Page 1 of 2
#1
I going to pose two questions that have only to choices that YOU have to make.....
I add one more

1.) Your working at a train station and your standing by the train switch rail.... there is a train coming down the track the person driving the train is dead and there is no way to stop it.. the rail the train is going on is going to kill the 5 workers on the track your 2 far away to help them. you can divert the train but there is another problem. there is 1 person working there he is close by but he is old and can't hear you. do you switch rails to save many or do nothing to watch them all die....

2.)Your in a war zone hiding in a house with other people there is a baby with you that you found but the problem is it won't stop crying really LOUD. in about 10 seconds soldiers will hear it and storm the house and kill everyone..you have to smother the baby therefore killing it or let everyone die its your choice...

Bonus...

You on a life raft after the titanic sank.. the boat is dangerously overloaded and is filling with water..if one person gets off the raft it won't sink. there is a person on the raft who is very sick and will not survive anyway. your the closest person and in best health near the person do you throw him off... or do all of you drown...

This is the problem with having morals..because doing the right thing becomes hard...
these are questions no one wants to answer...maybe one-day you'll have to make that choice...
Last edited by Myxer at Aug 15, 2008,
#3
Quote by Burdell
how did the train engineer die?
fill it in
#6
you forgot "divide by zero"


everyone gets equal justice!
Gear:
Wasburn x-40w/floyd roseOFR
Swineshead venom+warthog pups
Kustom 100 wt quad DFX,Boss MT-2,Ibanez TS-7
~We Rock Out With Our Cocks Out!: UG Naked Club.~
Post a naked picture of yourself with your guitar to join.
#7
in number one situation: i would take the old man back to his office. I would sit down and explain to him that he's just really old. Thats about it, by the time we get back, the train has derailed and everyones dead. I tried.

situation number 2: why smoother it, theres gotta be a more efficient way, OH YEAH MY GUN! Problem solved.

#3: hes going to die anyways? In the time it took you to type that question, that sicko would be frozen at the bottom of the ocean for several minutes now.

Common sense ftw

and also in number one, the old man and i had a fap back at his office....we couldn't resist.
#8
Quote by BulletFrost
AIDS

Hmm, well he should've known that before-hand.

Also, was there no co-engineer?

One of the employees on the train couldn't alert somebody and attempt to stop said train?
#9
1) I switch the rails. Seriously who doesn't see a train coming straight for them?

2) I'd kill the baby. I would rather save 6 people than 1 baby
If Rock is a life-style, then Metal's an addiction

Yelloooow!


Of The


UG Challenge

#10
1. Divert the train and kill the old dude.

2. Smother the baby.

3. Throw the dude over who is dying anyway.
#11
Send the train down the track with five people on, they'd hear it and get out of the way.

Cover the baby's mouth and stop it crying.

If the guy is going to die anyway, then I'd put the many people on the boat over him, personally.

ಠ_ಠ

wat

#12
umm, i can't understand what you typed

1 person working there he is close by but he is old and can't hear you. do you switch rails to same many of nothing to watch them all die....

what is he trying to say here?
#13
Quote by Burdell
Hmm, well he should've known that before-hand.

Also, was there no co-engineer?

One of the employees on the train couldn't alert somebody and attempt to stop said train?

He is too much of a badass to take a sick day?


Quote by Brown925
1. Divert the train and kill the old dude.

2. Smother the baby.

3. Throw the dude over who is dying anyway.

This.
You stole my Overture
#14
Most people will answer as a utilitarian would.

Do what must be done for the greater good.

Kill the old man

Smother the Baby

Toss the old man, or oneself
#15
3 and 2 are obvious choices, throw the sick man over, and cover the baby's mouth to stop it from crying so loudly.

but with one, you said the old man is close. so therefore, id switch the tracks so the train is going toward the old man, and then play beat the clock to get to the old man before the train does, hopefully grabbing him and pulling him out of the way saving everyones lives.
Quote by humperdunk

So I just woke up sitting in my desk chair, with my bong on the desk in a bunch of little pieces and my hand super glued to my penis. Speculations as to what the hell just happened and how to unglue my hand from my member would be appreciated.
#16
Okay. I'm going to assume that the train driver died of a spontaneous erection drawing the blood away from his brain causing him to die.

