PDA

View Full Version : What if you had to take a life to save five?

SlackDad
02-05-2006, 20:05
Some interesting philosophical dilemma's to consider. Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm)
I answered:
1. Thomson's Violinist: YES
2. The Runaway Trolley Car: YES
3. The Fat Man and the Trolley Car: YES
4. The Cave Explorers: YES
deadite66
02-05-2006, 20:27
no to ALL, as long as i didn't cause the problem i wouldn't involve myself.
greencreeper
02-05-2006, 22:26
No to all but that's because no one has total knowledge - the one is only the one but there's no knowing what he/she might do in their lifetime that affects the many. Positive action to avert the natural course of events means that you're taking responsibility for changing the future. If you take action to change the future, you can continue changing it (the cave example) - or you can take the view that the future is you changing the future, and your decision not to continue, is also the future. Assuming of course that are perceptions of reality are reality.
ikthius
02-05-2006, 23:19
No
No
No
Yes

ik
zing_deleted
02-05-2006, 23:33
As normal in psychology the questions are flawed as they do not cover all angles especially question 2 and 3 as not enough variants are given.
In 2 you flip the switch wilst screaming get out the way this may save all the lives maybe. In 3 you jump down to miss the track screaming move and maybe everyone lives.Not enough information means any answer given is meaningless.And question 4 anyone with any sense would send the smallest out first to get help surely?
Damien
02-05-2006, 23:45
No
Yes
No
Yes
Maggy
03-05-2006, 00:22
Ach!I hate these sort of questions.The fact of the matter is you don't have time to think and you'l end up doing nothing in the majority of cases which how it goes in real life.Those people who can think and react correctly are very rare.Of course people who have to think about all eventualities such as Firemen,Police,Armed Services do plan ahead and practise,practise BUT they will at least think about situations that are realistic.The violin player one just made me roar with laughter.:)
cookie_365
03-05-2006, 19:08
No to all of them. Murder is WRONG.
Druchii
03-05-2006, 19:09
No to all of them. Murder is WRONG. Yet leaving people to die isn't?
cookie_365
03-05-2006, 22:41
Yet leaving people to die isn't?

Not if the alternative is murdering someone.
liamboyle06
03-05-2006, 23:24
No - might consider doing it but not obliged to
No
No
No
Will not Thoughtfully kill someone else.
Acathla
04-05-2006, 00:02
I would not make a descision that directly caused another to die unless my own life was in danger. So my results would be:

No
No
No
No
Yes
Matth
05-05-2006, 23:52
No, yes, no, yes.

And many of the questions are flawed.

1. Anyone that said yes, should already be a registered bone marrow donor, as that could save a life with less inconvenience. The price (9 months of my life), would be too high to save a stranger.

2. Given ONLY those choices, sacrificing one to save 5 seems logical.

3. So why does sacrificing one to save 5 now not seem to be so acceptable

4. And now it's acceptable again

In some respect, it relates to cause and effect, for the last 3.
Paul
06-05-2006, 03:54
No, yes, yes, yes.

2, 3 & 4 are really the same, one dies instead of five. However it also depends on who the "one" is. If they are family and the five are not, then I would let the five strangers die. Given the choice of someone else dies, or I die, them I'm going to pick someone else everytime.
Derek
06-05-2006, 10:04
No, Yes, Yes, Yes for me.