Morals

I'm curious to what peoples views are and would like for you to think about this.

Ok, scenario. There's a train track that divides into two tracks, one with ten people tied to the rails, and the other with one. There is a train heading towards the intersection between the two and you can control which track the train follows. Which track would you send the train down? Obviously most of you would say the track with only one person, as it would save ten people.

In theory, one death is a much better outcome then ten.

Now, lets say the one person was a loved one, Would this change your answer? Would you sacrifice ten people that also have loved ones, for your loved one?

How about this one.

There's a train heading towards two people and the only way to save them is to push someone in front of the tracks. Would you push them onto the tracks and kill them, to save two? In theory the right thing would be to push that person onto the tracks, But would you? Would it be moral to kill them to save others? How many would it take for it to be moral to kill someone?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't want stupid answers or what if's, just pick one of the two options.

 

Death is Death. The death of anyone is bad. Which is why I would do everything in my power to keep everyone alive and avoid death. I may fail, but, I could live with myself knowing I gave it my all to save those who were in trouble.

 

You're basicly asking us:
Kill 1 person or 10 persons.
Kill 1 person you love, or 10 persons.
Kill 1 person or let 2 persons die?

What's wrong with you?
You're a horrible person if you let people make a choice on how many people they have to kill.

 

Ok, I'll tell you what. If we ever come into the situation where we need to push someone into a train to save someone, I'll PM you the answer.

 

In the heat of the moment, no matter who the person, I would probably push them out of the way and sacrifice my life.

 

In the first one, I'd kill my family to save the 10 others.


They have family as well as I do, I may love that 1 person alot, but 10 people, that's alot of love.


Anywase, for the second one.

I would throw myself to save the 2 others.

 

Would you sacrifice ten people that also have loved ones, for your loved one?

yes

Would you push them onto the tracks and kill them, to save two?

no

 

Its one thing to say you will save the ten people and one thing to actually do

 

I don't care about other people, I care about myself, my family, my friends and people I like/respect/care about.

I would not take my own life to save 2 random people I don't know lives, actually I don't think I would take my life for anyone, except if this persons life meant humanity's freedom or something that important.

If that 1 person on the tracks was person worth saving, I would chose him over the others, what would I gain from saving 10 people I do not know?

I would chose my brother over a MILLION people.

You could do whatever you want, that's my opinion.

 

This is basically asking us if we are homicidal? wow.. lol and no i would not do any of them.

 

No, its asking what would you choose.

If you do nothing, someones going to die anyway. Not making a choice is a choice in itself. You are choosing to either let 10 people die or your loved one to die. Your not killing anyone, your choosing who to save.

I posted this a few days ago and nothing happened so i thought it didnt work so i posted this in the general thread so if anyone says "you posted this twice bla bla" dont.

 

There is no true answer to this question. The question is rigged in that it allows people to feel morally higher by allowing someone to die.

What I'd do is try, in the heat of the moment, to find a way out that wouldn't end in death.

 

You cant. either do nothing and someone dies, or choose how many dies.

What you would do in the heat of the moment, is hide and do nothing. You arnt strong enough to live with yourself knowing your direct actions took someones life, tho it also saved more. But you dont realise is that by doing nothing, your just as much killing someone as doing it.

And ffs, dont over think it.

 

What? If you had the power to save 10 people at the epense of 1, you would think that is a bad thing? What if it was 100, 1000, 1000000 people? would it be wrong to let one person die to save 1 million?

By not choosing, your still making a choice. someones still going to die. So, would you rather it be 10 people or 1?

Our government chooses to sacrifice peoples lives to save others. hundreds of thousands of people died in world war 2, There life was exchanged for our freedom.

 

I would, of course, sacrifice the one person or the 10.

I would still sacrifice the one person, even though they are a loved one. Think of it this way:

If you save your loved one, your sacrificing 10 other people's loved ones, and since it is not moral to cause any type of pain to another person, you should take the pain for the other 10.

 

If it were ten people and one person, whom I did not know, then I would save the ten, and kill the one.

If it were ten people and one person, and the one was a loved on, then I would save the one, and kill the ten. It's a no-brainer.

If I could save one person, and kill the other, and I knew neither, then I'd probably leave it to chance. Whether it be the time to flip a coin, or simply out of randomness. It's not like I can have a sure answer for either, and it'd be impossible to practice favoritism, so ..

-.-

Or you could stop trying to be hancock, and simply push them out of the way, sparing both of your lives?

 

First off, can't really take the questions serious because they're so illogical. But, of course you choose the lesser amount of people, but honestly I would save a loved one because I have no connection to the others.

 

Loved one.

I really don't care about people i dont know.

 

How is it illogical? Also, how could it be a no-brainer to choose the lesser amount of people, unless it be a loved one? You make no sense.

 

If the train is headed towards the 10 people, then to redirect it is to murder one person. Where do you draw your objective line where the end ceases to justify the means?