View Poll Results: What would you do in this scenario?

Voters
337. You may not vote on this poll
  • Save beloved person.

    269 79.82%
  • Save the 100 unknown people.

    56 16.62%
  • Not do anything even though by inaction you're killing all.

    12 3.56%

Thread: Moral choice

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41

  2. #42
    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.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tradewind; 2013-01-25 at 09:13 PM.
    "Bah-weep-graaaaagnah wheep nini bong!"
    On Parole from Retard Rehabilitation since October 22, 2014.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helden View Post
    Tradewind isn't helping.

  4. #44
    Fluffy Kitten Baiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    York, Blighty
    Posts
    5,133
    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.

  5. #45
    Option number 1 with out even thinking about it.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Baiyn View Post
    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.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  7. #47
    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.

  8. #48
    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.
    "Bah-weep-graaaaagnah wheep nini bong!"
    On Parole from Retard Rehabilitation since October 22, 2014.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helden View Post
    Tradewind isn't helping.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    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.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  10. #50
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,371
    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.
    i7-5820K | ASUS X99- Deluxe | Crucial 2x8GB DDR4 2133MHz | eVGA GTX 760 SC | Crucial MX100 512GB | Crucial M500 240GB | Crucial m4 128GB | Western Digital Blue 1TB | Western Digital Black 1TB | SeaSonic X660 Gold
    ASUS MX239H | Schiit Stack Modi + Asgard 2 | Sennheiser HD598 | Audio Technica ATH-AD700 | Presonus Eris E5 Studio Monitors | Blue Snowball Mic | Razer Death Adder | Corsair K70 | CyberPower 1500PFCLCD UPS

  11. #51
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    22,989
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    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."

  12. #52
    Picked the "saved beloved " option. The millions of years of human evolution, gene passing and lizzard brain made me do it....

  13. #53
    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.

  14. #54
    Legendary! Asmekiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybe over there
    Posts
    6,641
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    Immortal Sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Just outside of Wigan, England.
    Posts
    7,736
    strangers,
    unknown people to me. They are fucked. Not even a seconds thought in the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Acelius View Post
    Sigma : Super Intelligent Giant Moldy Anchovy

  16. #56
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by wow2011 View Post
    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.
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
    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.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  18. #58
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmekiel View Post
    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.
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    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.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by wow2011 View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •