Morality question from NPR...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 30 2007, 07:56 PM) [snapback]504682[/snapback]</div>

Reading "carefully" and comprehending are two different things. <_<
You can carefully read all the words and letters, but that doesn't mean you are comprehending what is being said.

Just like an electric circuit, no switch needed to be thrown for a train to "accidentally" sneak up behind the five idiots. It was a live track (circuit). But, in addition to a train "accidentally" being given permission to proceed down the track from behind, a switch also needed to be thrown in order for the smart person to be killed from behind.

The smart person was facing the proper direction. A train could have approached from that direction, but that too was less likely than on the idiots' track. A train which would have approached head-on would have soon derailed at the open switch, (the one you would not have then felt a need to throw in order to save five idiots' lives.

And another thing. The smart person was working alone because he was smart enough to do the job by himself. It took five idiots to do the job on the other track . . . and as Wildkow said, the five were not even smart enough to watch each others' back while working on a live track.

Under the second scenario, I wouldn't have pushed you. :wub:
I would have seen the developing scenario, and done some quick calculations. Save five idiots on one hand, or continue to talk a confused girl (you) out of committing suicide. That's the only scenario I could imagine where you and I would be together on top of a bridge overlooking train tracks. :lol:

All you other murderers, FO' SHAME! <_<

 

Well crap since so many people are being honest this is truly what I would have done in each scenario listed above.

1) Wouldn’t have changed the track cause it more fun to watch five men running around screaming like little girls trying to get out of the way from the speeding locomotive than just one guy. Besides according to SPE’s interpretation of Darwin’s law these dumb asses were working on a live track without a lookout and deserve some Darwinian justice.

2) I would wait until the last second to toss the stranger from the bridge as a warning to the five Darwinian dumb asses below. That way they could experience the death of another human being right before the speeding train ends theirs. That kind of distraction from their own impending death is the humane thing to do.

3) As for Mr. Logical, Spock I would have kicked that dumb nice person in the nads (do vulcans have nads?) and then clipped his eyebrows and ears afterwards for my souvenir collection. Logical? Give me a break if you want logic keep reading.

4) As for the kidnapper with 5 people you don’t know, a loaded gun and the anonymous stranger you’re supposed to kill, easy, toss a coin. Can you imagine the look on his face? LOL! Priceless!

5) Is it murder? Sure, why not? Is murder OK? Sure, why not? This isn’t rocket science, geez get a clue.

6) Kill Hilter, nah just think of all those great medical discoveries we’d never enjoy. Kill Stalin? Heck no we wouldn’t have 1/10th as many nukes without Stalin around.

7) Stand by and do nothing? OK doesn’t sound like as much fun as tossing the guy off the bridge just as the train gets there but it’s still a five count for the death toll.

8) Some lurking pervert with a gun shooting children? Wait to make sure he really is gonna shoot the kids then shoot him afterwards when he tries to get away. That’s the only way to be absolutely sure that he wasn’t a bonafide hunter with poor eye sight.

9) Shoot him in the leg or the trigger arm? Why not? Then once between the eyes and you’ll have no worries about the bastard suing you.

10) Take care of the kid with a Partial Birth Abortion before it needs the expensive medicine. It’s the humane thing to do. Why make it suffer through all that sickness, suffering and misery if it is eventually going to die anyway’s.

11) Push the Pharmacist in front of the train? You are one sick, sick puppy! I like that kind of honesty in a person.

12) Explicit right to a safe and healthy place of employment?!? No wonder all these products I buy costs so much.

13) A military aspect sounded good from the start but you must be some kind of pansy nice person if you can’t make a case for being pro-war. Personally I think it would have been a perfect scenario for the use of nookielar weapons.

14) Darwinian meddlers? Brilliant minds think alike what can I say? Props to you son!

15) Sacrifice or suicide? In both cases you’re dead so what’s the difference or the big deal? Only a dumb nice person would do that.

OK so there it is, I’ve been honest to a fault, but if I get called on anything, I’m blaming it on the mods. It’s the only intellectually prudent thing to do.

God Bless you one and all.

Wildkow

p.s. Really what’s the big deal? Kill them all and let God sort them out it’s the only way to be 100% sure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 31 2007, 01:58 AM) [snapback]504775[/snapback]</div>

Kow, I think you've nailed it. Nothing like insomnia to clear the cobwebs out - and everyone and everything else with it! :lol:

P.S. Did you get WAY more than you asked for from Tony re: my avatar? - and hopefully got your questions answered?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Aug 30 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]504491[/snapback]</div>

You are an idiot... and must be a liberal.



