I actually enjoy these problems, because they make me feel like a supervillain.

Tom wrote:

Heeby Jeeby wrote:

Tom wrote:

B_M_L wrote:The difference is that in option 2 you could jump yourself. You don't have to kill someone innocent to save the lives of others.

In this senario would you push fatty? Or give your own life.

Beat me to the punch.

You could try to land on the windshield of the train.

No fucking way. The situation described in the original post implies the 'large man' will stop the train. Linguistically you are lead to believe it is his large size that will stop the train not the engineer noticing. It's supposed to be a dilemma not a riddle.

If this is indeed the 'right' answer then it really is a good test...to find out what percentage of people are big fat fucking liars.

Go on someone be the first to say that they'd jump off on to the train to save the workers lives...


LIAR!

A. I'm a large guy.
B. I don't agree with your interpretation. I think the person needs to be large enough to make an impact to get his attention. You'd have to be like 4 tons to actually stop a train. A skinny fella, the train would run over without noticing. A Man with form would make more of a thud.

I have no hesitancy in saying that I wouldn't jump off to save the four workers. If I knew them and liked them, I probably would. I don't so I won't.
Plus I'm a skinny guy and would most likely be blown off course by the wind before I even reached the train.

I don't think it is the same scenario, as version B involves actively killing a man, while version A has the option of not doing anything at all. End result would be the same, but the scenario is not. There was (probably there is still, but no one cares) a hundreds year long dicussion about exactly this type of thing. Thomas Aquinas would say that it is ethical not to take any action in both scenario as lesser evil is never-ever a suitable tactic for a Christan. I was arguing with an philosophy proffesor over what would Imanuel Kant (hee-hee) say in this case, and he claimed Kant would opt for not doing a thing as you can't take the responsibility for what happens in the future (so, you don't KNOW people are going to be run over, you only assume so, but you are taking actions to kill a man because of your assumtions). He (the proffesor) was probably right.


Here is a dillema which is much more interesting to me:

What would be worse: a man sticking a knife into an melon (no links to the recent c/nc thread) thinking it's an infant, or a man sticking a knife into an infant thinking it is a melon.

This one is a Christian ethic killer in my opinion (and not only in my opinion), as according to it, the biggest evil man can achieve is to have his intentions wrong, so an infant dying as a result of someone's fuck up is better than melon getting stabbed because someone intended to kill an infant but screwed it up.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:I don't think it is the same scenario, as version B involves actively killing a man, while version A has the option of not doing anything at all. End result would be the same, but the scenario is not.

I don't follow. Option B has the option of doing nothing at all.
In either case, you have the option of actively killing someone or passively killing 4.


oh... and...



Is this what you meant by stabbing a melon?

is it wrong if i trick a melon into fucking me by pretending to be rich?

Uhm, yeah, fucked up about the scenarios that. But I think rest of my post still stands.


AND

myself wrote:(no links to the recent c/nc thread)

jimmy spako wrote:is it wrong if i trick a melon into fucking me by pretending to be rich?

It's wrong-er that you wasted some perfectly good rohypnol in the process.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:Thomas Aquinas would say that it is ethical not to take any action in both scenario as lesser evil is never-ever a suitable tactic for a Christan. … Kant would opt for not doing a thing as you can't take the responsibility for what happens in the future (so, you don't KNOW people are going to be run over, you only assume so, but you are taking actions to kill a man because of your assumtions).

Both are wrong/immoral because they take the view that not participating is ‘not acting’ and therefore bearing moral responsibility. In fact not participating or remaining inactive in the incident is actually an action – negatively influencing the outcome.

While we have no way of knowing with certainty the outcome of a scenario, our experience and judgement allows us to understand the likely outcome.

If I witness an immoral act, but choose not to prevent it from occurring then this action is as immoral as if I participated.

B_M_L wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:Thomas Aquinas would say that it is ethical not to take any action in both scenario as lesser evil is never-ever a suitable tactic for a Christan. … Kant would opt for not doing a thing as you can't take the responsibility for what happens in the future (so, you don't KNOW people are going to be run over, you only assume so, but you are taking actions to kill a man because of your assumtions).

Both are wrong/immoral because they take the view that not participating is ‘not acting’ and therefore bearing moral responsibility. In fact not participating or remaining inactive in the incident is actually an action – negatively influencing the outcome.

While we have no way of knowing with certainty the outcome of a scenario, our experience and judgement allows us to understand the likely outcome.

If I witness an immoral act, but choose not to prevent it from occurring then this action is as immoral as if I participated.

100% on the ball correct.

I am that very large man. You wanna push me off that bridge? Come on twiggy, try it.