A Test of Morality

[BallPtPenTheif]

Again why I hate this kind of blind decision making at least for the hospital one because it seems completely half-assed unless we are just to chop people up for no reason? I could also reverse it on you what if it was Albert Einstein or Oppenheimer in the waiting room with a bunch of geriatrics dying? See hence the need for more data.

I just hate these theortical questions because the discussion typically devolves into the quality of the question and wether it in of itself is valid. As an outsider, it quickly becomes a boring read.

 

[Sennz0r]

1, I would condemn the cicilian to a trainy death.
2. I would use his organs if the guy would agree. I won't take his organs if he doesn't want to.

I know I could have taken anyone's post who chose the same but you formulated it in such a manner that I just had to pick yours (plus you're the final one who answered the dilemma in this way)

So you'd take the guy's life in situation #2 with his consent. Why do you take the guy's life from situation #1 without his consent? I mean to stay completely true to your principles (which are, deriving from your answers 'sacrifice of the few to save the many) you should ask the man on the tracks whether it's okay to flip a switch so the people on the train live but to kill him in the process. I realise it sounds rather ridiculous but it's just about the same with the harvesting of organs, isn't it?

I completely understand what the whole moral query is about: Someone who is true to his principles would choose the same thing in both situations. Either condemn to few to save the many or let the situation put in front of you take its natural course and let the many die.

To choose differently in both situations would make you a hypocrite. Still most people would choose the sacrifice of the few only in situation #1 because it's as easy as pushing a button and it's done. No face to face situation between the person you are about to condemn to death for no reason other than you need him to die.

We only make this particular choice in the first situation because humans are morally impure by nature. We're hypocrites and cowards and would sooner than later crawl into a corner sucking our thumbs than to submit ourselves to tremendous suffering for the benefit of others.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule, some people are morally pure and I wish I could be that great, but there will always be some prejudicial factor in one of these dilemmas that would make me choose something different and lead me to being a hypocrite in the purest sense of the word.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

morality questions like this have no answer. either way, you would be playing God in attempting to save these lives. Power begets power my friend.

 

[Ursus Astrorum]

For number one, I'd definitely pull the switch. After all, the civilian on the tracks can leap out of the way if he's lucky and far enough away.

For number two, I'd realize the impossibility of the scenario and the extent to which this moral challenge simply doesn't work, and leave through the hole in faux-spacetime.

Alright, my turn for a couple. One of these is copypasted from a Role Playing Game, the other is my own invention.

1. While searching for your long-lost father, you become stuck in a computer simulation that is home to several people and is controlled by a twisted mastermind. He knows the current whereabouts and condition of your father, and will gladly tell them to you-For a price. In return for a piece of his information, he requests that you do something unspeakable to the simulation's human residents, such as making a perfectly happy child cry about his parents' nonexistent marital issues, killing a woman in order to break up a couple's marriage, planning and executing a unique murder for an innocent woman, and so on. This will continue until all of the residents are either dead or seriously hurt.

However, there is another way to learn of your father's location. In an abandoned house, there is a failsafe terminal to the simulation, which when used will kill everyone but you and the simulation's controller. The controller will be stuck in the simulation alone for all eternity.

You will be allowed to exit after either choice is complete, and either way the lives of several will be affected negatively. The question is: Which is the lesser of two evils? What would you do to escape and find your father?

2. You are locked in a room with two other people: Your loved one, and a prominent and influential figure to the world (The Pope, The President Elect, Yahtzee, whoever floats your boat). There is a simple wooden table with a revolver on it. The revolver has one bullet, and the door will unlock whenever one person has been shot or otherwise killed. So who dies? Note that there is no other way to exit the room. Someone must die.

My Answers:

1. I would rather kill the inhabitants quickly, painlessly, and anonymously. It seems far less cruel to do so, and justice would be served to the controller, who would be alone for the rest of his life.

2. In all honesty, I would shoot myself. I'm a regular saint, I suppose.

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

1, I would condemn the cicilian to a trainy death.
2. I would use his organs if the guy would agree. I won't take his organs if he doesn't want to.

I know I could have taken anyone's post who chose the same but you formulated it in such a manner that I just had to pick yours (plus you're the final one who answered the dilemma in this way)

So you'd take the guy's life in situation #2 with his consent. Why do you take the guy's life from situation #1 without his consent? I mean to stay completely true to your principles (which are, deriving from your answers 'sacrifice of the few to save the many) you should ask the man on the tracks whether it's okay to flip a switch so the people on the train live but to kill him in the process. I realise it sounds rather ridiculous but it's just about the same with the harvesting of organs, isn't it?

