{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/6/2015 12:06:46 PM
64
Is it moral flood?
Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of multiple innocent people?
Take the Trolley problem for example.
Let's see what you degenerate liberals think.
-
Basically either you support saving Hitler or killing Hitler. Save lives or continue to risk them.
-
Pull the lever, push the fat man, etc., it's the right thing to do...
-
1 ReplyMaybe sometimes the right thing to do technically isn't morally acceptable? A friend of mine had a baby and asked me, "isn't she beautiful?" That was the ugliest baby I've ever seen, but I said, "yes!" Morally, lying is wrong, but there was no way I was gonna tell my buddy that he has an ugly baby
-
3 RepliesEdited by half an idea: 5/8/2015 12:29:56 PMIs it right to kill five innocent people to save one person today, if tomorrow all six will die anyway but if there is only one person they will live for five days extra and have a chance to die of old age?
-
4 RepliesEdited by half an idea: 5/8/2015 12:29:36 PMNever a lender or a borrower be, a rule I live by. I would break off the lever walk to the single person I saved and put the lever through their chest. It isn't fair to let the one person know I saved their life and feel eternally in debt to me. I don't want anyone indebted to me. [spoiler]being a sociopath has some moral questions sorted easily.[/spoiler]
-
kill 1 save 1000
-
1 ReplyBut... But batman always finds c.
-
2 Replies"The need of the many outweighs the needs of the few" -Gandalf, the star wars trilogy
-
2 RepliesI thought Batman was the master of finding option C...
-
1 ReplyUh....... You will be missed.
-
Well no witnesses........
-
1 ReplyUnder those particular parameters, it boils down to the difference between morals and desires. Morally, sacrificing one to save more is the right choice. However, actively having to be responsible for that death is a harsh thing to have to face.
-
Edited by Onxide: 5/7/2015 1:22:06 PMI'd rather not kill any innocent people... I would try to save all of them.
-
8 RepliesWith 7 billion people on the planet 5 random people's lives aren't that important so I would let it go. A side thought I had was that I'd feel more ok morally to let it hit the 5 people because it's not my fault they are there but I'd be completely responsible for the death of the one if I switched it.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Tormented_Anus: 5/7/2015 5:55:59 AMYou talk about human lives as if they matter. Ogres are the dominant species and we shall inherit this Earth from you [i]Homo Sapien[/i] scum
-
1 ReplyDepends on who it is.
-
2 RepliesIf they're random people, I would pull the lever. If a loved one was the one person, I would pretend I never knew the lever existed. It's not my fault five dipshits are standing on a railroad! Talking to you too mom! Get off the railroad for fûcks sake!
-
I'd kill two people to save the lives of many.
-
The needs of one are out-weighed by the needs of the many.
-
It's common sense. Moral idk
-
utilitarianism
-
I Will Eat Them All. To Be Fair.
-
It all depends on how much you value life. If you don't mind taking another's life, it would be acceptable to save the 5 others in your mind. If you couldn't bring yourself to take someone's life, You could choose to (though hesitantly) ignore the trolley all together.
-
1 Replyis the single person a hot girl?
-
I would rather let people die, than take someone's life. I will not be responsible for any loss of life. The people that were tied up were not there by my hand, and I am not the one damning them. If I can save them, I would try, but I would not damn someone else to save people.
-
No. It is unfortunate for the 5, but I wouldn't kill the one person who wasn't at all supposed to be involved in the accident. It's morally incorrect.
