You need to think about who would be on the plane, not the number of people. If the airplane was filled with doctors coming back from a conference or a international crisis, saving them could potentially save tens of thousands of people in their lifetimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crop
Again, there is no right answer, this question is simply a means to discover where one's moral compass lies and what motivates them to follow that path.
I have a degree in psychology but that does not mean I cannot shake my head about a these days overused topic and answers that I have read about it in certain forums or heard of in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
I'm a self-centered guy. I picked #1 without hesitation.
Well, I'm not trying to ruin anyone's fun. My viewpoint is more along the lines that, just for me personally, a lot of the interest is killed simply knowing that saying something is easier than doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
If anything, you can still make the discussion fun even considering my point. It brings something else to consider when making your choice. What would I say I would do VS what would I actually do? Am I one of those people that would say one thing, but then do another? So this is less of me fun sucking and more me fun blowing.
Fair enough, but you and a few other people seem to be missing the fact this is less an Academia style question and more of a fun General Chat nonsense. Analyzing this question as though it was some de facto conclusion to morality is understood to be not the case here. If it was that easy to determine, we probably wouldn't have the kind of problems we do in life. On the other hand, an answer still gives some idea of where a person may stand on a subject in a neutral setting, but like with anything involving pyschoanalysis, a deeper investigation and study of a person is required to come to a better conclusion on where they may stand on such issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by SephirothI have a degree in psychology but that does not mean I cannot shake my head about a these days overused topic and answers that I have read about it in certain forums or heard of in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
In short, this is all fun and should be taken with the seriousness of a fourteen year old reading the question out of a teen mag to make them feel deep. ;)
You know, it was up in the air between the best friend and the town. Then I imagined the question was about my wife or one of my kids instead of my best friend, and the choice became obvious.
Another fun question like this is:
A train is about to hit a bus filled with 100 people, killing all of them. You can switch the track but that means the train would instead run into a small boy playing on the other track, killing him. Do you switch it?
This is an interesting one since it deals with the consequences of action vs. inaction. More people die if you don't act, but at least you did not directly have a hand in their deaths. However, killing the boy would be entirely based on your action.
If it was my boy then that would definitely make the decision harder. The right thing to do would still be to save the village. I honestly don't know if I could let my boy die...
Del's dilemma would again be about saving the most lives. I would like to think I'd change the track... as guilty as I'd feel.
In your scenario, do you have a physical connection to the boy? Or anyone in the 100 on the other track?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
If not, then you would end up saving the most amount of lives. Logically it comes down to that. If you have a connection, then you would probably save the person/persons you have the connection to.
Everytime someones says "logically" because they transform lives into some mathematical value or social usefulness ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
What if those 100 are serial killers? What if the father of that one person you chose to kill wants to prove you have chosen the "wrong way" by avenging the death of his son and killing 1 million people instead? You cannot solve this with math or utilitarism. It hurts me when people think lives have a mathematical value that can outweigh the opposing value by sheer number or usefulness. Never think numbers and/or usefulness (e.g. "those are more" or "society gets the most from these) are the only true, just, logical and right choices "only because you have no emotional connection" or even if you have. Now when it comes to the serial killers, obviously I would not chose them. However, no matter what people they are, the lives themselves - I seperate life and person - cannot be summed up to truely outweigh one. If we start thinking like that we lose the part of humanity within that we should never lose. People should pick the option they want but never insist that when it comes to that context a is any more right than context b, et cetera.
I do very well get the point that Kanno does not want the discussion to be like this. But I have the feeling that I have to point that out.
The most obvious choice is not always the easiest choice.
That could apply to any choice. What if your best friend becomes the next Hitler? What if the town happens to be visited by someone who could cure cancer? All we have is numbers, so I go by the numbers, which means for me it's option 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by SephirothEverytime someones says "logically" because they transform lives into some mathematical value or social usefulness ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
What if those 100 are serial killers? What if the father of that one person you chose to kill wants to prove you have chosen the "wrong way" by avenging the death of his son and killing 1 million people instead? You cannot solve this with math or utilitarism. It hurts me when people think lives have a mathematical value that can outweigh the opposing value by sheer number or usefulness. Never think numbers and/or usefulness (e.g. "those are more" or "society gets the most from these) are the only true, just, logical and right choices "only because you have no emotional connection" or even if you have. Now when it comes to the serial killers, obviously I would not chose them. However, no matter what people they are, the lives themselves - I seperate life and person - cannot be summed up to truely outweigh one. If we start thinking like that we lose the part of humanity within that we should never lose. People should pick the option they want but never insist that when it comes to that context a is any more right than context b, et cetera.
I do very well get the point that Kanno does not want the discussion to be like this. But I have the feeling that I have to point that out.
That is, I'd like to think I would have the clarity of thought to choose option 3. As people have already said, it's different in the heat of the moment, you can't truly know what you'd pick unless you were actually thrust into that position.