A Test of Morality
- Thread starter Skilen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Skilen said:
1. kill the civilian. because the passengers on the train are all civilians as well. and the peopl in the train have no control and are bound to a given time frame. and besides, if the civilian is to retarded to see a train coming at him and not move, he deserves to die anyway
2. let the patients die. chances are, 3 of those 5 patients have problems caused by their own doing (lung, heart, kidney problems, etc.) the man in the waiting room is probably there because his back hurts. also, there are other methods of preserving a life long enough to get the correct organs.
First one I would pull the lever no question, there would be no time to look at the consequences, and evaluate the situation, when lives were at stake.
If I could, however, evaluate the situation, at take my time making my decision - I would still pull the lever: This is, unless all the people on the train were old. If the civilian about to die was old, I would also pull the lever in a heartbeat.
Second one it appears that there's time to make a decision.
If the man that match the patients is old, I would sacrifice him on the spot, if not - I would look at the patients. Will they be completely cured when they get his organs? Then they get them. If the patients are all old, and the "match" isn't, the match would live.
If I could, however, evaluate the situation, at take my time making my decision - I would still pull the lever: This is, unless all the people on the train were old. If the civilian about to die was old, I would also pull the lever in a heartbeat.
Second one it appears that there's time to make a decision.
If the man that match the patients is old, I would sacrifice him on the spot, if not - I would look at the patients. Will they be completely cured when they get his organs? Then they get them. If the patients are all old, and the "match" isn't, the match would live.
No to both.
Why is one life worth less than 5?
I believe the only 'altruistic' thing you can do in both situations is not interfere.
As Easy kill said, inaction as opposed to action.
Why is one life worth less than 5?
I believe the only 'altruistic' thing you can do in both situations is not interfere.
As Easy kill said, inaction as opposed to action.
In situation 1: I think you would be tried for murder if you pulled the lever. From a philosophic point of view 5 people saved is better than 1, but the point is you would be responsible for the 1 man dead. If you didn't pull the lever you could deny that you knew the lever would save them... unless it was your job to do so, in which case they would probably have a protocol detailing how to act in this circumstance -- probably pull the lever and the rail company will handle the lawsuit.
In situation 2: this would be out and out murder unless said person were a criminal and you were a chinese party official in which case you would be failing the party if you didn't chop him up for organs :/
My point is there are laws which dictate what you are supposed to do in this situation, and if it isn't obvious you should use your common sense. Perhaps its better to consider how many angry relatives you will have to deal with in each situation
In situation 2: this would be out and out murder unless said person were a criminal and you were a chinese party official in which case you would be failing the party if you didn't chop him up for organs :/
My point is there are laws which dictate what you are supposed to do in this situation, and if it isn't obvious you should use your common sense. Perhaps its better to consider how many angry relatives you will have to deal with in each situation
theklng said:
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.
1: As far as I'm concerned, idiot shouldn't be on the damned tracks. In my mind, I'd be doing the world a favor for getting rid of such a moron.
2: This, however, is a far more difficult question to answer. However, seeing as it is also illegal, and illness is natural rather then a created danger, I would let the five die.
2: This, however, is a far more difficult question to answer. However, seeing as it is also illegal, and illness is natural rather then a created danger, I would let the five die.
theklng said:
There is no right and wrong, there is only...YOUR FACE!!!
That didn't even make sense.
1. For number 1 I would let them die, If I have nothing to gain from saving them why should I go to the effort of saving them. I might get some enjoyment in seeing the crush of metal and burning flesh though so I'd let them die
2. For number 2 I would see what i could get the dying patients to give me in exchange for harvesting the organs of the man next door, if I could get enough money or wealth from it then I'd go see what the organ donor would give me for not killing him. This way I would get something from everyone then kill the organ man and sell his organ on the black market to rich Americans
2. For number 2 I would see what i could get the dying patients to give me in exchange for harvesting the organs of the man next door, if I could get enough money or wealth from it then I'd go see what the organ donor would give me for not killing him. This way I would get something from everyone then kill the organ man and sell his organ on the black market to rich Americans
I both situations I would leave the 5 to die to save the 1. Its sad i agree, but the 5 dying is something which has happened due to many other actions and events, and while i'd rather they didn't die, its gonna happen. But in my mind to take an active step to end the life of a man for the "greater good" is unforgivable