Free MMORPG Forums

Mr. First Name Basis

I think if a man is big enough to stop a train, and debbie is strong enough to push that man off a bridge, with him going against her, she must have some serious muscle. She needs to push the man down there and when the train hits, she needs to guide it back on the track with her she-muscles as she has to be a beast. Or maybe she's slow it down with her she-muscles, that way the fat man won't die.

I kant do this. I don't get it. Why would Debbie come on Onrpg when 5 people's lives are at stake.

__________________

hian

^your approval-rate is now way above NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!

__________________

Mr. First Name Basis

Or maybe in the first instance, (even without her huge she-muscles) I would let the five people die. I know I might be a little like Thomas Hobbes when I say this (was it Hobbes?) Anyways, with 5 people, there's a bigger chance than with one person that someone has evil intent. By killing the larger group, you'd have a higher chance of killing someone bad and ridding the world of evil. By going for the one man, she'd have a chance that he was good and the chance of killing no evil. At this stage in the world, I think that it's acceptable for some of the good people to die to help the rest of the human race. Sacrafices must be made.

Ok so I'm just kidding. I have to ask my priest these questions because I really have no clue.

__________________

replicant

I killed 2 people to save 10, so I say "the End justifies the means".

__________________

TheRequiem

There was only 2 votes on not permissable for both?
Were both feeling left out.

There isnt anyone in the world who should decide on whether or not one should die.

__________________

Arcteryx

The "classic comeback" is more or less irrelevent in this instance, I think. I'm not sure if I made it clear that there was nothing unique or special about all people involved, and that hypothetical intances like that were not to be taken into account. The questions are basially utilitarian with Kantian overtones.

And I'm sure there are plenty of moral dilemmas involving trains. They're quite handy tools for such problems. Yours is pretty interesting, though it deals with completely different morals. While the ones I provided are about if it is morally justifiable to kill one person to save five, yours deals with the moral worth of a person and the right to life. If all things are equal, and no one has a greater claim to life than anyone else, then it really shouldn't matter what you choose to do. However, I'm sure most people would spare the baby and kill the tramp, showing that humans do place different values of moral worth on different individuals and believe all people do not have the same claim to life. And this of course, brings up the very interesting question of why we think that way.

__________________

hian

^ The obvious answer to that would be:
Because humans do not have equal worth in the eyes of humans. Equal worth is just a political correct statement used to sound nice and humane, even though if you create an extreme enough situation most humans will evaluate lives based on their own logic(or bias, depending on the person).

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I do believe that no matter how you twist or turn it, you will find that human value indeed is far from equal when faced with certain dilemmas. I believe that human worth is like faith. It is something we need to believe in to make our existance significant and feel valuable.

__________________

shevrock

I voted both permisable. It's not that i agree with the ones dieing, but it simple survival. One for the many. I personaly don't like it as said, but it needs to be done. It has a better chance of one of the many saved can do something great like cure cancer. So it would be my choice. Plus theirs already to many fat people. Not that i have anything against fat people, i'm sorta fat, but most larger people who can stop a train with ther weight with a train are kinda stupid.

__________________

Marineking

Both not permissible.

The idea that she has the right to sacrifice anybody, regardless of obesity or even retardation, is completely wrong. Beyond that, I am dead-set against anyone who thinks it's alright to sacrifice the individual for the collective on the basis that he is "just one man and they are five."

Personally, If I were the man on the bridge and I could sacrifice myself for five others (Which probably will never be the case, since I'm skinny as hell), I would probably do it. But that would be my decision made with my own life in the balance.

No one has the right to decide the fate of another's life. In such a case as dilemma 1, I would do nothing at all (Except maybe hunt the bastard down who tied them to the train and kick his ***, but that is irrelevant).

EDIT: No, I did not read any of the posts before I made my decision, I did not want anything to influence it.

__________________

Cereal&Milk

Both are not permissable, in either of the two cases provided for the dilemmas. From a moral standpoint, no one should die because those people might not wish to die. But since the dilemma calls for certain death, I think it shouldn't be up to Debbie to decide who should live and who should die.

In all truth, she should just turn around, plug her ears (to block the screams) and walk her meddling behind back home and forget that she saw those people.

However, if the dilemma wasn't so straight forward (for D.1), Debbie would have been able to switch the tracks and cut the man loose before the train rubbed his organs clean over the track.

__________________