Hypothetical Situation Question - Morality

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Sqube
Quite frankly, the guilt will probably kill you either way. If you don't kill the one, the blood isn't on your hands (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), but what are the odds that your conscience will be so easily assuaged? I wonder how many people would be paralyzed by the sheer magnitude of the decision and its long-term ramifications, whether you kill the one or not.

Stop leaving the human element out of this and acting like it's a math problem. If it was just a math problem, there'd be nothing to discuss. The one dies.

So you would decide based on your probable level of guilt feelings? If you don't kill the one, you're going to die too. So your guilty feelings aren't going to last too long. Are you really just choosing self preservation then? As you say, you can not leave the human element out. I am willing to die and to kill if it is my choice but not if someone tries to force me. We all die.

I wonder if you have to drink Bud in hell?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Codewiz


An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

as an atheist myself i would somehow get to the front of the train and get outside it and enjoy my view as the train flys off the track

if i were Steve Buscemis character in Armageddon, i woudl have ridden that thing all the way in


woot front row seat to the end of the world

As an atheist as well. And I believe most atheist value current life on this planet more because we believe it is our only time. Also most atheist follow the golden rule.

That doesn't mean atheists don't sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I went to Iraq and put myself in danger because I believed it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Does anyone deny that it would be easier for a religious person to justify letting 100 people die instead of sacrificing one person?

This question comes from a set of questions to show how human's deal with morality. There are many more along these lines.

my post was 100% sarcasm, however rideing an asteroid into a planet would prob be pretty cool

in reality id prob kill the 1 to save the many, i dont think id have any issues doing that, killing bad people isnt something i have issues with

 

[Sqube]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Sqube
Quite frankly, the guilt will probably kill you either way. If you don't kill the one, the blood isn't on your hands (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), but what are the odds that your conscience will be so easily assuaged? I wonder how many people would be paralyzed by the sheer magnitude of the decision and its long-term ramifications, whether you kill the one or not.

Stop leaving the human element out of this and acting like it's a math problem. If it was just a math problem, there'd be nothing to discuss. The one dies.

So you would decide based on your probable level of guilt feelings? If you don't kill the one, you're going to die too. So your guilty feelings aren't going to last too long. Are you really just choosing self preservation then? As you say, you can not leave the human element out. I am willing to die and to kill if it is my choice but not if someone tries to force me. We all die.

I wonder if you have to drink Bud in hell?

Honestly, I missed the part that said I would die if I didn't kill this person. Obviously self-preservation is going to change the dynamics of the situation significantly (read: sorry buddy, you're dead).

Oh, and Codewiz? Don't be so presumptuous as to say that you value life more because you're an atheist. That's an entirely different thread, and a ridiculously combative argument to boot. So just... yeah, we'll leave that one alone. Just know that your being an atheist doesn't magically make you better and more likely to value human life.

 

[Papagayo]

That's easy..

I would quickly change into Superman outfit and save the train myself. I won't rely on the crazy SAW wannabe.

 

[R Nilla]

I would tackle the criminal mastermind. Everyone wins.

Why is the question being posed with the false assumption that by "letting" the train crash you are responsible for the loss of those people? By phrasing it this way you are already imposing your view or morality, rather than allowing for a more interesting and open hypothetical discussion.

The criminal mastermind is the one doing the killing, not the bystander. The bystander has an opportunity to prevent this action, and the rightness or wrongness of their decision (and whether or not it equates to the actions of the mastermind) is dependent upon your view of morality.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Codewiz


An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

as an atheist myself i would somehow get to the front of the train and get outside it and enjoy my view as the train flys off the track

if i were Steve Buscemis character in Armageddon, i woudl have ridden that thing all the way in


woot front row seat to the end of the world

As an atheist as well. And I believe most atheist value current life on this planet more because we believe it is our only time. Also most atheist follow the golden rule.

That doesn't mean atheists don't sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I went to Iraq and put myself in danger because I believed it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Does anyone deny that it would be easier for a religious person to justify letting 100 people die instead of sacrificing one person?

This question comes from a set of questions to show how human's deal with morality. There are many more along these lines.

PURE BS. IF I were an atheist . That would mean I believe men are animals. Thats exactly how I would act. Who could control me . NONE! Who could rule me? NONE!

I would take what I want . I would try to be the alfa male. Pure and simple that's how the animal kingdom works.