Now, on to the questions:

1. Switch the tracks so the train kills the one old man, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

2. I'd smother the baby. Same reasoning.

Bonus: Throw the one dude off, same reasoning.
#17
Quote by vinnyalpine
umm, i can't understand what you typed

1 person working there he is close by but he is old and can't hear you. do you switch rails to same many of nothing to watch them all die....

what is he trying to say here?

+1
#18
1) Send it at the 5 people... Are they all just gonna hang out on the track? If so? That blows.

2) A binky...

3) I simply wait for someone else in the boat with more morals to sacrifice himself... or let someone else push the sick guy in... If I am the healthiest no one will mess with me anyways...
Quote by DaFizzle
Periods are only a myth made up by woman to have more things to cry about, its the same with birth pains. Because i imagine its like having a shite and i quite enjoy turding.


Quote by SoftParade1967
subway?
Quote by Exo M7
he needs a ride not a sandwich ****ing retard
#19
1 - he is an 1 old man, he is going to die soon the other 5 have lives to live - kill old man
2 - if you don't smother the baby, he will die anyway. Save the rest of the group, but you can just cover his mouth with your hand and he'll breath out his nose, no sound comes out
3 - Kill the sick guy, hes dead anyway
#20
k wait, so like just for clarification, my health meter is at 100 when we're escaping the titanic? Whats my inventory like?
#21
I'd pretend I wasn't there and go to a bar until I completely erase my memory of everything.
I've had Alzheimer's Disease for as long as I can remember.

Quote by damian_91
Pleasure2kill, you are a genius!
#23
I'd not do anything in the first situation because trains have a deadman's switch

and for the second 2 situations I'd do the thing that resulted in least death, but it'd probably haunt me for the rest of my life.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#24
I'd like to pose a question in response. Why can't you type at a level above the 3rd grade?
Quote by gourd42
i was going to insult thedude97, BUT HIS AVATAR SHOWS MORDOR!
#25
From a moral point of view, it wouldn't really make a difference what I decided to do, since people would still die and I'm simply being forced to choose how many. Because of that, I'd just do whatever to save the most.
Quote by Felkara
Dude, you just made the most intelligent post in this entire thread. Congrats.
#26
Someone's been reading up on the principle of double effect or similar haha

Quote by NeverMeant
Most people will answer as a utilitarian would.

Do what must be done for the greater good.

Kill the old man

Smother the Baby

Toss the old man, or oneself


Yeah, very interesting ey, how about this one:

You are a brilliant surgeon with 5 patients in an isolated hospital (so there are no replacement organs available for months or even years) needing life saving transplants (each organ needed is different). Each of these patients will most definitely die in a couple of days without a transplant.

A healthy young traveller suddenly appears at the front door to your hospital for a checkup and you find he is a perfect match for all 5 of your patients organ-wise. Suppose if this young man were to 'disappear', no-one would suspect the doctor.

Would it be permissable to harvest the organs and save the 5? (what if it were 10, or even 15?...well i'm not sure if there are enough transplantable organs for that scenario, but lets say hypothetically speaking :P)
#27
Quote by Brown925
1. Divert the train and kill the old dude.

2. Smother the baby.

3. Throw the dude over who is dying anyway.


This, they all save the most people as possible in situations where many more could die.

Simply math, really.
#28
Quote by goony

Would it be permissable to harvest the organs and save the 5? (what if it were 10, or even 15?...well i'm not sure if there are enough transplantable organs for that scenario, but lets say hypothetically speaking :P)


Nah, I wouldn't do a thing. I wouldn't want to jeopardize my high paying career in even the slightest way.


Double post because I'm a ****ing badass rebel.
#29
Quote by goony
You are a brilliant surgeon with 5 patients in an isolated hospital (so there are no replacement organs available for months or even years) needing life saving transplants (each organ needed is different). Each of these patients will most definitely die in a couple of days without a transplant.

A healthy young traveller suddenly appears at the front door to your hospital for a checkup and you find he is a perfect match for all 5 of your patients organ-wise. Suppose if this young man were to 'disappear', no-one would suspect the doctor.

