Lurker > Cocytus

Stranger Tides is decent. It's better than the second and third one.

GiftedACIII posted...

Cocytus posted...

Well there you switched the scenario to involve first responders who have an obligation in said scenario. So it's not exactly the same thing as a regular citizen coming upon the original scenario. and I take your point about the other five families, it wouldn't be easy, but if you tell the truth, that's all you can do. You can illustrate your point of view. You could ask what if one of their family members was the single one on the track. There ain't no easy way to put it, but if you walk on by, you don't have to explain anything to anybody, because what happened is an out of control train was let loose and killed five people. Insert yourself into it, then you got some explaining to do. I doubt anyone will ask you why didn't you switch tracks and just kill that one person.

Ok, replace the scenario with some average joe fighting against a corrupt dictator government then. In a moral situation like this, it's less about the character involved but the actual principle.
And if you can do that to the 5 families I don't see how you can't say that to the one family that you were just trying to save as much people as possible? Or ask them what if one of their family members were one of the 5 people on the track (which is statistically more likely)
At the end of the day, the only aspect that "dirtying your hands" does only applies to you. And I think it's more moral to sacrifice your own sleepless nights to save more people.

Well I do concede that we understand the same values here, what's at stake, what makes more sense. even I say it makes more sense to pull the switch and save the five, but I can't get over my hand pulling the trigger on one, especially in a situation I didn't create and mostly don't know about (like why they're like that on the tracks in the first place). And hell, when I'm sitting alone just thinking about it all nice and cozy at home, I admit it's easier to say I'd leave it alone. But I admit, if it were real, Heaven knows what I would do. The mind says one thing, the heart says another. And as far as dirtying hands, I mean, that's a real thing you would have to live with. You will be responsible for that person's death. Maybe you might not even be able to live with the guilt.

Nah it just wasn't good as the last one, On Stranger Tides.

faizan_faizan posted...

I think the same applies here. The family of those 5 people could press charges and we could still be arrested.

They can't press charges if you didn't have a duty to act. Besides, they'd have to prove you knew what to do. That would be a big uphill battle for them.

GiftedACIII posted...

And? That's something only you personally have to deal with, like I said, it's selfishness, though an understandable one. You're having 5 people die solely because you can't deal with it. And then you say it's not you problem, it's someone else's. tbh those are the common words of people who tend to only think of themselves.
And what if you look at it so that you're not directly killing someone? You're just saving other people and that action happens to cause the death of someone else? Are you going to fault a passenger who takes control of the steering wheel after the bus driver suddenly faints in order to save themselves and the rest of the passengers and hits someone while doing so?
If you think you haven't murdered someone in the original scenario if you pull the switch, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You won't ever see it my way, I won't see it yours. I do appreciate where you're coming from, and I appreciate your careful and honest thinking to this problem. All I'm saying is that legal or moral, you pull that switch, you caused someone's death. That is a murder whether you're charged for it or not. I mean, would you feel comfortable in facing that person's family? think they'll understand implicitly? I doubt it. I take your point, but we just simply disagree.
Oh yes, in that I agree with you. You obviously caused someone's death by doing so. However, the intent was not to kill the dude, it was to save others. The action just happened to put that guy in the line of fire. If swat team members accidentally kill some hostages while in a firefight with terrorists who've kidnapped several more hostages, that's terrible for the guy to face, but he is both legally and morally justified to most people for doing his job and still saving others. And to address your other point, yes, the officer would probably be uncomfortable facing the guy's family after that too (I mean, provided he actually has a family, like you said he might not) but if the family aren't selfish assholes themselves they should be able to understand the circumstances. The officer should still do their best to help them cope by donating money, helping to support them through their grief etc.
Though tbh, the same thing applies to the 5 other people if you let them die. Would you be able to face their families too?

Well there you switched the scenario to involve first responders who have an obligation in said scenario. So it's not exactly the same thing as a regular citizen coming upon the original scenario. and I take your point about the other five families, it wouldn't be easy, but if you tell the truth, that's all you can do. You can illustrate your point of view. You could ask what if one of their family members was the single one on the track. There ain't no easy way to put it, but if you walk on by, you don't have to explain anything to anybody, because what happened is an out of control train was let loose and killed five people. Insert yourself into it, then you got some explaining to do. I doubt anyone will ask you why didn't you switch tracks and just kill that one person.

Probably for insubordination, but that's not a criminal act.

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

Sada_Pop posted...

You're skewing the poll with last last statement. Take personal bias and feelings out of it...

It's the truth though.

It would be a necessary evil but not murder.

When you cause the death of another person, that is murder.