 

[eits]

my answer:

i would, as quickly as i could, explain the situation to the passerby. if he was ok with sacrificing himself to save others and be the true hero, i would kill him. if not, i wouldn't. it would be hard for me to accept the fact that i actually killed someone and it wasn't in self-defense. as for letting the people on the train die, i would have to say that i would try and live with that... i didn't cause the scenario. it was not something i chose. it was not something i did. it was something i was trying to be forced to do.

however, if there was someone i loved on that train, i would probably kill the passerby to save them. i could live with that decision. i couldn't live with the decision of letting my loved one die.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
PURE BS. IF I were an atheist . That would mean I believe men are animals. Thats exactly how I would act. Who could control me . NONE! Who could rule me? NONE!

I would take what I want . I would try to be the alfa male. Pure and simple that's how the animal kingdom works.

Are you being facetious? It's hard to imagine someone so stupid being able to understand the intricate workings of a keyboard, so I'd like to imagine this post was intended as a joke. If you're serious, well, you're an idiot. Your rant about atheism is like me saying all Catholics are cannibals and vampires because of the ritual of Communion, so let's lock these dangerous individuals away.

And you can be the "alfa" male all you want. I'll be the Alfa Romeo. I'll get all the Juliets.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Sqube

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Sqube
Quite frankly, the guilt will probably kill you either way. If you don't kill the one, the blood isn't on your hands (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), but what are the odds that your conscience will be so easily assuaged? I wonder how many people would be paralyzed by the sheer magnitude of the decision and its long-term ramifications, whether you kill the one or not.

Stop leaving the human element out of this and acting like it's a math problem. If it was just a math problem, there'd be nothing to discuss. The one dies.

So you would decide based on your probable level of guilt feelings? If you don't kill the one, you're going to die too. So your guilty feelings aren't going to last too long. Are you really just choosing self preservation then? As you say, you can not leave the human element out. I am willing to die and to kill if it is my choice but not if someone tries to force me. We all die.

I wonder if you have to drink Bud in hell?

Honestly, I missed the part that said I would die if I didn't kill this person. Obviously self-preservation is going to change the dynamics of the situation significantly (read: sorry buddy, you're dead).

Oh, and Codewiz? Don't be so presumptuous as to say that you value life more because you're an atheist. That's an entirely different thread, and a ridiculously combative argument to boot. So just... yeah, we'll leave that one alone. Just know that your being an atheist doesn't magically make you better and more likely to value human life.

If you look at some of the rationales posted for doing nothing, many of them imply that by doing nothing you're leaving it in God's hands. In other words they're pulling a Pontius Pilate. I think he was saying that to an Atheist the sin of pacifism is greater for lack of a divine cop-out.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Actually belief in God does play a role here......

If you believe in God then you can more easily justify letting 100 people die and not killing the one person. You believe there is an afterlife and people will be sorted out by God.

An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

Then kill them ALL and let God sort it out...



Am I a less "moral" person because the odds are, I'd let the trainfull of people die?
Not because I have some aversion to killing the passing stranger...he doesn't mean shit to me either.

I've aged past all the idealistic bullshit to the stage where unless there's something in it for me, I ain't gonna get involved.

If that meant that by letting the passer-by live, a terrorist would nuke Tokyo...then all I can say is that property prices there have been too high anyway...;') and it's time to Bring back Godzirra!

Haha, some of us still have to live in this world you old bastard!

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: eits
my answer:

i would, as quickly as i could, explain the situation to the passerby. if he was ok with sacrificing himself to save others and be the true hero, i would kill him. if not, i wouldn't. it would be hard for me to accept the fact that i actually killed someone and it wasn't in self-defense. as for letting the people on the train die, i would have to say that i would try and live with that... i didn't cause the scenario. it was not something i chose. it was not something i did. it was something i was trying to be forced to do.

however, if there was someone i loved on that train, i would probably kill the passerby to save them. i could live with that decision. i couldn't live with the decision of letting my loved one die.

That was just one big paragraph of contradictions. It sounds like the only reason you would do anything is because you are too worried about how you'll be affected. You selfishly base your decisions on how you would "feel" in the outcome as if your mental state after-the-fact is more important than an entire train full of people.

I only agree with you when you say "i didn't cause the scenario. it was not something i chose. it was not something i did." For some reason everyone feels as though if they don't kill this guy they will have blood on their hands, which isn't the case at all.

I think this just began with a really shitty scenario and it would be a lot more clear if it were layed out properly.

 

[jjones]

Is the train full of lawyers?

 

[Rowboat]

Let the train crash, then kill the next person who walks by as well.

