A Test of Morality

[Ursus Astrorum]

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.

So you'd like to live in a campy, sepia-tone American dream for all your life, knowing that there is a psychotic man pulling the strings behind it all? Knowing that he just might decide to kill you in an immensely painful-yet-entertaining way, like he has to so many others before you?

Think on that.

 

[Sennz0r]

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.

I still think it's a bit weird. In the first situation you don't even give the guy a choice, even if it is your choice to flip the switch. But the second one gets to decide because? Because they're his organs? Well it was the first guy's life you forcibly took away why won't you do the same thing to the guy in the waiting room? The end results will still be the same.

I'm playing devil's advocate by the way.

 

[Silver]

I don't think I would do anything in either. Not without the consent of those people anyway.

I think the reason that most people would choose to kill the first guy and leave the second would be because the first would just be the flick of a switch and you've ended somebody's life but saved five others. The second however would be more like "Hello I'm Sean. There are 5 dying people in there so we're going to cut you up and give them all of your organs."

I'd say it's because in the first one both parties are already at risk. There the choice is between who get's to die.

In the other it's cutting up a person that's completely unrelated to the scenario just to save people.

In the first example, the person on the track is already involved.


It would be the same thing in a hostage situation. Sure, I'd let one hostage die to get the rest of the hostages out. I wouldn't go and find a random guy on the town, throw him in there instead, and get the hostages out. Or whatever situation arises. The guy in the waiting room isn't involved at all.

Oh, and that's also disregarding that in the first example everyone is already healthy. In the second there's several almost dead people that we need to cut up a healthy person to save.

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

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.

I still think it's a bit weird. In the first situation you don't even give the guy a choice, even if it is your choice to flip the switch. But the second one gets to decide because? Because they're his organs? Well it was the first guy's life you forcibly took away why won't you do the same thing to the guy in the waiting room? The end results will still be the same.

I'm playing devil's advocate by the way.

Told you it sounded weird, but that's how I feel. I know it's still hypocrite and I'm not denying that.

 

[ZombieFace]

I would let the one civilian die in example 1.

and in example 2 I'd sacrifice the one man in the waiting room.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

#1. Tricky. I would probably end up leaving it be, due to lack of commitment to either idea and just running out of time.
#2. Definately let the dude live again.

I think a reason why alot of people are okay with pulling the lever but not killing the waiting room person is because the man in the waiting room has a face, and the patients have likely already come to terms with their forthcoming death, whereas the train situation is just panic on all sides, no one is ready for it.

A little bit on a tangent here, but another moral question-ish.
Did anyone remember hearing about the beheading on a Greyhound bus in Canada earlier this year? It was pretty big news, and happened just outside of my city. I have to wonder how the other passengers on this bus didn't do anything to stop it. It really disgusts me.

If I was a passenger on that bus, and I saw something like that happening, I would have to try to stop it, there is no way I couldn't. I would rather die trying to save a life than life and have to deal with the fact that I could have saved a life but wussed out my entire life. What do other people think of that? Sacrificing yourself for a stranger?

 

[Xeros]

For the first situation, I wouldn't know that pulling the lever would end up killing a person, and acting on instict, or common sense, would pull the lever. Sure I killed a man, but how was I supposed to know? And why was he just standing on the tracks?

Situation 2: It's not my place to decide an innocent man's fate. In situation 1, you wouldn't know the consequences of your decision beforehand, but in situation 2, you would be willingly sacrificing their lives. That decision is not up to me, it's up to the man in the waiting room.

 

[SnowCold]

In both I would kill the one and save the 5, its the most logical thing to do

 

[orifice]

In both cases I would do nothing but observe. I do not know enough about all the people concerned to risk tangling my karma with theirs.
For instance what if all the people in need are criminals? Would you really consider sacrificing an innocent, so that killers criminals and peodophiles might live, I don't think so.

The laws of karma aren't tabulated and executed by arbitrary people. You're kind of muddling ideas here.

Yeah I know this but the example cited was more to 'simplify' the point I was making. Karma is tricky and so caution is a good thing!

 

[Deadlydorito]

I pull the switch and hope the man gets out of the way.

For the second, i will not condone murdering a man for the sake of others. With that in mind though im all for capital punishment...

 

[The_Deleted]

1 you change direction, that's just the way it is, condemn the few to save the many.

2 let him live.

I see what you did there. Essentially they are the same situations and you have made me a hypocrite now, and I will have to get back to you on the reason why I chose those.

It's not hypocritical to leave a healthy man be. If the patients dieing were responsible for a cure for cancer and the healthy individual was a murdering rapist, that would put a different spin on it.

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

1: option 3: stop the train.

2: hold on a minute. Is he a willing donator or are you going to randomly kill a person in the waiting room while no one is looking for his manly parts?
(also, option 2, kill the guy for his manly parts)

 

[T-Bone24]

There are several things to consider first of all. It seems most of you are perfectly happy to kill one man to save five, yet you wouldn't kill one sick man to save five terminal patients? I'm sure that the family of the one man would be devastated that you would consider it, but if it's the only option, what else can you do?

 

[Sycker]

OH HALLO I AM UTALITORIUN

 

[T-Bone24]

A little bit on a tangent here, but another moral question-ish.
Did anyone remember hearing about the beheading on a Greyhound bus in Canada earlier this year? It was pretty big news, and happened just outside of my city. I have to wonder how the other passengers on this bus didn't do anything to stop it. It really disgusts me.

If I was a passenger on that bus, and I saw something like that happening, I would have to try to stop it, there is no way I couldn't. I would rather die trying to save a life than life and have to deal with the fact that I could have saved a life but wussed out my entire life. What do other people think of that? Sacrificing yourself for a stranger?

I most definately would have regretted not doing anything, and the question of dignity appears. If you died trying to save them, but the murderer carried on, you would have died in vain.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

A little bit on a tangent here, but another moral question-ish.
Did anyone remember hearing about the beheading on a Greyhound bus in Canada earlier this year? It was pretty big news, and happened just outside of my city. I have to wonder how the other passengers on this bus didn't do anything to stop it. It really disgusts me.

If I was a passenger on that bus, and I saw something like that happening, I would have to try to stop it, there is no way I couldn't. I would rather die trying to save a life than life and have to deal with the fact that I could have saved a life but wussed out my entire life. What do other people think of that? Sacrificing yourself for a stranger?

I most definately would have regretted not doing anything, and the question of dignity appears. If you died trying to save them, but the murderer carried on, you would have died in vain.

Again, I would much rather die in vain than live the rest of my life that maybe, somehow, I could have saved an innocent life, if I wasn't so cowardly.

 

[Ionami]

Kill the individual in both scenarios for me. Although it would not be an easy or quick decision I'm sure.

 

[Ezekel]

Situation 1
Pull the lever, I am not responsible for some guy sitting on the track, though I would try and stop the train first. In this case I am not killing the man as its not my fault he is in an unsafe place. I would probably pull the lever regardless of the number of people in the train in comparison to the people on the track. A little cold I guess, but you don't stand on train tracks.

Situation 2
Don't kill the guy, treat him like any other patient. Yes, killing him and getting his organs may save lives but the ends don't justify the means. In this case it is murder.