It amazes me..

What I take from this question - and more importantly it's answers....

If you are a liberal - the men will die - because you will all be too busy talking about the consequences and who deserves to die and if it's right if they die and if it's legal to even pull the lever ... whos feelings will be hurt etc....


Oh god just shut up and let a conservative just do it already.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 31 2007, 04:58 AM) [snapback]504775[/snapback]</div>

I <3 you.

You left one out tho..

16) Since they are union (most likely) they have nice life insurance policies... their families will have a windfall - and increase their spending, hence bringing prosperity to the economy... Increase consumer spending!!! However - because of the red tape to follow the death of the train workers - the train company under siege by liberals claiming they don't take enough precautions - the stock will fall... so..

I'd Leave the lever - call my stock broker and sell shares of train company. Buy Shares in Train companies Competition...

So - I've now turned Murder into Profit!! I win!!!

 

I log onto a website for a quick moment to see if there is any useful or interesting information regarding my Prius.

After stumbling upon a thread attempting to dissect an impossible scenario, I...



A.) Spend valuable seconds of my life on an answer that no one actually cares to hear.

or

B.) Hit the "back" button and do something usefull.



B.)

 

Pull but not push.
Save 5 or 1, save 5
I would never consider pushing a person off a bridge as a distraction for a train driver or anyone so that was easy, the death of 5 in this instance isn't my fault, the death of 1 would be if I did have the totally insane idea of pushing some joker off the bridge. I know this isn't allowed but I might throw my shirt at the driver.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(oxnardprof @ Aug 30 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]504610[/snapback]</div>

Yes, they have a right to a safe workplace, however certain jobs are considered higher risk than others. If you sit at a desk all day working on a computer, you generally accept the risks that come with it - carpal tunnel, for example. Likewise, if you work in a lab for the CDC studying various deadly diseases, you run the risk of ripping your suit and becoming exposed. As part of the job, you accept these risks, with the understanding that all possible efforts will be made to minimize them. The same goes for workers working on the track - they know efforts are made to minimize their risk, but at the same time they know and accept the risk associated with their jobs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 30 2007, 10:55 PM) [snapback]504711[/snapback]</div>

Like you might see on the TV show House, i would let the healthy person live, and convince one of the patients that they should give it up and donate their (supposedly) healthy organs to the other 4. Granted, i'm not a doctor, but i figure a failing liver (say, due to alcohol abuse) doesn't impact the usefulness of the heart or lungs in any great way.

In fact, there was an episode of House that dealt with something similar - Two brothers, one healthy one needing his bone marrow. In the end, the healthy one had a cold, so they actually made him worse (intentionally) in order to find out what it was and try to fix it in time to save the other brother. They almost ended up killing both kids.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Aug 30 2007, 05:00 PM) [snapback]504505[/snapback]</div>

This is a fast decision situation, which precludes any prolonged logical analysis. The problem as stated does not properly test the ethical question. If you are willing to abstract it away from this flawed example, then my answer is simple: if someone has to die, then I'll pick the smallest number, assuming I have no other information.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 31 2007, 02:43 AM) [snapback]504784[/snapback]</div>

I'm still reading!

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Aug 31 2007, 05:01 AM) [snapback]504786[/snapback]</div>

Oh was my comment to complex? I believe that I answered the question that was not part of the original post. Is murder OK? I never said that self defense, medical necessity or other important decisions would not sway me into having to make that decision. I can make the decision to defend myself or family etc with lethal force and still not be OK with as I would like to (ideally) have had an option to *not* kill. Just me .. being pro life and anti killing whenever possible.

nevertheless these are NOT part of the original question. it was stated that there are no consequences (other then who dies) and no deviation from the outcome (no derailing the train, power outage or whatever)


oh and thanks for the mental health assessment! that was gem of a contribution...really



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Aug 31 2007, 10:15 AM) [snapback]504896[/snapback]</div>

BOINGO !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(WFO @ Aug 31 2007, 03:38 AM) [snapback]504789[/snapback]</div>

Silly person this is FHoP read the rules. <_<

Wildkow

p.s. Welcome to Priuschat.com and especially to FHoP, where anything goes and the First Amendment is your friend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Aug 31 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]504904[/snapback]</div>

The question is totally irrelevant given the circumstances.

It doesn't matter. Pull the Lever...


It's not a debate - it's not the time to split hairs - your delay in action caused further death.

Pull the lever.

It's not time to form a committee to spend months to debate the issue and how it could effect everyones feelings.

Pull the lever.

It's not time to think, "well - is murder right?" if I pull the lever i'm committing murder! -

Pull the lever.


