Poll: A moral dilemma - kill ten to save yourself?

[hazabaza1]

Oh woo, another thread where people can go "I'd kill the strangers because I'm edgy and have no remorse and fuck strangers, I'm more important than them anyway."
Myself, I'd like the think I would sacrifice myself. First, because I have an incredibly moral conscience, and killing 10 people would stick with me forever, and second, because I feel honestly scared as hell when I hear suffering.

 

[Venereus]

Come on! No way those ten bastards combined are more important than I am!

LOL, I get that a lot, first time with that pic, though I've seen it before. The answer is usually both, but this time I was just kidding.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

I would gleefully press that button. They would don the same were they in my (hypothetical) shoes.

 

[zehydra]

You guys are terrible people....

nope, we are human beings,and we want to survive, and we follow our instincts.

And people's instincts usually tell them to do terrible things.

See: rape.

I have never once had the urge to rape someone.

Are my instincts broken?

Perhaps rape is a bit strong; how about sexually assault? No straight guy goes through school without thinking how he'd like to touch some of what he sees, no?

Yah, but never violently. Never.

So... broken, right?

rape doesn't have to be violent. It just has to be non-consensual. Same with sexual assault.

 

[zehydra]

You guys are terrible people....

nope, we are human beings,and we want to survive, and we follow our instincts.

And people's instincts usually tell them to do terrible things.

See: rape.

I have never once had the urge to rape someone.

Are my instincts broken?

Perhaps rape is a bit strong; how about sexually assault? No straight guy goes through school without thinking how he'd like to touch some of what he sees, no?

you think about sexually assault when you walk through school? that's also kinda strong.

Non-violent sexual assault, mind you.

 

[zehydra]

Would I kill 10 people in a horribly painful way, or relieve myself of my life in an absolutely painless way? Hmmm, I wonder...

Nah, I think I'm going with killing myself. I am/was slightly suicidal as it is, so if I can save some people and die a painless death in the process, that's pretty much the ideal scenario.

There's no guarantee you'd be saving anyone. The voice could be lying and you'll all die regardless.

The voice might also be lying about everything else. Maybe the workings of the buttons are the other way around. Maybe if you don't press a button in 1 second it's phosphorus for everyone! Usually in these moral dilemmas it is assumed that you have absolute knowledge of the outcomes of your choices, so that you can make an informed decision, instead of trying to figure out what is actually going on.

Anyway, in this scenario, I'd definitely kill myself. It is obviously the right choice and I don't care that much anyway. It may be difficult to really press the button, but that would also be the case if I was going to press the other one.

But I have to admit that the method of death is probably a big factor for me. I would prefer instant death, but otherwise the painless method described doesn't sound so bad. But if I would burn to death instead (especially if the alternative would be painless deaths for those 10 others), I'm afraid that that would really change things. Doing the right thing when it means quietly going to sleep (and never waking up) is one thing, pushing a button that will cause me excruciating pain and then death is another.

And my point is that in no moral dilemma is there a black and white choice like that which is being presented to us. Doing the right thing is not touching any of the damn buttons.

 

[Marik2]

My life is more important to me than 10 random people I don't know. Call me biased, but hey.

You sure love your pragmatism, dont ya?

 

[woots7]

the monkey sphere comes into play again, sorry people.

 

[Treblaine]

This is such a stupid SAW scenario.

More so because it misunderstand how white-phosphorus works, if it is thrown into a room you'll suffocate before you "burn to death". Mainly because it takes DAYS to die from burns through dehydration and wound infection.

But mainly how do I know if I press the button the captor won't just kill me any way? How do I know the button won't directly kill me? How Do I know the button isn't just some sick "test" to justify doing something far worse to me. All I have is what he says, which could be lies, why should I assume he is the same as the SAW villain?

Don't just say "huuur, it just I okay" BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING!!!!

No I won't press the button because this is bullshit and I'm fucking fed up that SEVEN FUCKING SAW FILMS THAT GOT MADE!!! What the fuck is this "huurr, ahm so clever setting up moral dilemmas, hurf a durf" contrived bullshit. It's not clever, it's exploitative and contrived.

It is the utter contrivance I cannot stand, how the crazy guy LITERALLY HAS TO EXPLAIN the dilemma rather than letting them explore it. It's so shallow and contrived and arbitrary, if it weren't so violent I'd expect to find such inane riddles in a Happy Meal. There are such interesting fatal dilemmas in the world to explore, what is this obsession with being captive of a serial killer, I will not ever understand.

