Poll: So, would you press it?

[thel1st]

Yes, numerous times.

Especially now that I know I won't be affected.

just because your family isn't the ones dying it doesn't mean you won't be effected
you may kill the pilot of a plane and cause it to crash into a large building and your father is a fire fighter and goes to rescue people but gives his life in doing so
the only condition was that the one person that died is not a family member

that or you kill the president

 

[Dys]

No, I would not.

Not because I have any particular aversion to killing people (though I'm yet to be put in a situation where I've felt compelled to do so), it's more that that money would be an empty acheivement. I've been working hard and sacrificing trivial things so as to allow for the future, I enjoy reaping the rewards of my hard work. Accepting sums of money for doing very little negates the effects of acheiving my goals. So, for that reason, I would not press it. I don't need anyones charity or help.

 

[tijuanatim]

So someone I dont know and will never know disappears. Yes yes yes a thousand times yes. I'd push that button harder than Salt N Peppa.

 

[4fromK]

Poll results - hooray for sociopaths on the internet!

 

[Mjolnir07]

I am appalled by how many of you would actually put a price on someone elses life. I wouldn't even push the button if I was guaranteed that it would only kill other button pushers. You people make me lose faith in humanity.

 

[KazNecro]

No, because I know how the story ends. (Hint: It was a Twilight Zone episode before it was a movie, and if the words "Twilight Zone" don't dissuade you, you've seriously got problems.)

I could have sworn that it was a ripoff from an old Tales from the Darkside episodes, but apparently I was wrong. After some research, I found the episode (Button, Button).

 

[Hexenwolf]

The money would be nice but I don't think I could live with myself knowing I killed someone.

Yes but does it say anywhere that its you that's killing them? Nope, all the story says is that if you push the button, someone dies. Still a stupid premise and a weak plot.

There'd better be lotsa boobies and gore, or this flick is gonna die fast...

Even if it wasn't technically you, you caused them to die so it was still your fault.

Haven't seen the movie itself though. It looks good but it's not a top priority to see right now.

It looks good? It looks good?! The ENTIRE plot of the movie was spoiled in the trailers!

Spoiler: What the trailers say

They push the button. His wife is kidnapped, and if they don't save her, both her and his son die, (Presumably the husband is the protagonist). This being a Hollywood film, I put the odds of them successfully saving everyone at 99.99909%.

The only thing that interested me in the film, (and admittedly it interested me quite a bit), was wondering how they would handle the emotional drama/trauma of deciding whether or not to push the button. But it doesn't matter anymore, because I already know what they're gonna do! And considering they show the actual scene in the trailers, and it appears to be a very short time after they were given the option, I think it's likely that that aspect was completely glossed over by the writers and the whole "button" was simply a weak premise to deliver another generic action movie.

That said, from an unintellectual standpoint, I might still go see it. I'm perfectly capable of turning of my brain and enjoying a good action flick, (within reason, still hate the Transformers) but I'll wait for the reviews to tell me if it's even gotten the action part right.

Ok, sorry, I completely went off topic.

I honestly do not know what I would do until I was genuinely put into that situation. Right now I feel like I would push the button, but I'm not sure that if actually faced with another person's life I would do it.

 

[rabidmidget]

i would have pressed it before the paint of the warning had dryed

 

[NeverMemory]

Never quite understand the dilemma myself; the premise, as I understand it, is that if you press the button you will receive one million dollars, but a random person "you don't know" will die. That phrase, by definition dictate that not only will this person not you family, it could not be your neighbor, or your son's school teacher, or even your family doctor.......I said that mainly because the whole premise wraps around a vaguely defined word that is "know"; how well do you need to know a person before you could say you know that person? name? looks? marital status?

If it's a person you are not aware before, how do you know that their death is closely related to your button pushing behavior? Is it equally likely that people just die due to natural and accidental means alike? How do we know whether or not a random stranger die because we press a button?

 

[The Hairminator]

On an internet forum- Yes.
In reality- Probably not. I wouldn't be able to live with myself, since everyone would know what I did.

 

[digipinky75910]

Three men are about to be executed. One man claims innocence. The second claims he was justified. The third admits the deed, boasts of the deed, and unremorsefully swears to do it again if it given a chance.

You have an official pardon that will save one of the men at random. You can't keep it, and you must use it now or never. Will you use it to save one of the random men?

The question begs the answer "I'm saving the third man" and I would also give that answer. Here's why:

The only fact you know is that three men are going to be executed, you don't know what they did. Judging from their statements, I'd say they aren't (all) criminals. A criminal, knowing he can be saved, would show remorse, trying to save his ass.
A state that decides to execute people with these different kinds of 'opinions' ("I didn't do it" - "I had the right to do it" - "I'd do it anytime"), doesn't come off to me as a very good one. The third person might have just... I don't know, as a journalist having reported badly on Russian politicians or something.
Someone this honest and confident about what he did, adhering to the deed to the very end deserves to be saved.

In this original example, the person with the decision, being you, has no power over which person gets saved. All you know is if you say yes, Any one of the three *will* be saved, and the other two will definitely be killed. You don't control who gets what.

 

[Pacman_69_42]

The real question is whether or not the button is big and red or some other colour if it was big and red I personally would push it I mean who can resist the big red button

 

[Sewblon]

I am already rich, so no. Fantastic wealth is like a loaded gun, you can use it for many things if you are so inclined, but if you aren't careful you will shoot yourself in the foot. I doubt I could ever earn my own forgiveness for that, let alone anyone else's.

 

[Iampringles]

Unless I could choose who died, I don't think I'd be able to.

The guilt would claw at me.

Like a vulture.

 

[kahlzun]

I'd do it for less.

 

[Glass_House]

I'd feel bad for the person but yes I would.

 

[Skeleon]

Just to gain a little money?
No, not unless my family was in mortal danger (i.e. about to be killed by mobsters for my debts or something).
Then I might do it but it'd probably haunt me.

 

[bombchu]

Nope. Soul-crushing guilt for forever. Or until I forget. Well, regardless, it's a no.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I'd be smacking that button like a bongo drum.

 

[brighteyesblackenedlungs]

Wow half these comments just prove the prevailing theory in the philosophy of crime that it's not the severity of the crime, or the nature of the punishment but the chances of being caught which dictate whether we brake moral or state laws.

as for me a million times no. I'm a consiqentualist at heart but the pain caused to me and that persons family by my actions would realistically far outweigh the level of good i could possibly do with that money especially when it's relatively easy to raise a mil for good causes through legal means.