Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nc-1701, Nov 14, 2007.
When else do you get moral dilemmas?
I chose switch B
Simply because, what's the point in living if your soulmate is dead. If your soulmate is going to die, better to die with him/her and let the rest live.
I'd sacrifice random friends and family for the one closest to me. Sucky but true.
I wouldn't want to die so i'd pick that too .
I'd refuse to pull a switch and refuse to be responsible for the deaths.
You mean if you had a chance to save 1 person out of 10 of your closest family and friends you wouldn't save any of them?
But not taking action is still a decision that you're responsible for.
How about "I will take the deontological choice over the utilitarian choice in this thread's situation" ?
(I may be misremembering exactly what deontology is. The point is, I refuse to make myself responsible for a death.)
A because i'd inherit the waelth!
I reserve the right to disagree on the grounds that this argument can make any man a mass murderer by giving him the ultimatum "Press this button to drop a nuke on city A, or I will drop nukes on cities B and C".
Am I acting, or are you acting and and claiming to act on my behalf but without my consent?
wow im so supersitious now im scared 2 vote!
Rephrase that to "Nukes will be dropped on cities B and C if and only if you fail to press this button to drop a nuke on city A," and somehow assume that the person giving the ultimatum is perfectly trustworthy and correct, and in my opinion the person being given the dilemma could only be considered a mass murderer if he chose not to press the button.
What a morbid, thoroughly useless hypothetical.
Aren't they all....?
heres another moral dilemmia, and a common one today, sacrifice yourself for a complete stranger or sacrifice a complete stranger.
Some of them aren't all that morbid.
The action of indecision causes more death.
Yet I would pick that. I cannot doom anybody to death.
Giving ultimatums involving nuking cities seems incompatible with those two attributes.
this one isn't
regardless of the car you call, getting them to pull over before they cross the bridge will be rather difficult. "you must be nuts!"
if you do succeed, those who are saved will likely wonder how the hell you knew about the bridge collapsing before it collapsed. you'll probably go to prison.
all that said, i would call car A in the hopes they could stop car B and car C.
As for the original question, option C is the only moral option. i will not participate in acts of murder. i would lunge at the person who was directing the whole affair in the hopes of stopping all the murders. nor will i play God and decide who should die.
I agree. The next moral dilemma should be more in the line of: Button A, you get a slice of pie, Button B, 3 people dear to you get a slice of pie, C 10 random people get a slice of pie.
Separate names with a comma.