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

[CoughDrop]

I've got one:
Should this be payed for with tax money?

[AntiAntiMatter]

I've got one:
Should this be payed for with tax money?

No. Mainly due to a little thing called separation of church and state. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I also vote for a new topic.

Votes untill a new topic: 2

[Shambling Zombie]

Yeah, if I had a dolphin somehow in danger of a house fire, I'm afraid the human might not get chosen.

Dolphins are neat-o.

[Max White]

I've got one:
Should this be payed for with tax money?

[ECrownofFire]

I've got a better one.

"It is almost always right to sacrifice the few to save the many."

Please note that this is different than "the ends justifies the means". This is a very specific end, with a very specific means.

[Max White]

Question: Would the few that are getting 'sacrificed' be killed anyway if we didn't throw them into the fire? I mean there is a big differance between the standard 'One person stays behind to activate the airlock from the outside so the rest of the crew can survive' and 'five people who are all useful members of society are in need of organ transplants, so we grab a slacker and butcher him for organs.'

[ECrownofFire]

Question: Would the few that are getting 'sacrificed' be killed anyway if we didn't throw them into the fire? I mean there is a big differance between the standard 'One person stays behind to activate the airlock from the outside so the rest of the crew can survive' and 'five people who are all useful members of society are in need of organ transplants, so we grab a slacker and butcher him for organs.'

I'm going with the first one more than the other. The second one would lead to a more interesting discussion, but it's not really the point I'm bringing up here.

Quick edit: Although, it's more a situation of "either these people die, or everyone dies". The sacrificed may even be randomly chosen or be semi-random (for example, everybody in this area). Basically, the sacrifices are either 100% unwilling; or the first few are willing, but more need to be sacrificed.

Edit again: So I suppose it's comparable to the second example, but the first gives a better idea of it. I mean, the second is just unnecessarily killing a guy, when there are probably plenty of other viable donors somewhere out there (and if there isn't, well that's too bad). It's comparable to the second, but think on a larger scale. Sacrificing one guy (and rather unnecessarily as I said) to save five others isn't big enough. When I say "many", I mean lots of people. Five people aren't going to have a huge impact on society, whereas "many" are. Though that kind of thing leads into where you draw the line and whatever else, but that will come later I guess.

[Max White]

Noted! 

[Shambling Zombie]

I remember reading about a study someone did, where they asked random people what they'd do in such situations.

When the situation was "Five people are trapped on a railway, and the train is coming. The only way to save them is to pull the lever to switch to a seperate rail line, but a sixth person is on that line." Most people decided to pull the lever.

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.

When the situation was the same as the second example, but the heavy object was a person who would slow the train enough, rather than an object, most people would not push the person on the train tracks.

It seems that although the end results in each case are the same (one dead instead of five), humans generally see a big difference between the situations.

[ECrownofFire]

I remember reading about a study someone did, where they asked random people what they'd do in such situations.

When the situation was "Five people are trapped on a railway, and the train is coming. The only way to save them is to pull the lever to switch to a seperate rail line, but a sixth person is on that line." Most people decided to pull the lever.

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.

When the situation was the same as the second example, but the heavy object was a person who would slow the train enough, rather than an object, most people would not push the person on the train tracks.

It seems that although the end results in each case are the same (one dead instead of five), humans generally see a big difference between the situations.

It's because in the first example, you personally don't have to deal with the person. You are completely separated from them. The second has you deal with an actual person.

[Taricus]

I remember reading about a study someone did, where they asked random people what they'd do in such situations.

When the situation was "Five people are trapped on a railway, and the train is coming. The only way to save them is to pull the lever to switch to a seperate rail line, but a sixth person is on that line." Most people decided to pull the lever.

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.

When the situation was the same as the second example, but the heavy object was a person who would slow the train enough, rather than an object, most people would not push the person on the train tracks.

It seems that although the end results in each case are the same (one dead instead of five), humans generally see a big difference between the situations.

It's because in the first example, you personally don't have to deal with the person. You are completely separated from them. The second has you deal with an actual person.

You humans are all emotionalists

[Max White]

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.

[ECrownofFire]

As an aside, how could a person be heavy enough to stop a train? Even if somebody could be, they'd be too heavy to move in that case.

[Max White]

As an aside, how could a person be heavy enough to stop a train? Even if somebody could be, they'd be too heavy to move in that case.

Never let newtoniam physics get in the way of a good moral debate.