Moral choice

[muto]

People die all the time. I would my loved one.

[wow2011]

1 easily if no one else is watching. Human life doesn't mean much to me. It's the connection between me and the other person that makes life valuable.

1 much harder if the whole world is watching my action as I carry it out.

[Tradewind]

The scenario is saving one group or your loved one or doing nothing.

Yeah but from what?

Are we talking like there's two meteors heading to earth one is gonna hit your house and the other is gonna hit a house full of 100 strangers and you have to hulk punch one to tiny bits?

Or is it something less crazy?

Probably a bad question to ask Engineer'y types because we're likely to let them all die while trying to figure out how to save everyone and still debate methods after they're all burnt to a crisp of how it could have been done better.

[Deleted]

I believe that saving the 100 people is objectively the right call to make, but I don't think I'd be able to use cold rationale in a highly emotionally stressful situation such as the one proposed here. I'd likely be compelled to save my loved one.

[Sam the Wiser]

Option number 1 with out even thinking about it.

[wow2011]

I believe that saving the 100 people is objectively the right call to make, but I don't think I'd be able to use cold rationale in a highly emotionally stressful situation such as the one proposed here. I'd likely be compelled to save my loved one.

I don't think saving 100 people is objectively the right call either. Objectively speaking, human live isn't worth "infinite" value. Everyone's life has a price/value to it. So the objectively correct call would be summing up the value of each life and then make a determination.

For example, a president vs. 50 foot soldiers, 30 sailors vs. 100 vicious pirates, 10 of your countrymen or 5000 enemies, 10 murders and 10 victim's families etc.

Value to each life isn't equal and is not constant.

[Blueobelisk]

Save the 100 people. Honestly I can't even think of my most "beloved" person easily so whatever, might as well save the 100.

But uhhh I'm really greedy and if I could have thought of someone I'd have easily picked them.

[Tradewind]

After more thought I would save the 100 people because then I could be like a tortured superhero, who lost his loved one in a horrible accident in a desperate attempt to save the city.

[wow2011]

After more thought I would save the 100 people because then I could be like a tortured superhero, who lost his loved one in a horrible accident in a desperate attempt to save the city.

Maybe you will get the chance someday. Next time when your family gets into bad medical condition that would cost 10,000+, instead of spending money on him/her, donate that to save the starving children in africa and tell your family that you donated the money to save more people.

[DeltrusDisc]

I think this is like the 10th time in the past year someone has posed a thread like this.

I'm sure my emotions would take over and make me save the one person I love... just hopefully they would forgive me for offing all of those other people.

[Endus]

After more thought I would save the 100 people because then I could be like a tortured superhero, who lost his loved one in a horrible accident in a desperate attempt to save the city.

"Sorry, hon/mum/bro/whatever, but this'll make a kick-ass backstory, I'm sure you understand."

[Deleted]

Picked the "saved beloved " option. The millions of years of human evolution, gene passing and lizzard brain made me do it....

[Spoiler]

I chose save the 100. Here's why:

The fact that you can see the 100 makes them less unknown. There are plenty of variables that can be thrown at this, and one of them is what if you see that their all children? You have the option to save 100 little kids or your loved one. In my opinion, that throws a wrench in this. In a realistic situation, I will save my loved one over anyone else without thinking about it, but could I allow 100 children to die to save my beloved? Change the equation a little, could I allow a bunch of families that have children to die to save my beloved?

Would you sacrifice your life to save 100 people? A 100 children? Would you prefer your loved one chose you over the many families? Throughout history to present day, people have died and sacrificed for far less.

Also, knowing that the one I love would gladly sacrifice their life for 100 people (they would sacrifice their life for one person if given the chance), would love dictate that I go against their wishes and save them? or respect their wishes to save the 100. The argument can be made that true love would abide by the beloved's desire to sacrifice their life to save the 100.

In my opinion, this scenario shouldn't be as black and white as most of you are making it out to be.

[Asmekiel]

If you ask yes to the second, and no to the first, ask yourself what the difference is.

I'd say the difference is pretty clear. In the first situation you actually murder someone, while in the second situation you minimize the amount of unavoidable casualties.