It would murder regardless if we intervene or not, but by intervening, we would be saving 5 lives.

https://www.wklaw.com/knowing-about-a-crime-and-not-saying-anything/

You don't have a duty to act. Doing nothing would not be murder, it would be an act of God or negligence from the railroad, or someone set those people up like that.

Read the article.

That article speaks mostly to what could happen if you witness or know about a crime. Not the same thing. If anything, that article proves that only certain professions have a duty to act. I should know, I was an EMT for five years. If you're on duty and someone calls for help, you must come and render aid. If you see someone in distress you must come to their aid. But, as a regular citizen, as in the scenario, you do not have a duty to act. In fact, according to the article you sighted, if this turned out to be a criminal act (the train and the people), it says if you get involved you could be charged for being apart of the crime. You could stumble into trouble and not know it until after the fact.

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Teacher Deyshia Hargrave was questioning the school board how they can vote to give the superintendent a raise when school employees have not gotten a raise in years. Security officer from the parish Marshals Office told her to leave the room and he would soon arrest her in the hall and call the city police and put her in a patrol unit.

Timestamp for the action: https://youtu.be/8sg8lY-leE8?t=359

Teaching is a hard ass job.

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

Sada_Pop posted...

You're skewing the poll with last last statement. Take personal bias and feelings out of it...

It's the truth though.

It would be a necessary evil but not murder.

When you cause the death of another person, that is murder.

It would murder regardless if we intervene or not, but by intervening, we would be saving 5 lives.

https://www.wklaw.com/knowing-about-a-crime-and-not-saying-anything/

You don't have a duty to act. Doing nothing would not be murder, it would be an act of God or negligence from the railroad, or someone set those people up like that.

GiftedACIII posted...

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

You were the one who said not to care about their backgrounds and context. Are you going back on that?

I ain't going back on it. A lot of other people been putting in sidenotes, so I offered one up myself. And you got it wrong in that instance. I said five 80+ y/o bachelors/widowers vs one baby on the other track. That was in response to some other peoples's sidebar speculations. The original dilemma still stands.

Like I said, the context makes a lot of difference so with different situations like that, things get even more complicated.
In the original dilemma though, it's flat out 5>1. Again, 5 80+ bachelors is still greater than 1.
Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

When 5 people saved is a better outcome than 1 if there is no "bloodying your hands"

The means don't justify the end. You pull that switch and you just killed someone. There's no going around that. Do nothing then you can blame God.

And? That's something only you personally have to deal with, like I said, it's selfishness, though an understandable one. You're having 5 people die solely because you can't deal with it. And then you say it's not you problem, it's someone else's. tbh those are the common words of people who tend to only think of themselves.
And what if you look at it so that you're not directly killing someone? You're just saving other people and that action happens to cause the death of someone else? Are you going to fault a passenger who takes control of the steering wheel after the bus driver suddenly faints in order to save themselves and the rest of the passengers and hits someone while doing so?

If you think you haven't murdered someone in the original scenario if you pull the switch, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You won't ever see it my way, I won't see it yours. I do appreciate where you're coming from, and I appreciate your careful and honest thinking to this problem. All I'm saying is that legal or moral, you pull that switch, you caused someone's death. That is a murder whether you're charged for it or not. I mean, would you feel comfortable in facing that person's family? think they'll understand implicitly? I doubt it. I take your point, but we just simply disagree.

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

NeonOctopus posted...

Can I just shove a really fat person instead? >_>

There's actualy another hypothetical for that case. You and a big person are standing at the train stop when suddenly some people fall over on the track and will be ran over by the train. However, you recognize that if you bump the big person over too, he'll land on the track and his corpse will stop the train, saving several people. So, would you bump him over in that case?

"big person"

Do you refer to fat people as "big" in real life? What other euphemisms for fat people do you use in your everyday life? How do you feel about weighing machines?

Yes I do use big irl. I myself am a big person. I don't understand your objection for people trying to be polite. I mean what do you use, big fat ass, tub o' lard, fatty fatty boom boom a lattey?

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

Sada_Pop posted...

You're skewing the poll with last last statement. Take personal bias and feelings out of it...

It's the truth though.

It would be a necessary evil but not murder.

When you cause the death of another person, that is murder.

I enjoyed it.

GiftedACIII posted...

When 5 people saved is a better outcome than 1 if there is no "bloodying your hands"

The means don't justify the end. You pull that switch and you just killed someone. There's no going around that. Do nothing then you can blame God.

GiftedACIII posted...

You were the one who said not to care about their backgrounds and context. Are you going back on that?

