A question of Morality...

Dj_Jestar · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:13

Burnsy2023 said:
You already have something to do with it by having the opportunity to stop more people from dying. Doing nothing is still a conscious choice that has it's consequences.

And my conscious choice would be to stay well out of it. I don't care if it'd save the 5 people, there would still be one person than I would be entirely responsible for killing, the others either someone else or an accident.

rtk · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:14

Since we unknowingly have an effect on other peoples action and even their mortality every single day, id say the problem is whether you would see your self as a murderer or a savior, as the logical option would be to save the many.

My decision would be to save the many.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:16

Dj_Jestar said:
And my conscious choice would be to stay well out of it. I don't care if it'd save the 5 people, there would still be one person than I would be entirely responsible for killing, the others either someone else or an accident.

An five that you'd still be responsible for killing if you stayed out of it.

Tefal · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:16

a)Better question a trolly is hurtling towards 5 people tied to a track they're all just regular run of the mill men women and children... and a puppy. You have the option to pull a lever which will derail the trolley but unfortunately fling it unavoidably in your direction thus killing you.

B) there is a a trolley hurtling towards you however you can pull a lever which will send it into 5 other people killing them.

do you pull the lever?

PhillyDee · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:17

eXor said:

Not in the slightest. I never tied them to the track, or set in motion events that would kill.

And i agree with Pinter75 . . . Thats thinking laterally (sideways!)

RDM · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:17

Burnsy2023 said:
An five that you'd still be responsible for killing if you stayed out of it.

But he isn't responsible for killing them, he is responsible for not saving them. How significant you see the difference probably relates to what you would do in that situation.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:21

RDM said:
But he isn't responsible for killing them, he is responsible for not saving them.

I would argue there is no difference.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:21

PhillyDee said:
Not in the slightest. I never tied them to the track, or set in motion events that would kill.

And i agree with Pinter75 . . . Thats thinking laterally (sideways!)

Could you live with yourself afterwards?

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:22

PhillyDee said:
Not in the slightest. I never tied them to the track, or set in motion events that would kill.

But you are still making a conscious decision to let them die.

Microwave · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:23

Whichever option involves less people dying. Simple as.

asim18 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:26

It depends on who they are.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:27

asim18 said:
It depends who they are.

Burnsy2023 said:
Who are you to play judge, jury and executioner?

Burnsy2023 said:
Could you explain why? Do they have any less right to life?

Tefal · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:27

Tefal said:
a)Better question a trolly is hurtling towards 5 people tied to a track they're all just regular run of the mill men women and children... and a puppy. You have the option to pull a lever which will derail the trolley but unfortunately fling it unavoidably in your direction thus killing you.

B) there is a a trolley hurtling towards you however you can pull a lever which will send it into 5 other people killing them.

do you pull the lever?

Aww come on no one willing to answer when it;s them involved

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:27

Tefal said:
Aww come on no one willing to answer when it;s them involved

I'd like to think I'd sacrifice myself, but you could never know without being in the situation.

Tefal · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:28

Burnsy2023 said:
...

What if the 5 people are the 5 people you dislike the most. and the one is your wife?

eggcup · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:29

"the needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one"

asim18 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:29

Burnsy2023 said:
Could you explain why? Do they have any less right to life?

Yes because IF It's my family, I'm there, and I will save them.

The other persons friends aren't there, so screw him LOL.

Tefal · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:29

Burnsy2023 said:
I'd like to think I'd sacrifice myself, but you could never know without being in the situation.

I made it into 2 questions for those saying "I'd just let it happen then it's an accident" to see how strong that attitude is

Things change I've changed · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:31

asim18 said:
It depends who they are.

So hypothetically speaking if you was in this situation you would do nothing becuase you would be busy wondering who they were ?

eggcup said:
"the needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one"

What's your answer to the two questions ?

Burnsy2023 · 23 Feb 2009 at 17:32

Tefal said:
What if the 5 people are the 5 people you dislike the most. and the one is your wife?

Well morally the answer is simple, like has been said "the needs of the many and all", but making the right decision at the time is a difficult thing. Either way, I'd be ****ed up afterwards.