Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine ... te_4954732
So what would you do?

The violinist argument is hardly analogous to abortion and pregnancy. >_> And the other three are depicted as being way to black and white. It really depends on the people involved. If the five people were criminals I would say "Screw them" and save the other guy. If they were all promising young college students it would be the other way around. See what I mean?

What? He's fat. He's going to have a heart attack in a week anyway... ANd its one step closer to solving world hunger problems!

push, without any moral delemma over it to boot. The needs of the many over the needs of the few and all that. ^_^

and dont try that "he might find a cure for cancer" on me. The fact of the matter is, statistically speaking 5 people have a better chance of solving it than one does. :P

I'd push the fat man. If they're criminals, I'd push him after the trolley hits, and then jump in on the trolley. I'd say that I was doing vigilante work and the fat man is the casualty of a short-lived struggle. :twisted:

Otherwise, I'd push the fat man in order to block the trolley.

Either way, the fat man loses, poor chubby. XD

I most certainly would not push the man. While it's tragic to see the five people die, it's not my right to choose to sacrifice that man for the sake of the other five. If he wants to jump and do it, that's his choice.

Just had to answer everything instead of just that one question.

Question 1: Yes, I would have stayed connected- It's a trade between giving nine months of my life in return for giving the person I'm connected to the ability to live out the rest of theirs. But also, my opinion is that no, there was no obligation for me to do so- but I did it anyway. I went with Yes for my answer because it was the closest to my viewpoint.
Question 2: Yes, I would have flipped the switch. One sacrificed to save many.
Question 3: Yes, I would have pushed the fat man. Once again, sacrificing one to save many.
Question 4: Yes, I would have killed Big Jack to save the four trapped people (and myself). The problem with this is that had I actually been in this situation, BIG JACK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENT OUT FIRST. Therefore, the situation never would've arisen in the first place- the situation in question is reliant upon the theoretical stupidity of the person answering.

Notice that in the situation where their own life isn't threatened, the majority (73.5%) wouldn't have pushed the fat man. In the situation where their life IS threatened, they (75%) would've killed Big Jack. Relying upon their emotions instead of reason. Interesting how it's nearly the exact same percentages, too. Also, you have the first question- because they have to give up a portion of their life, 75% presumably would've chosen to be selfish and let him die.

Unlike the majority of those tested, I was actually consistent with my answers, and my belief that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. It isn't a matter of "playing God", it's a matter of choosing to do what I believe is "right". Playing God would be on the level of preventing these circumstances from happening in the first place, without consequences due to the fact that as God, you're omnipotent.

People have to remember there are always more than 2 answers for this kinda stuff-- I wouldnt think about "Who do i need to sacrifice?" I would be thinking "How do i stop that trolly?" or "How do i get those idiots OFF of the Trolly track?"

How about changing the track as its crossing it? So the back part tries to go one way and the front tries to go the other? That would cause it to either stop or break down- And would i be the only other person out there? Surely with some help you could get a cart or something to help slow it down. or stop it...

And SpriteFire-- 5 Hobos vs one World Famous neurosurgeon -- i think we can use that reasoning here-- because no 5 Hobos are more likely to save a person from tumors, cancer causing illnesses, and saving peoples lives from being shot, beaten, mangled etc etc --

Oh and theres no way to tell if all 5 of the people would actually DIE from being hit-- unless this Trolly is going like 200-300 miles per hour-- in which case you wouldnt have time to do anything you would probably just watch the Trolly go by and say "Wow-- that thing is flying -- gross-- Hobo's went flying..."

And catldr24 -- some fat people are perfectly healthy with the exception of their weight-- while he may be at higher risk it might be another 20 years before he has a major heart problem-- and within those 20 years he might loose that weight-- dont tell me you dont have any heavy friends? Not one? You know i thought this was a serious conversation on what you would actually do... its kinda sad to think that you would actually do something like that based on someones apearance.... you sick son of a mother.

Because I don't like answering them all in a block...

1) Yes, I'd stay...but not because of any relation to pregnancy. A fully-grown violinist isn't gonna need to spend the rest of his life going through Care if I decide I can't keep him at the end. But I would stay. It's only nine months of my life.

2) Dude, what is the one person doing on the other track? Why can't these idiot people MOVE? Why am I the smartest bystander nearby? Ok, yes, I'd hit the switch, but only because like SpriteFire says...needs of the many over the needs of the few...

3) I wouldn't push him. How is this different to the trolley case? In the trolley case, one of those people has ENDED UP ON THE TRACKS, most likely through fault of their own. Granted, so did the other five. But the fat man? He didn't do anything to involve himself in this situation.

4) Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die? Yes. Odds are I'd listen to the guy and not, but only because I'm pathetic. My other companions might not be so generous. And if the roles were reversed, I'd definetly tell them to blow me up. I don't want to be responsible for their deaths.

Yee-yup.[/b]

But not in these scenarios.