Jump to content

A Moral Dilemma


♥Nick♥

Recommended Posts

You can also be considered a murderer for having killed one person.

And considered a hero for saving five. You're there at the scene no matter what. You had the option to save five lives, or to save one. You will be looked at and asked "Why didn't you stop it" like some sort of Ron Paul meme.

 

I agree, I'd simply close my eyes and walk away.

And allow 5 innocent people to die because you refused to save them?

 

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point, though I do stand by my statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first one, hell yeah I'd pull the lever. For the second one, I wouldn't push the guy off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And allow 5 innocent people to die because you refused to save them?

Yes. If I don't save anyone, I won't have to kill anyone either. 0 consequences for me. Perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. If I don't save anyone, I won't have to kill anyone either. 0 consequences for me. Perfect.

 

Except you'll have the souls of 5 dead men hanging over your conscience for the rest of your life.

You're indirectly killing them by choosing not to take action. As I said in my first response ITT, the decision to not take action is still a decision, and will result in the death of 5 rather than that of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're indirectly killing them by choosing not to take action.

You're indirectly killing starving children in Africa by not sending them food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're indirectly killing starving children in Africa by not sending them food.

 

True enough, though there are others whom I can count on to help them in my place. In the given situation(s) it's reasonable to assume that you are the only person able to help any of the workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turn the train towards the spur, but speed up the train as fast as it can go. While you have saved the original lives, hopefully the fast turn will flip the train over saving the lone person by himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like Kebab & ã‚¢ãƒã•ã‚“. I'd simply do nothing. I'd just walk away and hope for the best. I don't want to be held responsible for someones death.

Also, how the hell can these guys on the track not hear/see a train coming behind them? -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I think you may have misread the question.

In any of these scenarios, someone is going to die no matter what happens It boils down to the question of whether you take no action at the cost of 5 lives, or take action and only lose 1.

 

Toward this end, taking action would arguably make you a hero among your peers for having the quick thinking to pull the lever (or push the man off the bridge) to save 5 lives, even at the cost of one.

 

I mean it's a moral hypothetical sure, but in reality it would not make you a "hero among your peers" as you'd probably go to prison for murder if you shoved a dude off a bridge in front of a train, regardless of the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean it's a moral hypothetical sure, but in reality it would not make you a "hero among your peers" as you'd probably go to prison for murder if you shoved a dude off a bridge in front of a train, regardless of the reason.

 

Probably should have specified from the start, I was primarily referring to example 1 when I said that. I do agree with you, pulling a lever is one thing, shoving a guy off a bridge is another. Besides the fact that a 300-400 lb man in front of a multi-ton train really won't make that much of a difference, you are literally pushing a man off a bridge. That's not going to go over well with anyone, regardless of circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not surprising to see people genuinely believing that inaction leading to the death of 5 people is in some way a morally superior choice. whoever it was that said "fate wanted the 5 people to die" you are doing some fucking unbelievable mental gymnastics with nebulous ideas like fate in order to avoid any personal complicity.

 

hypothetically yes pull the lever kill one to save five. if your option is inaction leading to the death of 5 people or action leading to the death of one, you're +4 in terms of lives saved by acting. if it was a loved one i'd let five strangers die for them though. i know it's wrong, but ultimately it's a selfish thing. those 5 people could all have had heart attacks and died the next day and i would never have known or really been troubled if i did know, so in terms of impact on my life i would rather keep a loved one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Ftr, I wasn't stating what I'd do (I have no idea and I think trying to answer these kind of hypotheticals is silly cause really who knows how they would act in some bizarre emergency sitution until they are actually in it?), I was just objecting to those claiming you'd be some kind of hero for saving the 5 people - it may arguably be a morally superior choice, but legally you'd be screwed. Guess you could be one of those infamous guys who accrues fans in jail and has a nice prison wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...