After you show the evil mastermind how badass you are, go kill him too.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MrLee

Originally posted by: eits
my answer:

i would, as quickly as i could, explain the situation to the passerby. if he was ok with sacrificing himself to save others and be the true hero, i would kill him. if not, i wouldn't. it would be hard for me to accept the fact that i actually killed someone and it wasn't in self-defense. as for letting the people on the train die, i would have to say that i would try and live with that... i didn't cause the scenario. it was not something i chose. it was not something i did. it was something i was trying to be forced to do.

however, if there was someone i loved on that train, i would probably kill the passerby to save them. i could live with that decision. i couldn't live with the decision of letting my loved one die.

That was just one big paragraph of contradictions. It sounds like the only reason you would do anything is because you are too worried about how you'll be affected. You selfishly base your decisions on how you would "feel" in the outcome as if your mental state after-the-fact is more important than an entire train full of people.

I only agree with you when you say "i didn't cause the scenario. it was not something i chose. it was not something i did." For some reason everyone feels as though if they don't kill this guy they will have blood on their hands, which isn't the case at all.

I think this just began with a really shitty scenario and it would be a lot more clear if it were layed out properly.

sorry, but thinking about how the rest of my life will be affected by my decision is important. i'm not going to impulsively act without regarding my own wellbeing. it's a no-win situation... i need to choose the best outcome.

it is a shitty scenario... to be in. overall, i don't think it's a shitty question. it's only shitty to you because the answer might make you uncomfortable.

 

[Newfie]

I don't really know what I would do in that situation. I'll say what I would think I'd do, but I don't know how I would react in reality.

The thing is, I would have to view it as what would be the lesser of two evils. Ignore it and let the people on the train die, or kill that person and save a group of people. Either way, people are going to die.

Ill restate that I don't know what I'd do in real life, but I would probably kill the person. I know it would haunt me to do that, but the deaths of a train load of passengers would ride high on my conscience too. I don't view the would though a dichotomy of "good" and "evil" so the death of one to save many would be (in my mind) the most rational choice.

If the person was a family member, I would have no idea what I would do. Killing a stranger is one thing, killing a loved one is another.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

PURE BS. IF I were an atheist . That would mean I believe men are animals. Thats exactly how I would act. Who could control me . NONE! Who could rule me? NONE!

I would take what I want . I would try to be the alfa male. Pure and simple that's how the animal kingdom works.

That is INCREDIBLY ignorant. You honestly think atheists are immoral assholes that don't think that human life is important? That they treat others as animals?

People like you disgust me. Humans don't need to believe in a higher power to make moral decisions. Religion =/= morality, there have been so many atrocities done in the name of god its sickening.

I don't believe in god and yet I would do everything in my power to help somebody who needs help.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Rowboat
Let the train crash, then kill the next person who walks by as well.

After you show the evil mastermind how badass you are, go kill him too.

lol nice

 

[SampSon]

I wouldn't kill that person, because frankly I don't care about all of thoes people on the train.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 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.

But that's why classic utilitarianism is generally rejected as a moral philosophy by most intelligent people - it fails to recognize any baseline rights. To the hypothetical situation, I say I would NOT kill the person, because I may not, as a third party, take the life of an innocent (a martyr) to save other innocents, unless the martyr consented. Think about it like this - right now, hundreds of people are on waiting lists for vital donor organs, and many will die while still waiting, because the need far exceeds the supply. So what would you think of a doctor who regularly kidnapped and killed healthy people for their organs, because for every healthy (yet unwilling) donor, he could save the lives of at least 4 people who would otherwise be dead within a month? Justified? By pure utilitarian logic, sure, because 4>1, but would you really want to live in such a world, where the gov't could just show up at your door and say you've been selected to save 4 people, against your will?

you win. To celebrate your victory, I say we go bash eits with a shovel.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 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.

But that's why classic utilitarianism is generally rejected as a moral philosophy by most intelligent people - it fails to recognize any baseline rights. To the hypothetical situation, I say I would NOT kill the person, because I may not, as a third party, take the life of an innocent (a martyr) to save other innocents, unless the martyr consented. Think about it like this - right now, hundreds of people are on waiting lists for vital donor organs, and many will die while still waiting, because the need far exceeds the supply. So what would you think of a doctor who regularly kidnapped and killed healthy people for their organs, because for every healthy (yet unwilling) donor, he could save the lives of at least 4 people who would otherwise be dead within a month? Justified? By pure utilitarian logic, sure, because 4>1, but would you really want to live in such a world, where the gov't could just show up at your door and say you've been selected to save 4 people, against your will?

you win. To celebrate your victory, I say we go bash eits with a shovel.

oh noes!