I ain't going back on it. A lot of other people been putting in sidenotes, so I offered one up myself. And you got it wrong in that instance. I said five 80+ y/o bachelors/widowers vs one baby on the other track. That was in response to some other peoples's sidebar speculations. The original dilemma still stands.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/brad-pitt-bid-120000-to-watch-game-of-thrones-with/1100-6455937/

Not such a BIG SHOT now huh?!

"Someone else won with a bid of $160,000.

uring a charity auction this weekend, A-list actor Brad Pitt bid $120,000 to watch an episode of Game of Thrones with actress Emilia Clarke. Incredibly, that wasn't enough. Pitt was outbid by an unspecified person during Sean Penn's yearly charity event in Los Angeles to benefit Haiti. Kit Harington, who plays Jon Snow on Game of Thrones, also attended.

As reported by Variety, the Game of Thrones auction began at $20,000 before rising quickly to the $160,000 it ultimately went for. Here's a cool story from the event, relayed by Variety:

"At one point, the auctioneer yelled out 'Is the King of the North here?!' But as it turned out, Harington had stepped out of the gala to go to the restroom. Meanwhile, Pitt bid $80,000 to watch an episode of GOT with Clarke. Then he outbid himself to $90,000. When Harington came back into the room, the actor offered to also sit in on the episode viewing. And that's when Pitt raised his own bid to $120,000."

The identity of the winner bidder, who paid $160,000 to watch a Game of Thrones episode with Clarke, was not mentioned in the report.

The event raised money for the J/P HRO & Disaster Relief Organizations and raised more than $3 million by the end of the night. Other famous people in attendance included Jeff Bezos, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jason Segel.

Game of Thrones is taking a year off and is now scheduled to return for its eighth and final season in 2019. Though the show may be coming to an end, HBO is producing multiple prequel series."

YellowSUV posted...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SJAKUjz1VNI/AAAAAAAAX0U/-ZctmhM-iio/s640/100_pics.jpg

lol

Kelystic posted...

are they taking selfies on the train tracks

Hahaha, in other words, have they ended up on the track because of their own stupidity. Alas, we don't know that in this situation.

Nomadic View posted...

beechesfreeman posted...

You're a murderer either way, since you had the power to stop either.

No, youre not. Youre not legally obligated to act to help someone. If you act and your actions lead to the death of someone then you may be criminally liable. If not criminally, then certainly civilly liable.

Bingo

GiftedACIII posted...

all with their own families

How do you know they have families? They could be 80+ y/o bachelors and widowers.

GiftedACIII posted...

If you had a gun to your head and had to push the button to kill 1 or 5, or otherwise the guy will kill all 6 of them, which one is the superior choice?

No you've bent the scenario. No one has a gun to your head. No one is forcing you to do anything.

DrizztLink posted...

I don't pull the lever and shoot the guy on the other rail.

No witnesses.

lol, takes all kinds.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Nobody denies that a decision is being made, but the dilemma is in the nature of the decision. If it helps, the dilemma is not just about saving one or saving five. It's about remaining a spectator, not enforcing your desired result, and allowing five people to die. Or you become a direct agent, taking explicit action to shape the world you live in, and causing one person (who otherwise would not have died) to die.

This dilemma has stood the test of time for a reason.

Well said.

fenderbender321 posted...

doing nothing is still actively choosing something that will result in deaths

You don't have a duty to act!

Sami1000 posted...

Even if they are strangers, are you telling me you would just listen them screaming for their life for you to save them?

The 5 people are 80+ years old each and the other one on the other track is a baby.
Now what you gonna do?

Dragonblade01 posted...

You simply do not understand the psychological weight of "doing nothing" vs "doing something." That's why it's a moral dilemma. You can try to equate the two all you want, but the reality of it isn't going to change. To act as an agent, enforcing one's explicit will on the world, is a far different thing from acting as a spectator of some event.

Well said.

Sami1000 posted...

If their death is 100% happening, you know for 100% sure what that switch will do and how it is the only thing that can save one of them, then there is no dilemma. You're either killer of one, or killer of five.

That's precisely a dilemma, a choice between two unattractive choices.

Sami1000 posted...

Sure. Lett someone fall from heights, "it was the gravity hur hur"

False analogy.

Sami1000 posted...

Its either YOU killing 5 people by doing nothing

You don't have a duty to act. You're not a first responder with a mandate from the state to act. You're not a railroad employee. You're a regular citizen passing by and then you see the whole scenario. Put it this way, you might get prosecuted if you actively kill the one person, but as shitty as it sounds, you can't be arrested or tried for doing nothing.

Sami1000 posted...

Is there a reason i shouldn't save 4 people??? What am i missing here?

Shouldn't have four people?

Makeveli_lives posted...

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

It's a number of problems, moral, legal, ethical, judgement, etc.

fenderbender321 posted...

