What If

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 02 May 2006, 12:24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

Interesting article and you can take part in the polls.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 02 May 2006, 13:10

Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Hell no. I'm not gonna waste 9 months to save a violinist.

Should you flip the switch?

Nope. 5 people vs 1 person.
If I do nothing, I'm not responsible for killing 5 people.
If I flip it, I'm responsible for killing 1 person. Easy maths.

Should you push the fat man?

'Course not. That's murder.

Should you blast Big Jack out?

Yes. Stupid git should have gone on a diet. It's his fault.

Easy polls.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 May 2006, 13:52

I would have flipped the switch, killing 1 instead of 5.
Also, I would have pushed the fat guy of the bridge probably, if I knew for sure that 5 others would live... (although it's kinda weird that I DO have time to push the fat guy onto the tracks, yet I dont have time to shout out to those bastards to get out of the way!?)

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 02 May 2006, 13:54

Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Yes. But not because he is a popular violinist, but because he is a human being I can save without being harmed myself. What would seem odd to me though is the fact that they got me connected to him and not a family member though.

Anyway... I'd probably get one hell of a reward considering the fact that he is so popular. I mean he should ne rich.

Should you flip the switch?

Tough one. I disagree with Tom when he says that he isn't responsible for the 5 people's death. Maybe not directly, but you had the chance to save them. You say "easy maths", but I think it's way easier maths to save 5 families from suffering a tragedy than having 1 family. So in total you would have spared 4 tragedies.

Should you push the fat man?

LOL, they explain "the philosophical puzzle" behind why people would flip a switch, but not push the fat man. Their explanation is shit though. In the switch-case there is no alternative. In The Fat Man case, he is the more secure alternative to rescuing the people.

The questions are all mindless to me anyway, as I believe that we will never be able to tell if a person will die from something or not (unless it is beheading or so).

Should you blast Big Jack out?

Well, "Big Jack" can be lucky that I am Bauer Jack... uhm... Jack Bauer and I always find a way.
Man, what a stupid question. Big Jack would die anyway. It's his decision to die in a cruel way by drowning (probably the most gruesome death) or by having a dynamite stick explode in his ass. I'd rather take number 2.

Besides... one of the most unlikely things to happen is to get stuck in a hole. This is also very often rudiculously portrayed in movies. People getting stuck in ventilation shafts etc. Bollocks. Unless Big Jack was fired into the hole by a torpedo launcher, it seems very unlikely.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 02 May 2006, 14:06

@LD:
About the trolley: Letting people die is different from killing people.

There's no difference between the switch and the fat man. In both cases you have to choose between letting things happen and taking action.
In both cases, taking action is murder. In both cases, it's wrong (and I don't care how many people it can save).

BTW: I would never kill one man to save many (even millions).
However, I would kill one man (or millions if necessary

) to save myself.
In other words: say "bye-bye", Big Jack.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 May 2006, 14:31

Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

No. If it was a loved one I'd do it though.

Should you flip the switch?

I voted yes, however, I can see the flipside of the argument, and would have major qualms either way.

Should you push the fat man?

No.

Should you blast Big Jack out?

Yes. Not that I would've let him go first anyways.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 May 2006, 14:41

The violinist is a tough one - its' obviously a metaphor for the pro-choice argument for when a woman is pregant - you play the mother and the violinist plays the baby, ie as long as a woman has taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant she need go full term with her baby. What about if the woman got pregnant without her consent?
I know the violinist is a fellow human being, but if he doesnt have anty special meaning to ME (he does to the musicians?) I wouldnt save him.

As Mark says, if it was a loved one I would do it probably.

Its interesting to compare the fat man to Iraq - was it right through intervention to kill the people we have in order to save a far larger number that were being killed under the regime of Saddam? In that case the same standards must be applied to the first trolley puzzle - I'd flip the switch to save 5 people.
"The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few"

Mark why would you flip the switch but not push the fat man? Isnt the principle the same?

On the other hand, with the 5 v 1 people thing it obviously assumes everyone is the same type of people. You might save a serial killer or kill a brilliant doctor/scientist. Could you live with that?

Would you rather Rooney was injured and didnt go to the World Cup, or that 5 other players were injured and Rooney was fully fit? Same argument, with England losing 1 person is surely better than losing 5.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 May 2006, 14:57

Tom2681 wrote:
BTW: I would never kill one man to save many (even millions).
However, I would kill one man (or millions if necessary ) to save myself.
In other words: say "bye-bye", Big Jack.

I guess I'm the opposite. I would kill someone to save others, and I wouldnt kill others to save myself (depending on who they are obviously. Obviously if I get attacked by people, I shall kill them) but if it's about escaping atragedy alongside a group of people, I'd rather see the children and maybe women get out alive first before me...)

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 May 2006, 17:07

grim_tales wrote:Mark why would you flip the switch but not push the fat man? Isnt the principle the same?

It almost is, that's why I was unsure.

Could you live with that?

No, which is why if it came to the crunch I'd probably do nothing and let nature take its course.

Would you rather Rooney was injured and didnt go to the World Cup, or that 5 other players were injured and Rooney was fully fit? Same argument, with England losing 1 person is surely better than losing 5.

I couldn't care less. I'll be grinning ear-to-ear if the fat spud misses the World Cup. Like this.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 May 2006, 17:20

Gah, OK - assuming Scotland qualified, would you rather lose 1 player who cou7ld turn a game, or lose 5 players but have the talisman fit?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 May 2006, 01:36

You could lose all eleven Scottish players and it wouldn't make a difference.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 03 May 2006, 09:08

Ok Mark ok... ehmm... so what if... ehm... Ok...

WHAT IF ALL the Scotland fans in the stadium lost their voices so they couldnt root their team on, ORRRrrrr .... the Scottish team couldnt have their half-time beer-keg!?!?