- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,017
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- The greatest planet in the world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I don't operate trains, your question is invalid.Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
A fat man wouldn't stop a train going that speed. Regardless of his mass, the tensile strength of the human body is not going to provide enough resistance to stop the force and mass of a train.Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
I would tell him to stop vandalizing public property. My tax dollars paid for that ****, and this town is crappy enough.Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
I would start selling tickets to people nearby to "Watch the train crash! Any second now! Get your tickets here!! Can't watch the crash without a ticket! Only $25 for a limited time only!!"
:mrgreen: :lamo
They already have something like that, it's called NASCAR.
1. Kick ten people out of the group; put them on the road with a few items you can spare and wish them good luck, and try not to think about how they're likely to die horribly by starvation or disease or bandits or something.
a. if you choose this option, what are your selection criteria for who you put out? Those least able to work? (ie young children, old or sickly) Those with the least useful skills? etc?
c. You have your own 3yo child and your elderly and mostly disabled mother with you... do you use your authoritah to protect them, or are they subject to exile if they can't pull their weight?
2. Frack it, I'm feeding everybody, if we all die then we just do. We'll try to scavenge more food, or hunt more or something...
b. ...but what if after a few weeks it isn't working, and hardly anyone has the strength to tend the fields? Will you change your plan?
3. There may be other small groups out there trying to farm or something for survival... if you can locate them and find a group smaller than yours, you could raid them and take their food by force, and use it to feed your group. This is probably going to involve killing people who are essentially innocent and simply trying to survive just like you... but it if it you or them, who will you choose?
4. The 12 best workers (or most important skillsets, etc) get a full ration... everybody else gets 1/4 ration, and if they get sick and die well that's too bad, I tried.
a. How will you handle it if the people on quarter ration get so mad with hunger that they try to take more food, by force if they must?
Now question number 2... what if you WERENT the leader, and instead YOU got selected for exile or starvation-rations? Would you cooperate with the leader's decision on what was best for the group, or would you rebel and fight to take over? What if YOU were not put out, but instead your wife/husband/child/parent were selected for exile?
Now THERE's a nice dilemma... have fun... :mrgreen:
There's been a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or some kind of global castastrophe of whichever flavor you prefer. You find yourself a few weeks later as the nominal leader of a small band of 25 survivors. You've scavenged as much food as you can find from the area and are planting some crops. You're doing some hunting and trapping too, but it isn't all that productive because everybody and his brother was hunting Bambi until the die-off was over.
What are you going to do?
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.
Damn, that's a tough one. I'm reminded of the saying "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few."
but could I really do it? Condemn a man to death just to save some people who I don't know, or the person I'm sentencing to death may not even know?
No matter which route I took, it'd probably be my biggest regret.
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:
Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')
Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)
Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.
How about we consider some scenarios that are a smidge more realistic than pushing over men fat enough to stop trains?
There's been a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or some kind of global castastrophe of whichever flavor you prefer. You find yourself a few weeks later as the nominal leader of a small band of 25 survivors. You've scavenged as much food as you can find from the area and are planting some crops. You're doing some hunting and trapping too, but it isn't all that productive because everybody and his brother was hunting Bambi until the die-off was over.
So... you're plowing and will start planting soon, but it will be a few months before any crops are ripe enough to harvest. You inventory your food supplies... uh oh, not so good. You have enough food to provide the minimal rations needed to keep 15 people fit enough to work the fields and man the guardposts for the time that will pass until you begin to harvest... but you have 25 people. If you try to feed EVERYONE, the odds are that NO ONE will get enough food to stay healthy and do the back-breaking labor required to grow and harvest the crops and defend them... possibly everyone could die if you try to feed all.
What are you going to do?
Here are your more obvious options...
1. Kick ten people out of the group; put them on the road with a few items you can spare and wish them good luck, and try not to think about how they're likely to die horribly by starvation or disease or bandits or something.
a. if you choose this option, what are your selection criteria for who you put out? Those least able to work? (ie young children, old or sickly) Those with the least useful skills? etc?
c. You have your own 3yo child and your elderly and mostly disabled mother with you... do you use your authoritah to protect them, or are they subject to exile if they can't pull their weight?
2. Frack it, I'm feeding everybody, if we all die then we just do. We'll try to scavenge more food, or hunt more or something...
b. ...but what if after a few weeks it isn't working, and hardly anyone has the strength to tend the fields? Will you change your plan?
3. There may be other small groups out there trying to farm or something for survival... if you can locate them and find a group smaller than yours, you could raid them and take their food by force, and use it to feed your group. This is probably going to involve killing people who are essentially innocent and simply trying to survive just like you... but it if it you or them, who will you choose?
4. The 12 best workers (or most important skillsets, etc) get a full ration... everybody else gets 1/4 ration, and if they get sick and die well that's too bad, I tried.
a. How will you handle it if the people on quarter ration get so mad with hunger that they try to take more food, by force if they must?
Now question number 2... what if you WERENT the leader, and instead YOU got selected for exile or starvation-rations? Would you cooperate with the leader's decision on what was best for the group, or would you rebel and fight to take over? What if YOU were not put out, but instead your wife/husband/child/parent were selected for exile?
Now THERE's a nice dilemma... have fun... :mrgreen:
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:
Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')
Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)
Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.
The OP is a lose-lose situation really. Do nothing and people die. Do something and people die.
I think when it comes down to the crunch your body will take over and make you decide regardless of what your rationale might be. And frankly, this kind of semantic debate is more aptly conducted in the comfort of one's own home. In a real life or death situation, you would probably decide on a whim for completely arbitrary reasons.
Karmically speaking, doing nothing would mean you are not responsible for any deaths, and the technological error would be.
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:
Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')
Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)
Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.
If the two later cases happen you will be in big trouble.
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:
Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')
Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)
Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.
No. BTW we are not supposed to be on the train, we are supposed to be at the switch by the track.
The reason to say 'no' is because tripping the switch is a conscious action, the person that died would be a direct reaction to your action. You murdered that guy. If you do nothing then no one would have expected you to murder that guy since you had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. As far as you know the 5 other guys were waiting to the last second to jump out of the way. Perhaps it is a game that they all play? Even the single guy on the other track was in on the game. You fool!
Murder requires an intent to kill, or at least an intent to inflict serious bodily harm. So flipping the switch would be materially manslaughter, however such can be justified by a necessity defense.
The intent of flipping the switch is to kill a innocent bystander. There is no necessity in killing a innocent bystander. If no one was at the switch the innocent bystander would not be harmed much less killed. To flip the switch you have to intentionally decide to kill a person and act on it. To not flip the switch you have to make action at all. Sure it might be through neglect people died but out of necessity to save the innocent person that would have died had you acted.
There really isnt a morally correct answer to the question and the legality is a bit gray. Of course at speed though flipping the switch might derail the train if it isnt done in time or correctly. Potentially killing many more people. Not to mention I believe it is a federal crime to screw with the switches on train tracks.
Best option yell really loud and hope they hear you, because in court that yell will show a intention to save lives. Probably no manslaughter or any charges because unless you are trained to change a train track no one would expect you to know how.
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?