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

By your answer eits, you are trying to share responsibility with the victim. If he agrees to martyr him/herself does not in any way lessen your responsibility for having chosen to kill an innocent victim. You not the evil mastermind. Having loved ones on the train does indeed make it a more difficult decision but, should not alter it if you believe yourself to be an ethical human being. Believing in God does give an advantage of sorts in that you can ask for forgiveness whatever your decision. Allowing the other (including yourself) to die by choosing not to kill the next passer by is not leaving it in God's hands. It is your choice, live or die with it. I hope I would choose we all die.

 

[legoman666]

yes

 

[Alistar7]

Damn, I'm glad I brought my lappy on this train ride. Ok, I found the shovel and killed the first guy I saw, now what??????????

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Newfie
I don't really know what I would do in that situation. I'll say what I would think I'd do, but I don't know how I would react in reality.

The thing is, I would have to view it as what would be the lesser of two evils. Ignore it and let the people on the train die, or kill that person and save a group of people. Either way, people are going to die.

Ill restate that I don't know what I'd do in real life, but I would probably kill the person. I know it would haunt me to do that, but the deaths of a train load of passengers would ride high on my conscience too. I don't view the would though a dichotomy of "good" and "evil" so the death of one to save many would be (in my mind) the most rational choice.

If the person was a family member, I would have no idea what I would do. Killing a stranger is one thing, killing a loved one is another.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

PURE BS. IF I were an atheist . That would mean I believe men are animals. Thats exactly how I would act. Who could control me . NONE! Who could rule me? NONE!

I would take what I want . I would try to be the alfa male. Pure and simple that's how the animal kingdom works.

That is INCREDIBLY ignorant. You honestly think atheists are immoral assholes that don't think that human life is important? That they treat others as animals?

People like you disgust me. Humans don't need to believe in a higher power to make moral decisions. Religion =/= morality, there have been so many atrocities done in the name of god its sickening.

I don't believe in god and yet I would do everything in my power to help somebody who needs help.

Funny a thread on morality. What exactly is morality. Our we in a class room. No !

But yet an alpha spelling cop . Comes to the to save the day. What was his intent? I don't know . To embarress me. Probably . Or is it something else?


As for you. I stand by what I said. I can without a doubt. Say I am a minority in the world. So very few can or will agree with me.

Here's what I believe about morality.

There are many religions in the world. The buildings that they worship in are called differant names.

Many christians called these buildings a church. But a church isn't a building .

Christ said peter was the rock which would be the corner stone or foundation if you will.
Of his CHURCH

Yet read the new testment. Peter isn't the corner stone. Paul is.

As a christian I have read the Bible and I use it . Everthing But what Paul has to say.

Here is what I believe a true christian is . According to the 4 Gosphels, Nothing else in the Bible can superseed the 4 gosphels NOTHING.

Heres what I believe.


A true Christan does.

A true christian will not kill. FOR ANY REASON,

A true christian would not take part in politics.

A true Christian really can't become rich because a true christian would share his good luck.

A true christian would follow NO other teachings other than the 4 Gosphels.

A true Christian will die befor denouncing Christ. A true Christian will watch his family die befor denouncing christ'

I can tell ya I don't measure up. So are any of you all of that?

For any christans out their who disbelieve. Here what it says in revelations about the final days . Its not word for word but its good enough. GOD cuts short the final days because even the elite were in danger of losing their soul . God has to cut short the time because the elite names are in the book of life that existed befor the founfation of the world. By the way I forgot . Thier are only 144,000 elite.

So don't throw your pompous ass morality issue between what christians believe when there are so few in the world that I doubt you have ever in you life met one.

Because someone says their christian doesn't make it so . Unless you can do what I said a Christian is. So Ya I would say looking at the world you athiest and so called christian and any other religious organization in the world have done a real good job just look around read the news watch the news . Ya have done well and should be very proud.




So to answer your question . I don't measure up to what a christian is because I am weakling.But I believe with all my fiber. Man is more than animal he has spirit of God within him that allows us to be more than a gorlla. You take that away from me . I could rule the world or die trying . Because in the animal world statis counts and the Alpha male is the big prize. Look how many people in the world actually live like animals act like animals. . How can I compete with that . I can't .

 

[Alistar7]

^^^^ "Because someone says their christian doesn't make it so . Unless you can do what I said a Christian is. "

Assuming your opinion is correct.

"God has to cut short the time because the elite names are in the book of life that existed befor the founfation of the world. By the way I forgot . Thier are only 144,000 elite."

Well then my fate has been preordained, I shall do as I please knowing that has been decided.

 

[Nemesis 1]

How do you know your not an elite? Is your life over? But your right God does know. But you don't. You have free choice. Its you who decides your own fate.