{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by epicone365:
7/22/2015 9:14:21 AM
211
I have a deep, philosophical question for you all
You are beside two train tracks. One of which has an infant baby on it and the other has two grown men and one woman. The two tracks come from a fork in the original track, and there is a speeding train going down it. You are helpless to stop it and have no way of saving these human beings. You do, however, have a choice. Choose Option A and you switch the tracks for the child to be slaughtered, or Option B, and switch the tracks so that those poor men and women die. Which one is morally correct?
Edit1: So far it seems, as quoted by Talos, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Edit2: You can't put the track in the middle, nor can the people save themselves. They are tied up.
Edit3: For those trying to break the rules and derail the train, [url=http://youtu.be/2lFKgC-k4Ts]this[/url] is what happens and it kills everyone.
Edit4: If you do nothing then you will be killed by crazed satanists and will be sacrificed to the devil in the most painful and excruciating way.
English
#Offtopic
-
I save the baby. Why? 1.Less mouths to feed 2. I can raise it 3. People are evil but not that baby yet 4. Seems shady that three would be there, they did something wrong likely
-
1 ReplySave the kid and then go stomp on it anyway
-
7 RepliesOption C- do nothing. The universe decides their fate and I will not play "God"
-
2 RepliesYou don't do anything. If you don't touch the lever, then you can't be responsible and the guilt is less. The same outcome would happen even if you weren't there if you don't mess with it. You never specified which track it was taking in the first place but, yeah.
-
3 RepliesWhy couldn't I untie them with my knives that I would be carrying at that time
-
I would assume that those men and women have children that need them, and so I would choose Option A.
-
1 ReplyHmm... [spoiler]I change the tracks in a way that will split the train and kill everyone[/spoiler]
-
3 against one. And what kind of parent leaves their kid on the railroad track?
-
The baby is too young it wouldn't remember it was born anyway
-
It all comes down to math. 3 > 1, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, more babies can be made.
-
option A, three lives are greater than one
-
1 ReplyDoes 1>3?
-
4 RepliesKill the grown ones the baby still has a life to live
-
Edited by Vicex: 7/21/2015 5:23:04 PMThe infant has little value to society at that point when compared to the three adults. Now sure, we can say "maybe the infant would grow up to be a prodigy", or maybe "the adults are worthless scum". However, the bottom line is that 3 is bigger than 1. I think the more interesting situation would be 3 geriatrics and a single infant... and then debate which is more valuable... experience (used to guide the young and society), or potential.
-
5 RepliesI kill the train with armor lock.
-
It's called the trolley problem
-
Option C get the people around me to help save everyone.
-
2 Replies3 people who have a sense of danger and death And then a baby who has no knowledge of whats happening
-
I would save that baby and raise it to be the ultimate man
-
Walk away. Its going to hit one of the groups regardless so why should i be the one to choose who lives and dies when it really is just up to chance.
-
Save the three people. Although, if there's some soft grassy area beside the track could they jump and roll?
-
-blam!-ed up to say, but I'd probably just watch. [spoiler]or edit number 3[/spoiler]
-
7 Replies3 people who understand death and fear it, or one person who won't feel fear?
-
Walk away. If you change the track you are responsible for the death of the person, whereas if you walk away nobody can blame you.
-
I'm saving 3 people who will be able to see and feel that fear over a baby who will not. The 3 people likely have made connections with many people throughout their lives and many will have to mourn them. The baby will have had less impact in that regard. I do admittedly have a bias I guess. I'm not really s kid person. I in no way want kids, ever. I do not now nor will I ever have any children.
-
Save the lives of the two men and one woman. If humanity's depending on it, they can reproduce from there. Essentially you're saving three lives as opposed to one, and you've got nothing to suggest that the baby will go on to do great things in life.