So no I am not going to press any button because:
(a) there is no guarantee AT ALL this will save me nor anyone, it is most likely a trick.
(b) I only have his word this gas will kill me and why the fuck should I trust someone who kidnapped me? Gas sounds like a bluff.

Best thing I can do is what they won't expect, try to escape. This button is a distraction, I'm going to rip the button out of the wall and try to destroy the circuit sabotaging his entire "experiment".

"I don't believe in the no win scenario"

-Captain James T Kirk

 

[Treblaine]

Only 5.4% believe in searching for a 3rd option?

Shame on you Escapist Community. I'd expect better from you. I'm starting to see why the terrorists think they can win, that evil people think that piling on the pressure you can force people into a binary choice.

NEVER accept such terms! When the enemy is at your gates saying "Surrender or Die" you say "Fuck you, I'll kill you all and live!"

People can go without food and water for a LONG time, and there are 11 people missing, that is a long time to either be found or find a way to escape, or somehow signal for you rescue. There is no way this guy kidnapped so many people without leaving some trail.

I mean this is a structure likely built by one guy, it can't be that sturdy. Not with 10 + 1 people trying to break their way out with every motivation to do so.

 

[awesomeClaw]

This is such a stupid SAW scenario.

More so because it misunderstand how white-phosphorus works, if it is thrown into a room you'll suffocate before you "burn to death". Mainly because it takes DAYS to die from burns through dehydration and wound infection.

But mainly how do I know if I press the button the captor won't just kill me any way? How do I know the button won't directly kill me? How Do I know the button isn't just some sick "test" to justify doing something far worse to me. All I have is what he says, which could be lies, why should I assume he is the same as the SAW villain?

Don't just say "huuur, it just I okay" BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING!!!!

No I won't press the button because this is bullshit and I'm fucking fed up that SEVEN FUCKING SAW FILMS THAT GOT MADE!!! What the fuck is this "huurr, ahm so clever setting up moral dilemmas, hurf a durf" contrived bullshit. It's not clever, it's exploitative and contrived.

It is the utter contrivance I cannot stand, how the crazy guy LITERALLY HAS TO EXPLAIN the dilemma rather than letting them explore it. It's so shallow and contrived and arbitrary, if it weren't so violent I'd expect to find such inane riddles in a Happy Meal. There are such interesting fatal dilemmas in the world to explore, what is this obsession with being captive of a serial killer, I will not ever understand.

So no I am not going to press any button because:
(a) there is no guarantee AT ALL this will save me nor anyone, it is most likely a trick.
(b) I only have his word this gas will kill me and why the fuck should I trust someone who kidnapped me? Gas sounds like a bluff.

Best thing I can do is what they won't expect, try to escape. This button is a distraction, I'm going to rip the button out of the wall and try to destroy the circuit sabotaging his entire "experiment".

"I don't believe in the no win scenario"

-Captain James T Kirk

Okay then.

The Voice once again speaks "Any attempts at an escape will kill all of you."

Happy? And why are you so bitter. Can´t you just enjoy a little dilemma without getting sand in your arse?

Now you have no alternatives, except the ones proscribed.

 

[Treblaine]

Okay then.

The Voice once again speaks "Any attempts at an escape will kill all of you."

Happy? And why are you so bitter. Can´t you just enjoy a little dilemma without getting sand in your arse?

Now you have no alternatives, except the ones proscribed.

I said I don't like how contrived it is only you make it MORE contrived.

This is ridiculous. This is anti-intellectual, it is a puzzle that seems to hate "outside the box" thinking. That's the type of thinking that defines us as a species, and is the most valuable kind of intelligence for serving mankind.

The best puzzles are open ended ones. You have given us a puzzles deliberately engineered - in a ham fisted way - to have only two bad solutions.

This is just sick. There is nothing to it.

This is not free thinking, there is no thought here, only a gut animal response crudely weighing values.

There is nothing clever about deciding between 10 strangers lives and your own life, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how absolutely utterly PRICELESS life is. There is no equivalence, there is no quantifying, there is no comparison.

I mean why in the poll do you essentially include:
(a) kill
(b) sacrifice
(c) do nothing

But not
(d) other, please explain

Your dilemma is frustrating as it does not encourage expansive thought, it constrains and limits it. Really there is no thought here, because the first thought is "well both of those options are to be avoided".

Remember the Milgram Experiment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment]

That was a contrived moral dilemma that presented the "choice" of:

(a) continue electric shocks
(b) ruin experiment

But so few could actually think outside the box.

See that's deep thought.

You may find yourself in a Milgram experiment... will you be able to see beyond the limited choices presented to you? Or will you fail, and give into narrow vertical thinking, letting other evil external forces define the choices you make.