Hypothetical Situation Question - Morality

[eits]

imagine there is a train that you are told is full of passengers and it's being controlled by an evil mastermind. the only way he will stop the train from plummeting off the edge of a collapsed bridge is if you kill the next person that walks past you with a shovel (you are given the shovel). you have to kill the person as fast as you can because time is of the essence. the person is completely innocent and does not look threatening whatsoever and is a good person with a loving wife and kids.

would you or wouldn't you? why?


edit: what if the innocent bystander was your brother/sister (for those of you who don't have a brother or sister or dislike your brother or sister, pretend you had one and that you loved them... it's a hypothetical)?

edit: for sake of argument, he will stop the train and everyone on board will be safe. he isn't lying or anything. he just wants to see if you will kill someone innocent to save hundreds.

 

[Canai]

Yes. The person is going to die regardless of me killing them with a shovel. If I kill them, everybody else lives.

Of course, I'd probably be the evil mastermind in all this 😱

edit: actually, wouldn't the evil mastermind be the next person to walk by, when he gives me the shovel? I'd just kill him.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Canai
Yes. The person is going to die regardless of me killing them with a shovel. If I kill them, everybody else lives.

Of course, I'd probably be the evil mastermind in all this 😱

edit: actually, wouldn't the evil mastermind be the next person to walk by, when he gives me the shovel? I'd just kill him.

no, the shovel is left for you somewhere with a note... "saw" style or something.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

An interesting conundrum. The crux of this issue is that I'm left to trust the word of an "evil mastermind," someone who is so sociopathic that they are willing to tell me that they have a train full of people that they will kill. How can I be sure this sociopath is not lying to me, and merely wants to watch me beat an innocent person to death with a shovel? If I'm left to simply take the evil mastermind at face value, I would not kill the person with a shovel. If it turns out that there was in fact a train full of people, I would feel bad, sure, but at least it's doing something to decrease the surplus population. But I wouldn't feel guilty; no, it's that innocent person's fault! I'd go back and beat them to death with the shovel, and everything would be wrapped up nicely. The evil mastermind and I could go play a round of golf and laugh about the whole thing. And then I'd beat him to death for trying to out-evil mastermind me. Bitch.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

 

[cdmccool]

Nope, I wouldn't.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

You see, you have to pretend to be the evil mastermind's apprentice, then you kill him when you get the chance and steal all of his cool evil-themed accessories.

 

[Dirigible]

Can I kill the second and third people that pass by me? Or do I have to stop at one?

 

[IronWing]

No. I'd run and get my camera. Train...collapsed bridge?...youtube baby!

 

[Kadarin]

Wouldn't do it, as it's too arbitrary. An evil madman who would run a train of passengers off a cliff unless you kill some random guy would be very likely to tell you that he was just fucking with you, and would let the train fall off the cliff anyway.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Wouldn't do it, as it's too arbitrary. An evil madman who would run a train of passengers off a cliff unless you kill some random guy would be very likely to tell you that he was just fucking with you, and would let the train fall off the cliff anyway.

i never said he was a madman... i said he was an evil mastermind. for sake of argument, he will stop the train and everyone on board will be safe.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Wouldn't do it, as it's too arbitrary. An evil madman who would run a train of passengers off a cliff unless you kill some random guy would be very likely to tell you that he was just fucking with you, and would let the train fall off the cliff anyway.

i never said he was a madman... i said he was an evil mastermind. for sake of argument, he will stop the train and everyone on board will be safe.

So far everybody except me, and the guy who wants to kill everyone, lets everybody die.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

 

[amdforever2]

There's no way to be certain there even is a train or a madman.

Just imagine if you were walking around home depot and saw some sticky note on a shovel.

Would you really just go nuts?

 

[IronWing]

<Kirk mode>
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
</mode>

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

their blood would be on your hands because you can save them. if you can save them and you ignore your call to save them, you have effectively killed them.

how could you just shrug your shoulders and say "not my problem" and let hundreds die? one life vs hundreds. what if your wife/kids were on the train? what if your parents were on the train? you dunno.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Wouldn't do it, as it's too arbitrary. An evil madman who would run a train of passengers off a cliff unless you kill some random guy would be very likely to tell you that he was just fucking with you, and would let the train fall off the cliff anyway.

i never said he was a madman... i said he was an evil mastermind. for sake of argument, he will stop the train and everyone on board will be safe.

By your description of evil genius, he meets my definition of a madman. There are no guarantees and, even if there were, we're back to "you don't bargain with madman or terrorists." Everybody dies.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
There's no way to be certain there even is a train or a madman.

Just imagine if you were walking around home depot and saw some sticky note on a shovel.

Would you really just go nuts?

the events in the scenario that i put in the op are certainties.

 

[Canai]

How about this: You kill one person with the shovel, everybody else lives. You don't, and everyone, yourself and the guy you would have killed, included.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Kadarin
Wouldn't do it, as it's too arbitrary. An evil madman who would run a train of passengers off a cliff unless you kill some random guy would be very likely to tell you that he was just fucking with you, and would let the train fall off the cliff anyway.

i never said he was a madman... i said he was an evil mastermind. for sake of argument, he will stop the train and everyone on board will be safe.

By your description of evil genius, he meets my definition of a madman. There are no guarantees and, even if there were, we're back to "you don't bargain with madman or terrorists." Everybody dies.

in this scenario, there are guarantees. this isn't 24.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Interesting . But the evil guy would have to Kill all . I wouldn't kill an innocent to save the whole of the earth. Now if it was the same deal and all I had to do is self kill . I would do it so fast it make your head spin.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Interesting . But the evil guy would have to Kill all . I wouldn't kill an innocent to save the whole of the earth. Now if it was the same deal and all I had to do is selk kill . I would do it so fast it make your head spin.

selk kill?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: ironwing
<Kirk mode>
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
</mode>

Kirk would make sure that the next person that walked by WAS the evil mastermind. Because Kirk is awesome like that.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

their blood would be on your hands because you can save them. if you can save them and you ignore your call to save them, you have effectively killed them.

how could you just shrug your shoulders and say "not my problem" and let hundreds die? one life vs hundreds. what if your wife/kids were on the train? what if your parents were on the train? you dunno.

Thats false reasoning and one of major issues that cause people to turn away from God. "If he exists, how could he let this terrible thing happen?" People always have a choice and I believe that is God's greatest gift.