Because at the end of the day 1 death is better than 5. End of story. Any judge/jury that would convict would be a terrible person. Anyone judging the person or calling him a killer is a terrible person too. Consider the circumstances. It's 1 vs 5. That's all there is to it. Everything else is abstract.

What if the one stuck on the other track is a baby...?

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch.

Doing nothing is not a crime in this scenario. You don't have a duty to act.

TheGrindery posted...

So TC do you pay for YouTube Red? I know this was one of the free episodes, just wondering.

No, not familiar with YouTube Red.

Everything but getting paid.

bulbinking posted...

If I was railway worker I would follow whatever safety protocols were in place.

This hypothetical does not presume that you are a railroad worker. It does presume that the switch is an obvious option upon seeing it.

Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes

Honorable mention: The Scarlet Ibis, by James Hurst

You?

Radiohead thinks so, so they're suing Lana Del Ray.

The irony is Radiohead stole it from another band called The Hollies and had to pay out.

I don't think these two songs sound alike at all. What do you think?

https://www.avclub.com/radiohead-sues-lana-del-rey-for-allegedly-ripping-off-1821856310

"Radiohead sues Lana Del Rey for allegedly ripping off Creep

Radiohead has been pretty open about how much it gets sick of Creep, with the band going years and years without playing it live, but Radioheads efforts to distance itself from that annoyingly massive hit shouldnt be taken as an indication that it doesnt care about it. According to Pitchfork, Radiohead is actually suing Lana Del Rey over her song Get Free, which the band apparently believes is similar enough to Creep that it deserves all of the publishing rights. Lana Del Rey confirmed the story on Twitter, saying she offered Radiohead 40 percent ownership but they will only accept 100. She also adds that the bands lawyers have been relentless, so theyll have to deal with it in court.

Interestingly, Creep was also met with a copyright dispute back in the day, when the band agreed to give up a percentage of the rights to songwriters Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood over similarities to The Air That I Breathe by The Holliessimilarities that Radiohead admitted to, which is good because theyre very obvious."

0 no thanks

Second_Chances posted...

move the lever to the middle so the empty trolley goes off the rails and misses all six

Interesting solution.

fenderbender321 posted...

SerperiorThanU posted...

Neither is murder. People throw that term around too much.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.[1][2][

This is like saying abortion or killing a hostage taker is murder.
It's funny you brought up manslaughter since manslaughter is what choosing the switch option is at most.

True.

But to even say it's manslaughter....isn't it also legally considered manslaughter if you allow people to die when you had a chance to save them?

Unless you are a first responder or otherwise have a hand in this scenario, you as a regular citizen do not have a duty to act.

spanky1 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I love all the memes that came of this.

https://www.facebook.com/TrolleyProblemMemes/

Interesting article. Thanks.

DifferentialEquation posted...

I don't agree with banning books based on content, but prisoners shouldn't have access to books at all. They're there to be punished for committing a crime, not to party and have fun.

the books ain't just for fun. They have a law library so that convicts can work on their cases, or help others. That's their right to due process.

No, I won't hear of banned books in prison.

ThyCorndog posted...

I never said they wouldn't charge you for switching the track to kill the 1 person. I said no one would charge you for leaving things as they are. They might try, but I don't think it would be successful

I agree with that. Do nothing, you won't get charged with anything.

ThyCorndog posted...

you really think oprah would get through the primaries?

Who ever thought Trump would get to the White House...? But here we are.

fenderbender321 posted...

Cocytus posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

I don't think you would be charged with anything if you let the train hit 5 people. You would just have to live with yourself knowing you could have saved them and let just one person die instead

Wait till the family comes to demand charges be brought against you.

If you were on a jury, would you convict in this situation?

I know the hero factor makes it seem that it's alright for you to knowingly and actively kill a person of lesser number. If we ask the jury question, there's many factors that would come into consideration in order to answer the question properly, because they have to go through a lot of pretrial stuff, the charges may be lessened or different, cretain evidence would or wold not be admissible, etc. But, just on the surface, if I were in the jury and they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions led to a death, I'd have to vote guilty. The fact that five other people benefited from your actions is immaterial.

creativerealms posted...

Oprah won't make it that far.

Why not?

ThyCorndog posted...

I don't think you would be charged with anything if you let the train hit 5 people. You would just have to live with yourself knowing you could have saved them and let just one person die instead

Wait till the family comes to demand charges be brought against you.

GiftedACIII posted...

What if it was 5 kids on the track?

If we start qualifying who precisely is on the track, well things become muddled. You could say there's convicts on there, orphans, a family of five, the President and some other big wigs. Now That would influence the vote.