|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Which is the morally correct option? | |||
| It is right to kill the one for the five in both situations, but I could not push the fat man |
  
|
49 | 44.55% |
| It is right to kill the one for the five, and I could push the fat man (psychopath) |
  
|
41 | 37.27% |
| It is not right to kill the one for the five in either situation |
  
|
20 | 18.18% |
| Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:15 PM
|
#61 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USOFA
|
But what about the passengers on the train? Did anyone count them? Anywho if the fat person is a chick then I will do Humanity the favor.
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:15 PM
|
#62 | ||
|
UGs Actual Game Designer
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
If you're out to prove all the internet tough guys as ******s then I've got news for you, budday. >_>
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:17 PM
|
#63 |
|
° ͜ ͡°
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
|
I think it would be morally wrong to kill the fattie because it should be their decision whether or not to sacrifice their self for the people on the track... by pushing them you're taking away that right. You wouldn't jump yourself, so it makes sense that only a psychopath would push the fattie.
__________________
- - - - - - - -
When I think of the perpetual journey through life When it always feels like autumn The wind moves slowly to the north And the flowers die Rain falls in my dreams - - - - - - - - |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:17 PM
|
#64 | |
|
UG's UGer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hermitage, PA
|
Quote:
It was recently pointed out that the video didn't bring the passengers into the equation. I say, since the video didn't mention it, then we presume no harm can be done to people in the train. Assume it's automated and only carries cargo.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:23 PM
|
#65 | |
|
der zweihander
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
|
This is not a dilemma. Life is life, equally valuable. Re-directing the train to kill one saves the lives of four. Kill one instead of five.
I don't see why this is a hard choice, provided you've no alternative but to make it. All things being equal, the route that spares the most lives is the better one. But that's all things being equal. If the train driver was an innocent man who just lost control of a train or there was some sort of malfunction, and the people on the track were rapists, things would be dramatically different.
__________________
Quote:
XBL: foreverfornow PSN: abunai_J |
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:24 PM
|
#66 | |
|
whyphilsfight
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: I don't care where just far
|
Quote:
For some reason, I think that there is something slightly comical about frantically trying to convince a fat person to jump in front of a train to save five people.
__________________
_____________ The keeper of all things :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:26 PM
|
#67 | |
|
UG's UGer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hermitage, PA
|
Quote:
All agreed.  Now would you push the fat guy?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:29 PM
|
#68 | |
|
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
|
Quote:
If you want to be utilitarian about things then I urge you to go take out a donor card and then kill yourself in a low-impact manner. And on your way you should kill everyone you know who has a donor card. You're guaranteed to save more people than you kill.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:29 PM
|
#69 |
|
UGs #150 Hydra
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: not in that cave
|
tbh, if people being hit by a train in real life react like they do in Red Dead Redemption, I'd probably just grab some popcorn and have a seat.
__________________
Blinded by your cyber-love |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:30 PM
|
#70 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
|
I like this type of scenario. Even if we accept the majority takes precedent it does not necessarily follow that in this scenario we should spare the 5 at the expense of the 1.
Suppose the one was in fact on the brink of discovering uncharted scientific territory which would save millions? Or more within the realms of plausibility, what if he (or she) was a neonatal surgeon, an oncologist, or a diplomat who might at some point become instrumental in averting war? What if the 5 were in fact detrimental to the survival of the many, being violent psychopaths or suchlike? Part of the problem in answering such a scenario is we know nothing about the people involved. This means any answer is unsatisfactory because all of the current arguments are predicated on assumptions for which we have little basis. |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:33 PM
|
#71 | ||||
|
Jesus
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Denton, Texas
|
Quote:
That's the point buddy.
__________________
WARNING: The above is most likely sarcasm, so fuck yourself if you're offended. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:34 PM
|
#72 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
|
Quote:
I know. I was responding to those who have said the obvious choice is to spare the 5. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:35 PM
|
#73 | |||
|
der zweihander
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
What a stupid comment. I said, quite clearly, that my statement applied in the instance that the decision was forced and unavoidable, hence the 'provided you've no alternative but to make it' part. Your entire rebuttal is based solely on choosing to do so. Quote:
Again, one to five. Yep. Again, this is assuming that all things are equal here, and they're all decent people.
__________________
Quote:
XBL: foreverfornow PSN: abunai_J Last edited by strat0blaster : 11-25-2012 at 01:37 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:37 PM
|
#74 |
|
UGs #150 Hydra
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: not in that cave
|
 Why can't I hold all these variables?
__________________
Blinded by your cyber-love |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:37 PM
|
#75 | |
|
UG's UGer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hermitage, PA
|
Quote:
The point is to not have assumptions, sir. We don't know anything about them, and we're not supposed to. It ruins the whole experiment if we know anything about these people because then we have an emotional difference in the value of these people, and we're not supposed to for the sake of the experiment.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:39 PM
|
#76 | |
|
Absolute territory
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Probably in the FiM thread
|
Its simple for a reason, its not a trick question to get you to kill the passengers or save a group of rapist for a super scientist.
Plus nobody has pointed out why in the world you would think a fat guy would stop a train.
__________________
I`m just killing the spiders to save the butterflies - Knives Quote:
E-married to the pie loving wonderbolt Soarin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:40 PM
|
#77 | |
|
UG's UGer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hermitage, PA
|
Quote:
Now, do you simply think that it would be the right thing to do? Or do you actually think that you would do it? There is a difference... As the video points out, many of us will agree that it is the right thing to do, but few of us actually would do it.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:40 PM
|
#78 |
|
whyphilsfight
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: I don't care where just far
|
If the point is to cancel out as many variables and assumptions as possible, then I don't see how it isn't more morally correct to save the five.
To actually add something, this thread needs a poll.
__________________
_____________ The keeper of all things :3
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:41 PM
|
#79 | |||
|
I've only cried twice
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
Yes
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
I'm Ron ****ing Swanson |
|||
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 01:41 PM
|
#80 | |
|
Do Sadists go to Hell?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
|
Quote:
The death of people who don't get organs in time is certain and unavoidable. The only situation is only forced if you decide to take action, if you don't then you are merely a spectator with absolutely no reason to feel guilty about it. If you want a forced situation, my organ argument is based on a rival to the train argument which I adumbrated earlier in the thread: there are five people in a hospital who will die in an hour if they don't get the organs they need, and in the waiting room is a man of the right blood type who could be easily harvested from. Do you kill the man in order to save the five? This is absolutely no different to the train argument; it simply removes the fact that in the train argument people can cower behind the 'yucky' side of killing someone - pushing someone into a train doesn't seem quite the same as cutting them up for their organs. Choice is the key factor, and the choice is not 'kill one or kill five', it's 'kill one or accept that five people are going to die through no fault of your own'.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
|
|
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Rate This Thread | |
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:21 PM.