I completely understand what the whole moral query is about: Someone who is true to his principles would choose the same thing in both situations. Either condemn to few to save the many or let the situation put in front of you take its natural course and let the many die.

To choose differently in both situations would make you a hypocrite. Still most people would choose the sacrifice of the few only in situation #1 because it's as easy as pushing a button and it's done. No face to face situation between the person you are about to condemn to death for no reason other than you need him to die.

We only make this particular choice in the first situation because humans are morally impure by nature. We're hypocrites and cowards and would sooner than later crawl into a corner sucking our thumbs than to submit ourselves to tremendous suffering for the benefit of others.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule, some people are morally pure and I wish I could be that great, but there will always be some prejudicial factor in one of these dilemmas that would make me choose something different and lead me to being a hypocrite in the purest sense of the word.

I would kill the first person, because it is my choice to push the button.
The second person I feel, it's his choice if he wants to give the organs. I know this sounds weird, but I hope you understand it.
I'm not denying that people, including me, are hypocrites though.

 

[Skilen]

For number one, I'd definitely pull the switch. After all, the civilian on the tracks can leap out of the way if he's lucky and far enough away.

For number two, I'd realize the impossibility of the scenario and the extent to which this moral challenge simply doesn't work, and leave through the hole in faux-spacetime.

Alright, my turn for a couple. One of these is copypasted from a Role Playing Game, the other is my own invention.

1. While searching for your long-lost father, you become stuck in a computer simulation that is home to several people and is controlled by a twisted mastermind. He knows the current whereabouts and condition of your father, and will gladly tell them to you-For a price. In return for a piece of his information, he requests that you do something unspeakable to the simulation's human residents, such as making a perfectly happy child cry about his parents' nonexistent marital issues, killing a woman in order to break up a couple's marriage, planning and executing a unique murder for an innocent woman, and so on. This will continue until all of the residents are either dead or seriously hurt.

However, there is another way to learn of your father's location. In an abandoned house, there is a failsafe terminal to the simulation, which when used will kill everyone but you and the simulation's controller. The controller will be stuck in the simulation alone for all eternity.

You will be allowed to exit after either choice is complete, and either way the lives of several will be affected negatively. The question is: Which is the lesser of two evils? What would you do to escape and find your father?

2. You are locked in a room with two other people: Your loved one, and a prominent and influential figure to the world (The Pope, The President Elect, Yahtzee, whoever floats your boat). There is a simple wooden table with a revolver on it. The revolver has one bullet, and the door will unlock whenever one person has been shot or otherwise killed. So who dies? Note that there is no other way to exit the room. Someone must die.

My Answers:

1. I would rather kill the inhabitants quickly, painlessly, and anonymously. It seems far less cruel to do so, and justice would be served to the controller, who would be alone for the rest of his life.

2. In all honesty, I would shoot myself. I'm a regular saint, I suppose.

Hmm...
1. I would do the same as you - better a quick, painless death than their whole society being destroyed piece by piece - and, though I'd hate to condemn him, the mastermind deserves some punishment.

2. To be honest, I would probably shoot the influential figure - I can't think of anyone who would be worth saving over me or a loved one (selfish, I know, sue me). Especially if it was the Pope - he'll go to heaven anyway, right?




Back on topic: I'm asking you not to debate the ridiculous nature of these situations, that's why the questions are hypothetical.Now:
1. For the man on the tracks, say his car broke down on the tracks, and his seatbelt was stuck. The train will either fall off the tracks or it will hit the man, in 10 seconds. The man doesn't have enough time to escape the car. Better?
2. The man in the waiting room has organs, that, if taken from him and given to the patients, they will live lives just as they had before their ailment. All these patients will die in close succession, so one would not be able to take the organs from the first dead patient and give it to the others.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Scenarios like these are always laughably stupid, but to use that famously overused phrase, "all things being equal", I'd choose to save the single innocent. Why? Because that person is innocent! They're (presumably) doing nothing and there is no way you can justify killing them to save the lives of other people who just happen to have problems.

If you have problems, it's up to you to save yourself, not hope that a third party gacks some poor sap to fix things for you. What kind of moral person would want to stay alive if they knew that someone else had to be murdered to do it?

 

[Vlane]

1/2 I would allow the train to crash into the civilian, take the man in the waiting room and use his organs to save the patients and use the remains of the civilian to save the man.
The only one who dies is the civilian, who should have known to look both ways while on the train tracks.
Genius.