[Deleted]

strangers,
unknown people to me. They are fucked. Not even a seconds thought in the matter.

[Deleted]

I don't think saving 100 people is objectively the right call either. Objectively speaking, human live isn't worth "infinite" value. Everyone's life has a price/value to it. So the objectively correct call would be summing up the value of each life and then make a determination.

For example, a president vs. 50 foot soldiers, 30 sailors vs. 100 vicious pirates, 10 of your countrymen or 5000 enemies, 10 murders and 10 victim's families etc.

Value to each life isn't equal and is not constant.

100 politicans vs 1 random bloke....I'll take the bloke.

Why do americans venerate their presidents I'll never know, in the UK we hold our Prime Minister in a certain amount of contempt, and lets face it, if anyone managed to get rid of him, there's plenty more to step in.

[wow2011]

I chose save the 100. Here's why:

The fact that you can see the 100 makes them less unknown. There are plenty of variables that can be thrown at this, and one of them is what if you see that their all children? You have the option to save 100 little kids or your loved one. In my opinion, that throws a wrench in this. In a realistic situation, I will save my loved one over anyone else without thinking about it, but could I allow 100 children to die to save my beloved? Change the equation a little, could I allow a bunch of families that have children to die to save my beloved?

Would you sacrifice your life to save 100 people? A 100 children? Would you prefer your loved one chose you over the many families? Throughout history to present day, people have died and sacrificed for far less.

Also, knowing that the one I love would gladly sacrifice their life for 100 people (they would sacrifice their life for one person if given the chance), would love dictate that I go against their wishes and save them? or respect their wishes to save the 100. The argument can be made that true love would abide by the beloved's desire to sacrifice their life to save the 100.

In my opinion, this scenario shouldn't be as black and white as most of you are making it out to be.

The scenario really isn't as mythical as people think. There are a lot of families (parents + lots of children) in africa that are starving. If every single 3rd+ stage cancer patient would spend treatment money to buy food for those families, a lot more people will be alive today.

I am sure there are charity groups that will show you pictures of families that you can potentially save. So if all you need to be convinced is by taking a look at small children's faces, go ahead and look. And then save all the medical money that would be spent on saving your beloved's (or your own) life when bad things happen and donate that to save hundreds of people's lives else where.

[Deleted]

I'd say the difference is pretty clear. In the first situation you actually murder someone, while in the second situation you minimize the amount of unavoidable casualties.

Actually there is no difference. In both situations you are taking action either by pushing someone, or diverting the train, to kill one person over 5.

The other analogy is 5 people needing differnt transplant organs to live, and one patient being compatible with all 5....do you kill the one to save the 5?

Most people answer no, but when you get right down to it, its no differnt from diverting the train....no one has yet been able to actually work out why people have differnt reactions to what is essentially the same problem in 3 different forms.

[wow2011]

100 politicans vs 1 random bloke....I'll take the bloke.

Why do americans venerate their presidents I'll never know, in the UK we hold our Prime Minister in a certain amount of contempt, and lets face it, if anyone managed to get rid of him, there's plenty more to step in.

I never said 1 president's life is worth more than 50 soldiers. The examples are there to show that life's value isn't the same and isn't constant as different people will arrive at different conclusions in terms of "value for a life". I am sure there will be people who say 100 politicians' lives are more valuable than 1 random bloke.

[Spoiler]

The scenario really isn't as mythical as people think. There are a lot of families (parents + lots of children) in africa that are starving. If every single 3rd+ stage cancer patient would spend treatment money to buy food for those families, a lot more people will be alive today.

I am sure there are charity groups that will show you pictures of families that you can potentially save. So if all you need to be convinced is by taking a look at small children's faces, go ahead and look. And then save all the medical money that would be spent on saving your beloved's (or your own) life when bad things happen and donate that to save hundreds of people's lives else where.

It's a scenario, so by definition, unless specified, its whatever you want it to be as long as it stays within the original guidelines. I don't see what giving to charity has anything to do with this discussion. You bring up a real life scenario that has nothing to do with sacrificing your beloved to save a 100 unknown people. I see absolutely no relevance.