But to answer your question.

Yes - Murder is OKAY - in fact - it's the way of the world (most carnivores kill their own food)

as long as you are murdering someone who sucks money out of our economy.

I.E. Welfare Crack Heads - Convicted Felons for Life, Habitual Homeless and fat people.

 

LOL ... you are something. What you are proposing is justifiable homicide, not murder. AMTD:

"Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Murder is distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice and the lack of justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and impose a severe penalty for its commission.

Sometimes murder is used to describe what is really a homicide. While the two terms are similar they are not synonymous. Although all murders are homicides, only intentional homicides are murders."

btw I did answer the original dilemma see if you can find it perhaps my stab at a society to sue your nice person off for making either decision got things muddled. So I will clarify


1. Pull the lever
2. Nothing (but yell although it useless)


I wish you happy and relaxing holiday weekend. Go hug a Prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]504413[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I'm taking this too personal, but I find this quite offensive and insulting. Where the hell did you get an atheist who enjoyed murdering Christians? I know lots of atheists, both on PC and in real life, and they are kind, caring, people. There may be a few fanatics out there, but it can't possibly be as many as the religious fanatics!

So, was the whole point of that post to spew hatred? Should we read it backwards, to say that if you saw atheists on the tracks you wouldn't save them?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]504413[/snapback]</div>

Again, you are saying that atheists are going to physically attack you because you tried to "save" them. This is stupid. Sure, some people will deck you if you get in their face with ANYTHING that they don't want to hear. It doesn't have to be religious. But a Christian approached by a proselytizing Buddhist isn't necessarily going to be any more kind to him. CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON GOODWILL. Far from it. There are MANY MANY examples of Christians who do not follow the golden rule. You would be one of them. If you would let the atheists die, then you do not even follow the basic teachings of Christianity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Aug 31 2007, 10:23 PM) [snapback]505262[/snapback]</div>

ooh easy there cowboy. the suck money out of the economy statement for exactly those and others you mention, was used 65 years ago mein freund. and that is/was and never will be OK! and it is not homicide it is murder (thanks for the definition Lyw)

best be more selective in your word choices here..


oh my choices to the original post:

1. do nothing
2. do nothing

cause I just couldn't do it, lame I know but hey I am honest

 

___________________________________

To hit on the original topic...

To say that we can't think of other ways out of the scenario in my mind misses the point. You should always look for a better answer, when the choices presented are all bad. For me, I would not pull the lever, hoping that the five men (who are all miraculously going to be looking the other way when the train comes?) see or hear it in time to warn each other. The single man stands less of a chance of being warned. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But this situation or any like it strikes me as so incredibly unlikely that I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Aug 31 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]505305[/snapback]</div>

The key to understanding this post is the outrageousness of the responses and this little guy right here and yes you are taking it far too personally. BTW my three best friends are all atheists or reject God because they perceive God to be aloof, arbitrary and capricious. Yet I still consider them some of the best friends I have ever had.

Please have another look at the post you are using to castigate me. Do you recall this? . . .
Q1) Well what if the one man on the other track was an atheist and the other five were Christians in that case I would not throw the switch.

Only if one deliberately ignores this aspect of my post could someone accuse me of allowing atheists to die or killing atheist. I believe that you must have misunderstood it, because it says that if I had known that the five men on the track were Christians I would not have thrown the switch. This would allow the train to continue upon its way killing the five Christian men rather than the one atheist walking alone on the other siding. Why? Because I believe the five men in a better position to meet their maker and the judgment to come than the one atheist. Thus allowing the atheist a bit more time to reconsider his position and beliefs about God.

Thank you for reconsidering your reply to the post above and this post and I hope it clears up your misperceptions.


Wildkow

edited on 09/01/07 to reflect the fact that I left the little character out in the original or first posting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 1 2007, 01:02 AM) [snapback]505326[/snapback]</div>

So you are stating that you would let the Christians die out of concern for the soul of the atheist? That's a rather odd position, but OK.

Yet you ignored half of my post as well, and chose to focus on my accusation about killing an atheist. Regardless, you still stated in your original post that you felt an atheist would gleefully kill a Christian. That was the part I took offense at, and you have not even commented on it. Probably you don't see a problem with it. I'm sure your three "friends" would be happy to throw you off a bridge.

requoted for clarification

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Sep 1 2007, 06:56 AM) [snapback]505393[/snapback]</div>

It was worded like that for outrageous shock value and tongue in cheek humor. I apologize.

Wildkow

 

well for those of us, who are not able to distinguish between your joke/pun and your serious face perhaps a little would help?