Current Events > 5 people are stuck on a railway track.There's a rail car coming at them. However

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

GiftedACIII posted...

all with their own families

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

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

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.

YellowSUV posted...

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

lol

Kaname_Madoka 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?

How fucking fat is this dude that he stops a fucking train

1 Ton steamroll everything level, clearly.
---

Cocytus posted...

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.

... Did you even read the whole line of conversation there? I was saying these two scenarios are the same thing because "bloodying your hands" is a pointless technical difference. When 5 people saved is a better outcome than 1 if there is no "bloodying your hands", what is the difference between when it is bloodying your hands and who is it actually affecting? The only person it's affecting is you yourself, which honestly kind of makes it more selfish don't you think?

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

all with their own families

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

Well then, 5 80+ yo bachelors/widowers saved is better than 1 80+ yo bachelor/widower saved.
You were the one who said not to care about their backgrounds and context. Are you going back on that? Because otherwise yes, their backgrounds will change the context entirely. This is one of those dilemmas where context is extremely important.
---

Pull the lever and save 5. Im not a murderer Im a hero
---

uwnim posted...

Kaname_Madoka 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?

How fucking fat is this dude that he stops a fucking train

1 Ton steamroll everything level, clearly.

STEAMROLL EVRYTHIIIIIING!
---

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.

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.

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.
---

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.

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?
---

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?
---

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?

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.

Guess a rape victim who fought back and kills their rapist is a murderer to you then.

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.

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/
---

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.

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.
---

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.

Cocytus posted...

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.

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?
It's a lose lose situation for a reason. I don't think it's unfair to say that it's not wrong for people for prioritizing having the least amount of lives ruined.
---

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

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.

You legally don't have a duty to act but a lot of people would say you're morally obligated to.
I mean, causing someone's death without the malicious intent to do so isn't legally murder either but you seem to think it is morally.

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.

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.

I'd leave it alone, those 5 people are victims of circumstance.

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.
---

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.

fenderbender321 posted...

The track with 1 person on it has a better chance of becoming 100% clear of people than the track with 5 people on it (everything else equal), simply due to the numbers. I would constantly be holding out hope that everyone will escape without getting hit, and obviously the track with just 1 person on it has a better chance of that occurring.

Interesting perspective.

Cocytus posted...

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.

You did have a duty to act, you could've saved those 5 people but you didn't choose to. It was a conscious that could be used against you in court.
---

Cocytus posted...

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.

Yes, like I've said, I don't fault anyone for choosing to not pull the switch. I just think it's less moral but it's an understandable action to take. Sacrificing yourself to save someone else is also more moral but it's perfectly understandable (and expected) for people to prefer not dying.
---

faizan_faizan posted...

Cocytus posted...

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.

You did have a duty to act, you could've saved those 5 people but you didn't choose to. It was a conscious that could be used against you in court.

You don't have to intervene in something that ain't your business. This isn't a hard concept to understand. No one will be looking for you to explain either way. As a private citizen, you do not have a duty to act. You may think it's shitty of someone not to, but as a private citizen, you can walk on by. No one can even prove you knew what was happening or what to do. Besides, you're not the first person they're going to look at. The railroad will have some explaining to do first.

GiftedACIII posted...

Cocytus posted...

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.

Yes, like I've said, I don't fault anyone for choosing to not pull the switch. I just think it's less moral but it's an understandable action to take. Sacrificing yourself to save someone else is also more moral but it's perfectly understandable (and expected) for people to prefer not dying.

Good talk. Thank you.

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

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

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

And you dont pull the switch and you kill 5
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

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

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

And you dont pull the switch and you kill 5

No, a train killed them. I did not do anything.

Screw that. I'm going to time it such that the train ends up multi-track drifting thereby killing all six.

Edit: Illustration added.

---

Cocytus posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

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

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

And you dont pull the switch and you kill 5

No, a train killed them. I did not do anything.

Not doing something is doing something.
---

Did you just start playing Prey? Because this is a question they ask you at the start of the game along with the pushing the fat guy one.
---

KingCrabCake posted...

Cocytus posted...

KingCrabCake posted...

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

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

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

And you dont pull the switch and you kill 5

No, a train killed them. I did not do anything.

Not doing something is doing something.

I appreciate that perspective, but really not doing something is not doing something.

Holy_Cloud105 posted...

Did you just start playing Prey? Because this is a question they ask you at the start of the game along with the pushing the fat guy one.

Dang you're psychic. I got Prey the other day! Played a couple hours.

Paragon21XX posted...

Screw that. I'm going to time it such that the train ends up multi-track drifting thereby killing all six.

Edit: Illustration added.

Hehehe, like in Die Hard 3. lol

Nope. Rush is right. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

TheGrindery posted...

Nope. Rush is right. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Ok, so that's the choice. You do nothing. It's a valid choice. What's your objection?

Cocytus posted...

TheGrindery posted...

Nope. Rush is right. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Ok, so that's the choice. You do nothing. It's a valid choice. What's your objection?

It leads to more loss than taking action.

TheGrindery posted...

Cocytus posted...

TheGrindery posted...

Nope. Rush is right. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Ok, so that's the choice. You do nothing. It's a valid choice. What's your objection?

It leads to more loss than taking action.

Taking action means you actively, purposefully kill someone when the train was already bound to it's fate.

I don't have a problem with playing God since I don't believe in one and there's no way to save everyone. I also don't believe in death as an entity that comes to get you when it's "your time" as the world so ridiculously says.

Nothing is set in stone. Fuck "destiny".

Cocytus posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

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

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

Exactly.

Sometimes shit happens and its not your resposnibility to try and mitigate the perceived shit just because you are witness to it.

Just like feeding a starving animal.

I wonder how many people here have watched trigun. The ending talks about that stuff a bit.
---