Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Strongly Agree

1 (2.9%)

Agree

0 (0%)

Neutral/Tossup

12 (35.3%)

Disagree

13 (38.2%)

Strongly Disagree

8 (23.5%)

Total Members Voted: 34

[Shambling Zombie]

When the situation was "Five people are trapped on a railway, and the train is coming. The only way to save them is to drop something big and heavy on the rail line, but unfortunately somebody is trapped directly under the only heavy object available. No-one on the train is in harm's way, no matter what happens." The results, I believe, were quite split.

It must be getting late, I have read this several times and can not make sence of it. If somebody is trapped under said object, wouldn't getting the object off of him, and onto the track, save all 6 of them?

You humans are all emotionalists

It is a trait that has lead race for some time, it works for us.

Whoops, that was a poorly worded bit. I meant the object is hanging like a cartoon anvil above them, and you can drop it down onto them. They're trapped in some form of... trap, and can't move, except just enough to avoid the train, unless they get smooshed.

Yeah, I always wondered how a fat guy could stop a train too.

[Max White]

Ooh, I get it, so he gets flattened. Cool.

Well I would do nothing on all three accounts. No action when not in a formal position means no responsibility, atleast in my warped sence of morals that act to justify my actions rather then guide them. 

[Taricus]

When the situation was "Five people are trapped on a railway, and the train is coming. The only way to save them is to drop something big and heavy on the rail line, but unfortunately somebody is trapped directly under the only heavy object available. No-one on the train is in harm's way, no matter what happens." The results, I believe, were quite split.

It must be getting late, I have read this several times and can not make sence of it. If somebody is trapped under said object, wouldn't getting the object off of him, and onto the track, save all 6 of them?

You humans are all emotionalists

It is a trait that has lead race for some time, it works for us.

Whoops, that was a poorly worded bit. I meant the object is hanging like a cartoon anvil above them, and you can drop it down onto them. They're trapped in some form of... trap, and can't move, except just enough to avoid the train, unless they get smooshed.

Yeah, I always wondered how a fat guy could stop a train too.

Alright, where is the nearest comicly overweight person, we do this FOR SCIENCE.

[ECrownofFire]

Ooh, I get it, so he gets flattened. Cool.

Well I would do nothing on all three accounts. No action when not in a formal position means no responsibility, atleast in my warped sence of morals that act to justify my actions rather then guide them. 

That's taking the easy way out.

Okay, let's say you're the train operator in both cases.

[Max White]

Firstly, what two cases? There are three there... Secondly, being a train driver does not imply you are qualified to make this choice.

And realy, do you want me to be in a position of power? I mean me? Not safe for anybody involved, as people will start getting butchered for organs to save the people the organs are going to.

[Taricus]

Hey just keep it to the corpses and we'll be fine.

[Vector]

Haha, I remember when my mom asked this question.  I think I said something like "Unless the one person ranks up there with Albert Einstein, then logically I'm going to drop her and hate myself for the rest of my life."

She was pretty shocked that I didn't swap my answers like most of the businessmen and so on interviewed, but in high school we were specifically trained to look at these sorts of questions and realize when the results were effectively the same.

[ChairmanPoo]

How do you skin a liver 

Maybe he means the visceral peritoneum

[Leafsnail]

It's odd, because the context of one of these dilemnas can make a difference.  For instance:

You are a surgeon.  You have 5 patients who will die very soon if they do not receive vital organ transplants.  A healthy man walks in, and he just happens to have all 5 organs in working order and with the correct tissue type to transplant to the others.  If you murder him and harvest his organs, you can save all 5 of your patients.

(uh, with accompanying assumptions that "You won't get caught for his murder" and "Your transplant patients would be able to live full lives after a transplant").

It's harder because... well... you're clearly violating someone else's rights, and because it'd probably have a destabilising affect on society if all surgeons acted like this.

[Nadaka]

It's odd, because the context of one of these dilemnas can make a difference.  For instance:

You are a surgeon.  You have 5 patients who will die very soon if they do not receive vital organ transplants.  A healthy man walks in, and he just happens to have all 5 organs in working order and with the correct tissue type to transplant to the others.  If you murder him and harvest his organs, you can save all 5 of your patients.

(uh, with accompanying assumptions that "You won't get caught for his murder" and "Your transplant patients would be able to live full lives after a transplant").

It's harder because... well... you're clearly violating someone else's rights, and because it'd probably have a destabilising affect on society if all surgeons acted like this.

Since all 5 of your patients seem to have closely matched tissue types and they each have a different organ failure, you could probably take the first of them to die and use their good organs to save the other 4 without killing the random guy who walks into your office.

[Leafsnail]

If it's the same as blood types, then it could just be that the guy who walked in is double O negative (and is thus a universal donor).  If it isn't, then... I dunno, lol.

[Retro]

Everyone has rights. The healthy man goes free.

[Taricus]

Depends on his economic standing, if he's rich. Butcher him.

[CoughDrop]

For me, it would depend on what I think each person's ability would be to contribute to others if I chose for them to live. Usually five people would be able to contribute more than one person, but people do vary quite a lot. If the five patients were all regular people, and the healthy one was, say, a scientist working on stem cell research, I think you would agree to let the scientist live as chances are better he will benefit society more than the other five people combined. If say the five patients are just regular people, and the healthy one is, say, Kanye West... I'd so kill him to save the others.

[Leafsnail]

All of them would contribute about the same amount.