- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,432
- Reaction score
- 39,011
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The bottom option to not forsake the "last guy" (throw his ass off the raft). Teamwork would fall under no one being forsaken right off the bat and taking the chance that something good, a boon of sorts, would come soon.
What kind of math do they teach in your school?So is the right to life of two men greater than the right to life of one? Does life then have a value?
Oh the solution is very easy:There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.
This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).
The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.
Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.
EDIT
There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.
This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).
The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.
Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.
EDIT
There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
P.S. You are not part of this, rather, picture yourself as one who pulls the "strings" of the three men. Remember they are all of the same caliber.
At the end of the day, someone is going overboard. You can draw straws, play rock paper scissors, king of the raft, whatever, but two men live, one man dies. Mankind survives. These questions arent as difficult in real life as people want them to be. The 'noble' thought of all three dying together is just plain stupid.
But in order to survive you have to kill someone in cold blood, if you dont think the choice between living and murdering an innocent person is a difficult choice you are a horrible person
Im a realist. It will be a difficult choice. It will happen. That all Im saying. The fact that you want to rush to the "you are a horrible person!" part means your ass is probably the one going overboard.
Where did I say it wouldnt be a difficult CHOICE? I said the morals QUESTION is not as difficult as people want to make it be. Do you need help with the distinction?Except you just claimed it wasnt a difficult choice, notice I didnt say that you were a horrible person only that a person who thinks that the choice between dying and murder is easy is a horrible person thats not an opinion thats a fact.
Where did I say it wouldnt be a difficult CHOICE? I said the morals QUESTION is not as difficult as people want to make it be. Do you need help with the distinction?
You are fooling yourself if you think this would be a dilemma. The decision would be made. The speed at which the decision would be made on who would die would be in direct proportion to how rapid the raft was sinking. If there was time for nobility, someone would probably make a noble choice. If there wasnt time....someone would make the choice for the three. The others may or may not resist. Either way...done.the choice is the morals question, a distinction without a difference
At the end of the day, someone is going overboard. You can draw straws, play rock paper scissors, king of the raft, whatever, but two men live, one man dies. Mankind survives. These questions arent as difficult in real life as people want them to be. The 'noble' thought of all three dying together is just plain stupid.
There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.
This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).
The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.
Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.
EDIT
There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?