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

I'd just throw a side of bacon off the bridge and let your natural instincts do the rest.

If you've got a lever in your hand, this iminent crash is presumably your fault for being a hopeless signalman, non?

Throw yourself - is your duty.

In part two, you and your trainspotter friend could have no idea as to whether a body on the track would stop the train. Like as not, you'd hurl the big guy onto the track only to discover that (having killed Big Tony) the 4 workers (being fully aware of the oncoming train) simply stood aside to allow the train harmless passage.

You'd get proper banged-up fo' moydah! You dummy!

Heeby Jeeby wrote:

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

I'd just throw a side of bacon off the bridge and let your natural instincts do the rest.

I don't dig on no swine, honky.

I neither pull the switch nor push the large man. I would yell and wave my arms and try to get the workers' attention and they would die. Their safety is not my responsibility; it's theirs and/or the conductor's. I don't see any difference in allowing 4 people to die through my inaction or directly causing one person to die. The four men on the first track are unlucky. The train is on that track for a reason and switching it to another track is not my decision to make. I am a hapless observer. In Situation B there is no way in hell I'm pushing someone in front of a train. In both situations taking action will also result in a huge hassle w/r/t explaining what I did and dealing with any possible consequences.

I'd rather watch 4 people get hit by a train than one, I bet it's fucking awesome.

the answer is, you yell at the top of your lungs...

HEY THERE'S A FUCKING TRAIN COMING! GET OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY!

these idiots can't hear, or see a train coming?

it says nothing about them not being able to hear you.

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.

No. Emmanuelle Aquinas took the words out of my mouth. One is in no position to judge morality, relative or absolute, if the bargain he is striking involves killing with intent.

Do I have time to run to Wendy's and buy a Frosty, get back and hurl it at the 4 dudes right before they get hit by the train so not only are they gonna be dead but their last few moments are spent fucking enraged because some asshole threw a melted frosty all over them?

If so, that's what I wanna do.

And I yell 'fuck you!' at them and flip them the bird when they spot me after I throw it.

Yeah, that's what I wanna do.

is this gonna be graded?

I make the choice where everyone dies.