Save the drowning child?

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

No, you do nothing. Any action by you means you have actually killed someone. Being passive in this case is the best choice.

So, shoot down the 2nd jet, intentionally killing a hundred or so, or letting a thousand die, plus lose a tower? (If you had knowledge in the nick of time that the 2nd jet was headed for the WTC)

 

[jjones]

The money dilemmas are stupid. If you were going to save 100 kids in some country with your $5000 you would have already done that, so you save the kid, if you think you're morally obligated to do so.

As for the train dilemma, is there any way to kill both the workers and the passengers?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Your third poll needs the answer "Let the kid die and go out and have beers later" whcih is what I would do.

 

[eits]

#2 sounds like it came from 'sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs' by chuck klosterman

 

[eits]

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28

if you want to know why you chose how you chose, go here and listen to the podcasts.... best program npr has to offer (doesn't play in st. louis )

 

[Kelemvor]

Where's the option for the 3rd option in question 3?

 

[engineereeyore]

Personally, I'd be upset no one saved me from spending $5000 on a jacket. I just can't imagine spending that much money on an piece of clothing.

 

[crt1530]

Where's the option for "keep my damned $5,000" on number three?

Your dilemmas suck. DrPizza's dilemma is the only mildly interesting one. It'd be better if the ratio was higher and somebody you cared about was working in the tunnel.

 

[CKent]

This is a pretty old question reworded twice, and badly in both cases, I might add.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

No, you do nothing. Any action by you means you have actually killed someone. Being passive in this case is the best choice.

So, shoot down the 2nd jet, intentionally killing a hundred or so, or letting a thousand die, plus lose a tower? (If you had knowledge in the nick of time that the 2nd jet was headed for the WTC)

That is different. That is something intentionally being done where the others are accidental scenarios which could be considered fate. No different than bombing civilian targets housing the enemy. There is no moral dilemma there. You have to convince people that harboring or shielding the enemy gets you killed too....very different.

 

[puffff]

First I would ask the kid what his aspirations for life are. If it's to be a gang banger, sorry kid, I'm keeping my jacket.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
That's a pretty crappy moral dilemna. Here's a better one: A bridge just got knocked out on a set of tracks. There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

Okay, I have the best answer I think.

After counting the workers in the tunnel, and the passengers on the train, I decide to divert the train and save the passengers. But by this point its too late and the train crashes anyways. When people ask why I didn't save the passengers, I can reply, "I tried, but there just wasn't enough time...."

EDIT: Also, the workers die somehow.

 

[ViviTheMage]

its a jacket, could care less....

 

[n7]

I don't like this thread.

 

[Fulcrum]

Originally posted by: Torghn
The question is ridiculous, please think of at least a semi-plausible hypothetical question next time.

QFT. Questions like this are pointless as they always involve knowledge that you wouldn't be able to obtain and evaluate for the purpose of making a decision. I can just see someone standing there thinking, "well, I think I should save that child but I that know that some how doing so will make me unable to save 100 kids later in a foreign coutry." Not even plausible as an exercise in morality. Give me a break!

 

[mobobuff]

I go every day without saving 500 kids in Ethiopia anyway, but if I saw a drowning kid I would save him. Out-of-sight out-of-mind.

Situation 2 is simply a problem of math. 10 < 50.

Situation 3 I would not involve myself in.

 

[02ranger]

Where's the option for doing nothing on the third dilemma? I wouldn't involve myself in that, just like mobobuff said.

 

[IronWing]

Dilemma #3 is not a dilemma at all. The doctor could choose to save the kid, w/ or w/o the 5k.

 

[DainBramaged]

No. 1 - Save the drowning kid. It is a physically tangible situation that I can *directly* involve myself in.

No. 2 - Do nothing. It's not my responsibility to murder ten innocent people. I'm sorry, but just not my call to do something about it.

No. 3 - Save the kid in front of me.

 

[Laminator]

I'll bite for the false dichotomies. They're pretty weak, though.

I doubt a jacket I bought for $5,000 (Who the f*ck pays that much for an article of clothing? Wait - don't tell me.) is going to end up saving 1 Ethiopian child, much less 100. Obviously, I'm going to go for the guaranteed saves. As for the second "dilemma", 50 > 10. Easy.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: eits
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28

if you want to know why you chose how you chose, go here and listen to the podcasts.... best program npr has to offer (doesn't play in st. louis )

 

[sandorski]

Paris Hilton is likely reading the same book now and is in awe of it!

aka, these 3 "dilemmas" suck!

1) I can't remove the jacket? [throws it to the ground and gives the OP a cold hard stare]
2) 10 Workers will die? I'm curious how I'm getting all this info from in the first place, but even assuming I know it all the only thing I know for sure would be that the 10 Workers would be at risk, not that they would die.
3) This one doesn't suck as bad, but why do these 100 kids keep showing up as somehow related to these dilemmas?

Here's what I would do: Take off the jacket, save the drowning child, jump out of the pool and switch the Train track hoping the Workers jump out of the way in time, goto the Hospital and ask if the kid will get his operation, depending on the answer I'll worry about whether I'll pay or not then. I'll accomplish all that and not once think of 100 children in some far off place.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
How is this even a question? You're actually asking people to vote if they would watch a child drown in front of them?

And to the one person that voted they would watch the kid drown, you are a truly sick person. I could not watch anyone drown without trying to help them, regardless of what my current attire might be, much less a child.

The "moral dilemma" about either BUYING the jacket or saving 100 kids is a different question altogether.

Yes.

And the thing is, the $5K being able to miraculously save 100 kids is bollocks. You mean feed them for a while? Oh right, then the money runs out. It is BS.

 

[IamBusby]

Agreed that it's a stupid question.

I'd hope that everyone would jump in to save the child.

People don't think in those terms. When we go to buy a TV costing £1000 we don't think hmm I could buy this big ass TV or I could use the money and save/feed 10 ethiopean children. We just buy the TV of course and that's just an inanimate object instead of a drowning child.

 

[Skacer]

1. Save the kid. If I wanted to donate money to some other country, I would have already done it or done it in place of the jacket. Although, the main deciding factor in this one isn't how many other kids you can save, but that if you stand by and watch the kid drown with full knowledge that you could save them you've pretty much condemned a child. That's not the kind of sht you shrug off and walk away from.

2. Pull the lever. If you don't pull the lever it is certain death for 50 people. So I'm assuming we have some sort of cliff that we know no one is going to survive from. And if I pull the lever, I know there are 10 people working in there, but there is no absolute certainty that they will die. Plus, if you don't pull the lever, I'm pretty sure you'd be questioned about it later if anyone can place you near the scene. The scenario would be a lot better if say, 1 or 2 of the people were family, or if you also worked in the same field as these guys and all 10 of them were your regular drinking buddies / best friends.

3. I'd possibly give the kid the cash. This is a pretty nosy situation though because I can't think of a scenario where I'd be overhearing someone else's medical and financial issues.