Would it be permissable to harvest the organs and save the 5? (what if it were 10, or even 15?...well i'm not sure if there are enough transplantable organs for that scenario, but lets say hypothetically speaking :P)

nope, many transplant patients have either self inflicted damage (liver/lungs/heart) or genetic defects either way, I'd let them die. why extend several people's lives by a few years when you're robbing someone else of theirs completely?

I'd rationalise it by arguing that modern medicine has meant that certain genetic traits are carried on and it may be better if they didn't.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#30
1) The 5 workers are perfectly able to dodge a train.

2) Knock the baby out.

3) Dump the sick guy... Though we'd probably all die anyway.
Ibanez RG350DX
Randall RH150G3
Harley Benton Cab (Shut up.)
Roland Cube 60
Dunlop Wah Wah Pedal.


mmmmm


Guitar fund - £300/???
Help me out guise!!1!
#31
Quote by DimebagJosho
1) The 5 workers are perfectly able to dodge a train.

2) Knock the baby out.

3) Dump the sick guy... Though we'd probably all die anyway.


this haha
#32
Quote by Myxer
I going to pose two questions that have only to choices that YOU have to make.....
I add one more

1.) Your working on a train station and standing by the train switch rail.... there is a train coming down the track the person driving the train is dead and there is no way to stop it.. the rail the train is going on is going to kill the 5 workers on the track your 2 far away to help them you can divert the train but there is another problem there is 1 person working there he is close by but he is old and can't hear you. do you switch rails to same many of nothing to watch them all die....

2.)Your in a war zone hiding in a house with other people there is a baby with you that you found problem is it won't stop crying really LOUD. it about 10 seconds soldiers will hear it and storm the house and kill everyone..you have to smother the baby therefore killing it or let everyone die its your choice...

Bonus...

You on a life after the titanic sank.. the boat is dangerous overloaded and is filling with water..if one person gets off the boat won't sink. there is a person on the boat who is very sick and will not survive anyway your the closest person and in best health near the person do you throw him off... or do all of you drown...

This is the problem with having moral..because doing the right thing becomes hard...
these are questions no one wants to answer...maybe one-day you'll have to make that choice...


1) Do nothing. Doing nothing to let someone die is not the same as actively doing something to kill someone. You have no responsibility to intervene in this situation.

2) From a moral perspective you should not smother the baby...that's pretty gruesome either way, though.

3) I'd probably throw him off.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#33
Quote by yoshixxx7
1) Do nothing. Doing nothing to let someone die is not the same as actively doing something to kill someone. You have no responsibility to intervene in this situation.

legally yes, morally I'd disagree.

hence why morals are subjective.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#34
Quote by Lemoninfluence
legally yes, morally I'd disagree.

hence why morals are subjective.


I wouldn't want to get sued/go to jail, that's all.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#35
From this thread, I can conclude that it is perfectly moral to arbitrarily kill both the extremely old and the extremely young.
#36
1. Switch rails and kill the old-timer. He's lived his life already.
2. Smother the baby and kill it. It hasn't lived its life yet. Can't give your position away in a war.
3. The sick man will be swimming with the fish. The sick die off. That's Natural Selection.

Harsh, but when faced with these choices only, gotta do what you gotta do for survival.
-Custom Epiphone LP
-Gretsch G5129 Electromatic
-Fender DG8S Acoustic
-Fender Blues Jr. NOS amp
-Boss FBM-1, CS-3, NS-2, DD-7, RC-2 Pedals
#37
Quote by Trefellin
From this thread, I can conclude that it is perfectly moral to arbitrarily kill both the extremely old and the extremely young.


It's not really arbitrary. It has a purpose of preserving others.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#38
Quote by yoshixxx7
It's not really arbitrary. It has a purpose of preserving others.


If you take the word "arbitrarily" out of my conclusion, the whole thing is useless to me. It stays!
#39
Quote by Trefellin
If you take the word "arbitrarily" out of my conclusion, the whole thing is useless to me. It stays!

Hmm, well it seems like it may be "my bad." I looked it up and as I thought that word has two meanings,
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

So in this context it could have one of two opposite meanings. Isn't English awesome?
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
Page 1 of 2