No, not genius. That civilian got rammed by a train! His organs are probably completely destroyed.

In both situations I would let the five people die. The civilian and the man in the waiting room are both innocent and I wouldn't kill an innocent.

 

[DeusFps]

These questions are pointless and are only used to make you feel bad. Go find something else to do with your time.

 

[Ace of Spades]

This makes me think of the line from Assassin's Creed. "If the deaths of a few people, evil people, could save the lives of thousands more, it seems a small sacrifice." In both cases, I would kill the one to save the five. A lesser evil for a greater good.

 

[Arsen]

Let the majority die.

It's not either of those two individuals faults that:

A. There is a train coming towards him.
B. Those five people are dying.

Majority in numbers does not equal anything. Sucks to be those five people in each situation but it is more wrong to murder ONE man to save a mere five just because they deem themselves greater in number.

Morality is not based on life itself (as in the physical life of the body), but what one does within life.

 

[Arsen]

Oh...

And life is NOT based on the physicality of the situation. There are higher definitions.

 

[Ago Iterum]

I'd save the majority.

 

[afterburnzz]

1-Do nothing.
2-Stop drinking "Cossacks Delight,dumbass"(that was aimed at myself,I'm going crazy"
I am no hero-I'm not going to do anything

 

[samsprinkle]

I would save the greater amount on the train incident and the greater amount in the organ incident(assuming the zombie apocalypse was not imminent, in that case I would rather have one good man than 5 recovering men...)

 

[Yuriatayde]

All of a sudden everybody started posting that the majority should die, and oddly enough... I agree completely with their reasoning.

My original answers would have been flip the switch, leave the man alone. However now I'm not really sure if I'd be able to flip the switch... The guy on the tracks isn't exactly innocent like the guy in the waiting room is though, considering he's in peril by being on the tracks.

I'd probably end up doing nothing both times, just because I'd be too afraid of blood on my hands, and that would make me hesitate a little too long. I wonder if I'd end up hating myself afterward...

 

[afterburnzz]

Actually,let me rephrase my answer.
I would flip the switch to kill the guy in the waiting room.

 

[EXPLICITasian]

1. not do anything

2. not do anything

for 1 it's the fact that you're (YOU DAMMIT YOU) are actually killing the man, whereas if you do nothing, you are not techinically killing anyone (easier to live with)

for 2 it's that this is highly illigal (first of all), and you would physically have to kill the guy in order to use his organs, it's hard to explain, but it definatly seems cruel to kill a guy even in order to save someone else... right?

 

[Easykill]

For number one, I'd definitely pull the switch. After all, the civilian on the tracks can leap out of the way if he's lucky and far enough away.

For number two, I'd realize the impossibility of the scenario and the extent to which this moral challenge simply doesn't work, and leave through the hole in faux-spacetime.

Alright, my turn for a couple. One of these is copypasted from a Role Playing Game, the other is my own invention.

1. While searching for your long-lost father, you become stuck in a computer simulation that is home to several people and is controlled by a twisted mastermind. He knows the current whereabouts and condition of your father, and will gladly tell them to you-For a price. In return for a piece of his information, he requests that you do something unspeakable to the simulation's human residents, such as making a perfectly happy child cry about his parents' nonexistent marital issues, killing a woman in order to break up a couple's marriage, planning and executing a unique murder for an innocent woman, and so on. This will continue until all of the residents are either dead or seriously hurt.

However, there is another way to learn of your father's location. In an abandoned house, there is a failsafe terminal to the simulation, which when used will kill everyone but you and the simulation's controller. The controller will be stuck in the simulation alone for all eternity.

You will be allowed to exit after either choice is complete, and either way the lives of several will be affected negatively. The question is: Which is the lesser of two evils? What would you do to escape and find your father?

2. You are locked in a room with two other people: Your loved one, and a prominent and influential figure to the world (The Pope, The President Elect, Yahtzee, whoever floats your boat). There is a simple wooden table with a revolver on it. The revolver has one bullet, and the door will unlock whenever one person has been shot or otherwise killed. So who dies? Note that there is no other way to exit the room. Someone must die.

My Answers:

1. I would rather kill the inhabitants quickly, painlessly, and anonymously. It seems far less cruel to do so, and justice would be served to the controller, who would be alone for the rest of his life.

2. In all honesty, I would shoot myself. I'm a regular saint, I suppose.

1. Give up on my father, he's not worth the lives of the people in the simulation. Nothing wrong with living in a simulation either.

2. Ask the influential person who they'd rather die between them or me. If unable to decide, I'll shoot him/her.