if you see a man about to murder a whole bunch of people you'd just stand idly by and do nothing because those people are condemned to die?Originally posted by deathbait:For the sake of argument, let's assume we live in some fantasy world. A volcano will erupt, destroying a village of a thousand unless you push a certain man into it.
This man has no knowledge of the volcano eruption, or the danger a thousand men are facing at this moment. You will have me believe it is proper to push him in just to save a thousand people already destined to die.
Like i said, it's not about sacrificing one to save a thousand. It's about sacrificing an innocent to save a thousand condemned. You don't make choices like that. Sure, generals can make those hard choices because everyone expects to die going to battle. But not innocents. You cannot play god with the life of innocents. And your body knows it. Your mind knows it. That's why when you really find yourself in the situation, the path of least resistance is to just let the volcano erupt.
If the lives of millions were at stake you still wouldn't kill just one person to save the millions?
Dude you're crazy. -
VERY different.Originally posted by annoy-you-must:Same. You have to kill a few to save the mass.
the original scenario has 2 group of confirmed innocents. 1000 men are going to die unless you decide to kill 1 man. These are generic people who have done nothing wrong.
You cannot compare it to your scenario where you have reason to suspect that one man is directly going to kill the 1000, and you have to kill that 1 man to save the 1000. Furthermore, you are under obligation by uniform to execute the order. Where in the original scenario, you are thus far simply an observer. -
Nope not crazy. Simply capable of understanding subtle differences between different scenarios.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:So, like the policeman example, if you see a man about to murder a whole bunch of people you'd just stand idly by and do nothing because those people are condemned to die?
If the lives of millions were at stake you still wouldn't kill just one person to save the millions?
Dude you're crazy. -
Meh I guess it's just the typical Singaporean attitude to think "Well it doesn't involve me so it's therefore not my problem"Originally posted by deathbait:VERY different.
the original scenario has 2 group of confirmed innocents. 1000 men are going to die unless you decide to kill 1 man. These are generic people who have done nothing wrong.
You cannot compare it to your scenario where you have reason to suspect that one man is directly going to kill the 1000, and you have to kill that 1 man to save the 1000. Furthermore, you are under obligation by uniform to execute the order. Where in the original scenario, you are thus far simply an observer. -
I will. I will. I will.
Seems inhumane and cruel, but for the greater good. I must, I will and I shall. -
It would be very difficult to make such decisions. To the good of the majority and of oneself, as of the Natural Law which states 'human beings are selfish', I'm afraid I still would.
-
i think for the questions, u should not consider other options available otherwise u defeat the real purpose of the question.
My answer for all the above questions is I will kill one or 2 to save more. And i will not feel remorse for it because I know tat is the best course of action. I did it not because i have no compassion, but because I have. If I am tat odd person tat have to die, I will do it for the greater good. I will not hesistate myself. -
Like he said the policeman example is a bad analogy. The suicide bomber is not innocent. He is a murderer. Equating a murderer to an average guy who happens to be on the wrong train track and doesn't want to be there assuming hes not suicidal just doesn't make sense.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:So, like the policeman example, if you see a man about to murder a whole bunch of people you'd just stand idly by and do nothing because those people are condemned to die?
If the lives of millions were at stake you still wouldn't kill just one person to save the millions?
Dude you're crazy. -
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?
I will Throw the sick man off the rafts, give him a small prayer and when reached land, surrender to the authority.
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?
I will give my breast milk to the baby, hope the baby keep quiet. More better if it is a baby boy, he will sure like it and remain calm.
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?
Given no option, I will push this large man down the track follow by me myself to ensure that 5 men go home safety to be with their wives and childrens. -
lol not very smart...throwing yourself onto the tracks and killing yourself for no reason at all.Originally posted by angel7030:I will push this large man down the track follow by me myself to ensure that 5 men go home safety to be with their wives and childrens. -
this kind of question should ask the Probe and Dalai Lama.
They should be able to give you an good answer.