[Read the First Post in FULL before voting] Morality Questions

[SiN|ScarFace]

In the first one I throw the switch, no train coming the other way no one dies. (thats the way it seems in the question).

The rest I do no interfere with the train and people. It's not my job to play god by trading lives of strangers for another stranger. If I had family on the train or the platform I would intervene to trade the lives of strangers for family.

If I were actually standing there watching a train out of control, I would run towards the station and yell at the people to gtfo out of there, thus saving lives without having to sacrifice others to do so. (I would run and make it there, because this is a hypothetical situation)

I rationalize this (jokingly) from having seen final destination the movie, or fate, who is to say that they were not supposed to die, if you intervene, how do you know they won't die some other way. Perhaps they are struck down by a falling object, or suffer a fatal heart attack from the experience. (this would also apply to family so my intervention earlier may very well have been futile.)

The doctor one, I would not put the idea of suicide in a grieving persons mind or consider murder to harvest his organs for others. Maybe in your haste to do so, as time is of the essence, this man has some kind of blood born disease and you end up killing everyone.

Hypothetical scenarios like these are too black or white when reality is never so simple.

[Harrod200]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; ALWAYS, without exception. If one must die so that 20 may live, that one dies. If 19 must die so that 20 may live, 19 die. If I am one of those who die, so be it.

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

Hypothetical scenarios like these are too black or white when reality is never so simple.

I disagree. This is somewhere that it is black and white. The result that ends in the least death is the one I would always choose.

It is when the deaths are equal that it becomes interesting.

There are 10 people on a train, careering down a hill. It will crash into a station, killing all on board and all of those on the platform it hits. You can choose platform A or B, each of which has 10 people waiting.

Equal choice; 20 die either way, 10 certainly, 10 based on your decision; which do you choose? This scenario is not black and white, as in this case my decision would rest (where possible) and the ages of those on the platform. 10 dead pensioners is less of a loss to society than 10 dead children.

Here's a good one;
You are standing at a console in a war room and have override control over a nuclear missile, already in flight, but all you can do is divert the missile to its alternate target.

Target 1 is a city of 30 million people, all of which will die on impact.

Target 2 is a city of 17 million people, including your entire family, again everyone will die on impact.

Target 1 or target 2? Personally it's an easy choice for me.

[georgehu2007]

for questions 1, 2, and 3, I picked whichever alternative saves the most lives. but when it comes to questions 4 & 5, I decided to leave the men alone because i don't know if i could bring myself to directly murder someone

[SuperTimo]

always went for the second option to save more lives, im not riligous so i have no need to worry about "hell" and "damnation" and also its nessacary to save more people.

for example the fat bloke should have used his life to better himself, therefore he has less reason to live.

i just sound like a tosser now don't i

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Timo, how massive a judgement call are you making there?! Someone's obese so he has no value to society?! For all you know he's two days away from curing cancer, dementia and HIV/AIDS in one key medical victory. He could be obese due to a medical condiction and be overweight no matter how hard he were to exercise.

That was one of the daftest comments I've ever heard. You don't sound like a tosser, just like a muppet.

[[R-CON]Wolfe]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Masaq

For all you know he's two days away from curing cancer, dementia and HIV/AIDS in one key medical victory.

Exactly why the number of lives saved is irrelevant. It's over-simplistic to say that two lives are more important than one; how do we know that one life's achievements will ultimately be more important than the two? And who determines the definition of important? It would be extremely arrogant and narrow-minded to even attempt it.

And even if we were 100% sure of the future and could 100% measure the importance of one life over another... what gives us the right to execute that judgment?

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Please tell me that all the people who would do nothing to protect their conscience do not and will never have jobs of any real responsibility.

You should add to the original questions the fact that the families of the people you choose to kill will sue you and the government will try you for murder.

That way the people who would sit and do nothing while people die will have an additional excuse for their inaction.
You know, to help their self-esteem because while it might sound good now, in reality the fact that you sat back and let people die when you could have lessened the impact will have an effect on you.
Probably the reason we don't see these types of deep thinkers in positions that require the ability to make a decision.
Might also be why so many of them are part of the "peace" movement but that is just my humble opinion.

[SethLive!]

ok... thanks for posting this question because i love stuff like this!

I voted to leave the man and not harvest the organs.

My reasoning behind this is that i believe morality is a personal decision. It is the job of the fat man to jump, and it is the job of the healthy man to give his life to save the others.

I would let the fat man decide whether to give his life for others.

I would inform the healthy man of the situation, and let him make the call.

If i push the man, or murder the man and harvest his organs, then i am making moral decisions for another man, and disregarding his right to think and refusing his right to determine his own morality.

Everyone will die one day, and human bodies will not last forever. Is it possible that there are things more valuable than human life?

[[R-DEV]OkitaMakoto]

1. Throw switch. Those on board may yet live, while certainly saving the lives of those on the station. I woudl, of course, make sure a train wasnt heading towards on the siding this time.

2. Leave the switch alone. I wouldnt go to jail for the murder of 12 people to save 20. Thats most likely how itd be seen. First of all, Im gonna be a dick and say I wouldnt have any way to tell how many were on either train so I couldnt make that choice based on numbers. Even so, if I did know numbers, it's not up to me[or anyone,anything] to choose who lives or dies. Shit happens.

3. I would toss the rock. This greatly conflicts with my answer to two, and I really ant say why. The only way I can think to describe it is that in one scenario, a train is barreling towards its end. It can either kill 20+6 or 6+6. Its already headed towards the 20 and the 6 are already on board so I wouldnt be able to suddenly choose to bring the 6 on the second train headed down the siding towards the out of control train.... However, I COULD make the choice to KEEP people from being involved, where I choose to crash the train and risk the 6 for saving 20 more.

The subtle difference is that I cant bring MORE people into harm. If they are already in it and might die anyway, I would be more able to risk their lives to save others.[cut and dry and not to be taken out of this context, please] I couldnt bring the 6 on the oncoming train into the scenario, just as I couldnt drop the innocent large man on the tracks.

too long, didnt read? I can take people OUT of the harm by diverting train 1 in the first scenario[the 20 on the platform] but I cant choose to bring people INTO it[fat man or the 6 in the oncoming train in scenario 2].

and I simply wouldnt outright kill a man for organs to save 6 or so people. Tough. Those 6 people it is even more evident this day because, quite frankly, they are going to die.

[Conman51=US=]

well killin the few to save the many is kinda logical..but what if u knew a few of the few who died