Hypothetical Situation Question - Morality

[mrSHEiK124]

If we're talking guarantees here, meaning if I don't kill the guy I somehow know that everyone on that trains dies and vice versa, yeah, I'd probably kill him.

 

[JS80]

No but I would be for something like the John Travolta character in Swordfish.

 

[BoomerD]

Do I know the people on board the train?

If so, and they're important to me, then <WHACK!> the passer-by is passed on...

If not, then where the fuck is my camera...I want pics of the upcoming train wreck.

I don't buy into the whole "their blood is on your hands" kind of morality bullshit.

The ONLY time their blood would be on my hands, is if I killed them...NOT just because I chose not to save them.

Plus, if by not saving them I die too...why would I care?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This is rudimentary game theory. If you have to pull a lever that diverts the train so it hits the guy and causes the train to stop before it goes off a cliff, 99% of people will do it. If you have to PUSH that person on the track, 99% of people won't. Logically, it's the same action.

Originally posted by: Mo0o
It's slightly different in my opinion because in choosing to do nothing, you're not physically killing anyone, only letting people die through inaction. If that counts as "having blood on your hands" then all of the developed world has "blood on their hands" by living the rich life style that we do while the rest of the world blows so much ass. Just a difference that i thought was important to point out. Inaction leading to someone's death is different from you actually killing them.

Inaction on a global scale is much difference than inaction right in front of you. Would you stand by and watch a woman get gang raped? By your logic, you could just turn around and walk away without feeling the slightest moral qualm. Saying something as broad as "the ends do not justify the means" and then trying to apply it across the board to every situation is ludicrous. There are many, many situations in which inaction is immoral; where pacifism is as evil as actively committing a crime.

I'm 1% in the first and logically consistent.

 

[cdmccool]

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...

Not the way I see it. The blood of the hundred people is on the hands of the evil mastermind.

However, if you were to kill the single person to save the other hundred, that blood is indeed on your hands.

 

[RichardE]

Same sort of question as "would you kill a thousand innocent children to cure aids".

Yes

 

[Legendary]

<selfish>
Are you guaranteed to not be convicted of any crime afterwards?
</selfish>

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Legendary
<selfish>
Are you guaranteed to not be convicted of any crime afterwards?
</selfish>

<more selfish>

What's in it for ME if I do this?

</more selfish>

 

[panipoori]

Some people took this hypothetical question way too literally, its a classic utilitarian question. Do the benefits outweigh the costs, saving the lives of 50 people over that of one. I would say yes.

 

[spittledip]

No. What he chooses to do to those people is his responsibility. The attempt to transfer the responsibility for his choice via and ultimatum is fraudulent. As soon as you agree to go along with his "plan," you are accepting responsibility for his actions partly. I would feel bad about the people, but it is his decision to make to kill the people, not mine. I would opt out. By opting ouot you are robbing him of the power he wants to have over you also. That might short-circuit his plans anyway. Hard to know since this is hypothetical. duh.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

The replies here disappoint me... Id think more people would say yes... How can you not say yes? Yes its just an innocent life and the passer by could be any of us, but would you not be willing to die for the lives of hundreds? Well, actually I wouldnt, but Id still kill the passer by LOL! (waits for the selfish bastard comments 😉)

You guys just have to remember that EVERY person in the train has their own life... So what if the passer by is married and has kids? I bet half of the train is in the same situation... Would you orphan 2 kids or 200? Its an easy question in my view... Although killing the guy with a shovel would be hard, Ill give you that, sounds very messy

Also I dont get stuff like the reply above... You are a part of his plans whether you kill people or not, hes just giving you a chance to be the hero of the day

I dont see what "skipping" the choice accomplishes... Lets take this to a bigger scale... Kill a passer by or a terrorist drops a nuke in Tokyo, what do you do? Youd still rather the whole city disappear? ... Thats just inhuman, the guy could basically go on and cleansweep the whole human population and no one would do anything about it by that line of thinking

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: 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.

well said

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: 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.

? how did we get to the issue of God's existence? ???

look, it's not difficult to understand. if you kill this one guy, you will be saving the lives of hundreds of innocent people... some of whom might even be your friends or family. this isn't a debate about God's existence. this is a debate about what would you do given this certain scenario.

what you're trying to do is go outside of the hypothetical scenario. the question is do you or don't you. if you do, you save hundreds. if you don't, you sentence hundreds of innocent people to death, thereby having their blood on your hands. in either scenario, any normal person would be haunted for years... which is the goal of the evil mastermind. is it easier to get over killing somebody to save the lives of hundreds or is it easier for you to get over saying "not my problem" and knowing that hundreds died because you didn't hero up.

Listen friend, To wrongs can't = right. No matter how ya slice it. The blood of the dead wouldn't be on my hands but the evils guys hands. Yes it would haunt me but i would have to live with it .

I'd rather be haunted by the one life I had to take to save the rest of the train than be dead and know that because of my inaction the rest of the people on the train died.

So to reiterate my post above, what if your action sets a precedent that ends up killing thousands over time?

in this hypothetical, it doesn't. there's no huge, elaborate future involved or anything. it's just kill one guy and save the lives of hundreds vs don't do anything and let them die.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The details are very important. There is no such thing as a generic situation in this regard. I have stated my beliefs and reasoning at least twice now. Perhaps it is hard for you to imagine someone willing to sacrifice the many for a principle but I am such a person.

because your responses don't make very much sense. i've heard other responses that agree with your position that make complete sense and i can understand why. with you, it's like you think this is some jack bauer situation and there is some kind of terrorist future plot or something that will happen after this event.

all i'm saying is that your arguments are lame and don't really make sense.

 

[moshquerade]

yes eits, i would save you. 🙂

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: destrekor
also, this scenario or any twist of it, requires one to accept defeat. I have trouble accepting failure in anything I do, I'm very hard on myself, so most likely situation would be risking the group to save my family member, but at the same time putting both my life at risk and my family members to try and save as much of the group as possible... one likely outcome of this is everyone dies. But then I don't have to deal with the mental trauma that would come later in life that would stem from such an experience. 😉

+

The idea of questions like these is to try and force someone to decide in a situation where they can't win completely IMO. It's more to find out about what kind of person YOU are than any scenario. The question is just the tool used to make someone decide.

In order to view and respond properly to the question you should go ahead and accept the idea that either the passengers or the next person to walk by MUST die and they will die as a direct consequence of YOUR actions. There will be blood on your hands regardless. Now , do you distinguish between the blood of the few and the many or not? The train and the shovel and the evil mastermind are just devices designed to take any possible power out of your hands in the hypothetical situation besides the essential choice.

Nevertheless it seems that people still got hung up on the details and derailed the question, hence my attempt to create a generic situation without the aspects that seemed to stick in everyone's collective craw.

:clap;

ty. exactly.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: destrekor
also, this scenario or any twist of it, requires one to accept defeat. I have trouble accepting failure in anything I do, I'm very hard on myself, so most likely situation would be risking the group to save my family member, but at the same time putting both my life at risk and my family members to try and save as much of the group as possible... one likely outcome of this is everyone dies. But then I don't have to deal with the mental trauma that would come later in life that would stem from such an experience. 😉

+

The idea of questions like these is to try and force someone to decide in a situation where they can't win completely IMO. It's more to find out about what kind of person YOU are than any scenario. The question is just the tool used to make someone decide.

In order to view and respond properly to the question you should go ahead and accept the idea that either the passengers or the next person to walk by MUST die and they will die as a direct consequence of YOUR actions. There will be blood on your hands regardless. Now , do you distinguish between the blood of the few and the many or not? The train and the shovel and the evil mastermind are just devices designed to take any possible power out of your hands in the hypothetical situation besides the essential choice.

Nevertheless it seems that people still got hung up on the details and derailed the question, hence my attempt to create a generic situation without the aspects that seemed to stick in everyone's collective craw.

It's slightly different in my opinion because in choosing to do nothing, you're not physically killing anyone, only letting people die through inaction. If that counts as "having blood on your hands" then all of the developed world has "blood on their hands" by living the rich life style that we do while the rest of the world blows so much ass. Just a difference that i thought was important to point out. Inaction leading to someone's death is different from you actually killing them.

exactly, also. ty.

that is why i put this question together...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This is rudimentary game theory. If you have to pull a lever that diverts the train so it hits the guy and causes the train to stop before it goes off a cliff, 99% of people will do it. If you have to PUSH that person on the track, 99% of people won't. Logically, it's the same action.

Originally posted by: Mo0o
It's slightly different in my opinion because in choosing to do nothing, you're not physically killing anyone, only letting people die through inaction. If that counts as "having blood on your hands" then all of the developed world has "blood on their hands" by living the rich life style that we do while the rest of the world blows so much ass. Just a difference that i thought was important to point out. Inaction leading to someone's death is different from you actually killing them.

Inaction on a global scale is much difference than inaction right in front of you. Would you stand by and watch a woman get gang raped? By your logic, you could just turn around and walk away without feeling the slightest moral qualm. Saying something as broad as "the ends do not justify the means" and then trying to apply it across the board to every situation is ludicrous. There are many, many situations in which inaction is immoral; where pacifism is as evil as actively committing a crime.

:clap;

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Legendary
<selfish>
Are you guaranteed to not be convicted of any crime afterwards?
</selfish>

yup.

 

[eits]

the reason i chose a shovel to kill the guy is because it's harder for people to imagine actually bludgeoning someone to death with a shovel than shooting them. shooting someone is a lot easier to do than actually going ape on someone physically with a shovel.

it's harder for people to say yes to killing the innocent guy if they know they have to physically do it up close and with a struggle as opposed to simply pulling a trigger from a distance.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yes eits, i would save you. 🙂

🙂

if mosh were the passerby, i'd have sex with her right then and there while the train crashed in the background.

 

[Braznor]

I will pretend to kill that innocent person and then when the evil mastermind shows up, I'll kill him for good.

 

[rasczak]

have a dildo magically appear in your hand, hand it over to him and tell him to go fuck himself.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I am not argueing against anyones personnel decision. Because thats what this is a personal decision.

You guys all know the symbol of our justic system . woman with scale and blindfolded.
Its called Blind justic balanced. This is were we went wrong . The scales should have been their. But the womans eyes should have looked like this:shocked:

If a lawyer is defendinga murder and that lawyer discovers that clientis guilty . Your system demands that he wares a blindfold.

This is wrong no matter what kind of sick logic you use to say differantly . That lawyer even tho he is bound to his client. His first duty is justic not his client. Once a lawyer knows his client is guilty. Its his duty to make sure justic prevails. Not his client. But thats not how the game is played and its is this very reason why america has declined in the last 50 years to an immoral war mongral nation.

OUR government is RUN by laywers who believe is blind justic . So they to our blind.

So back to the orginal question . If the train was full of lawyers I could easly be the evil guy. Or would I infact be the good guy stomping on evils head?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This is rudimentary game theory. If you have to pull a lever that diverts the train so it hits the guy and causes the train to stop before it goes off a cliff, 99% of people will do it. If you have to PUSH that person on the track, 99% of people won't. Logically, it's the same action.

Originally posted by: Mo0o
It's slightly different in my opinion because in choosing to do nothing, you're not physically killing anyone, only letting people die through inaction. If that counts as "having blood on your hands" then all of the developed world has "blood on their hands" by living the rich life style that we do while the rest of the world blows so much ass. Just a difference that i thought was important to point out. Inaction leading to someone's death is different from you actually killing them.

Inaction on a global scale is much difference than inaction right in front of you. Would you stand by and watch a woman get gang raped? By your logic, you could just turn around and walk away without feeling the slightest moral qualm. Saying something as broad as "the ends do not justify the means" and then trying to apply it across the board to every situation is ludicrous. There are many, many situations in which inaction is immoral; where pacifism is as evil as actively committing a crime.

Yet under US law if you push the guy onto the tracks you go to jail, but if you let the train crash you walk. Morally != legally, but I'd rather be immoral and go about my life than righteous and getting assbanged for 25 to life. Sorry, but it looks like the people on the train go bye bye bye 🙂