Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hello all. After reading some of the Disabled Person thread (in this subforum), I started thinking, what qualifies the survival of one over another? Take this scenario. A man has three people held at gunpoint. Person number 1 is a 30 year old man, of average intelligence and average standing, with a wife and one kid. If there was the physical manifestation of normal, this is it. It is unlikely that he will affect the world in any significant way. Person number 2 is a 1 year old baby boy. He seems to be very smart. At this age, it is unclear what his life may lead to. It could lead to his hand in the curing of some deadly disease in the years to come, but it could also lead to the creation of some deadly weapon or a massive world-war. Person number 3 is you. Now, one of these people must die. I know this may be a completely irrelevant situation, and I may be speaking in hypotheticals or just plain stupidity. The choice is yours, who should be selected for death? I already feel like this thread will be taken wrong, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Me. The only ones who should live are those who are unafraid to die. Edited November 21, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The baby hasn't done anything for anyone. Fuck him. Where's option 4: Pull own gun and shoot the fucker first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whase Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I'd choose myself as for the man, his fate is just as unknown as the baby. maybe the baby will be diagnosed with an incurable disease, while the man happens to have a certain string of DNA in him helping to make a cure for cancer one day. same for me I guess, but I wouldn't be able to live with the fact I could've prevented a mother from having to mourn over her lost baby, or a child and mother having to bury their loved one. maybe it's a bit selfish, but I'd sacrifice myself. (I know, I'm saying this now. though the human brain is set to survive. I might not agree with myself when that time comes) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) The baby hasn't done anything for anyone. Fuck him. Where's option 4: Pull own gun and shoot the fucker first? A very valid point which I expect will be answered with "well what if you left your gun at home that day?" which will be answered by "me and my gun are inseparable biatch I SLEEP with my 45." And if Obviam is packing less heat than a 45 I am disappoint. Edited November 21, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 This is probably not supposed to be in your thought experiment's limitations, but I'd have to wonder if I could talk to the gunman about their motives. I'd probably spend enough time thinking about that, that I wouldn't end up having a say in who dies, because it sounds to me like a miserably escalated situation where nobody wins regardless of the chosen victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The baby, without a second thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacLovin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The old guy, and all of his "connections" with this world. Because I'm not going to let a baby die, and self-preservation comes 1st. (I can always raise the kid myself and use his future knowledge) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfSephiran Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hmm interesting question I would have to say me because I'm like the man, i'm not going to do anything special But then again I haven't lived as long as him so I haven't had as much time to prove myself So I'm undecided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The man, because he'll distract the gunman long enough for the baby and myself to destroy the gunman. But seriously--I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 If there was no way to save everyone, then undoubtedly the baby. I don't want to die, and the baby is the least self aware, the least developed, and the one with the fewest personal connections (as far as I can reasonably tell). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 No, you cannot alter the gunman or his mindset in any way. One of the 3 on front of him WILL die. Part 2 of this question, to justify. Why would you pick to shoot the average joe over yourself and the baby? Why is saving a baby more important than saving a man? Or, why would you pick yourself to be shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I would pick myself because, while I generally enjoy life, I am not particularly attached to it, and I don't hold myself in particularly high esteem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) I'd also pick the baby, both because I agree with Revan's argument, and because there's a .5 probability that the baby will destroy the world, as opposed to the 1.0 probability that neither I nor the man would. Edited November 21, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I'd also pick the baby, both because I agree with Revan's argument, and because there's a .5 probability that the baby will destroy the world, as opposed to the 1.0 probability that neither I nor the man would. Hey, don't belittle yourself like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You cannot choose, because it's not you with the gun. Thought-experiments like these vary, but the all suffer from this same central point where the question ultimately doesn't matter, because what you choose has no significance as to what the gunman will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I think the question he's getting at is, "if you had the opportunity to sacrifice yourself for one of the other two, would you?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 There is no personal motive for the gunman. You can't read 'into' this problem. The gunman has no opinion, he will shoot EXACTLY who you tell him to. Kam, the question is as it's stated. Would you sacrifice yourself to save others? Is a baby valued higher than another man, but not as high as yourself? Some think the death of a baby is possibly the worst thing in the world, while others don't mind. What about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You cannot choose, because it's not you with the gun.Thought-experiments like these vary, but the all suffer from this same central point where the question ultimately doesn't matter, because what you choose has no significance as to what the gunman will do. You would be correct if this were a question to help you prepare for this scenario, but it's obviously not. It is a question about the value you place in people. Whether or not you would sacrifice yourself is apparently part of the TC's concern, but whether you'd do that is just a result of the values you have, which is what the question is centrally about. It has nothing to do with practicality. He might as well have just asked the question correctly: Who do you give the biggest fuck about of these three (followed by a list of said three)? As you can see I give the least fuck about the almost-fetus. It's just a delayed abortion at that point. YES I'M HORRIBLE WHATEVS. I will prabably never care about anyone more than myself given that I am the only person I can vouch for the morality of. No matter how much I trust someone I will never have undeniable evidence that they mean what they say in regards to any ethical proposition. In this vein a child is a useless piece of fuck, especially if it can't even talk, so I definitely won't be trusting it to make utilitarian (I accidentally misspelled that as utopian at first; how appropriate) decisions any time soon. Better me and the "normal" dude. You call him "normal" but normal is pretty damn adequate to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The gunman has no opinion, he will shoot EXACTLY who you tell him to. Tell him to shoot himself then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You're either being hilariously facetious, or a fucking genius. Or both, as the case may be. I'd personally tell the guy to go fuck himself then take my chances at dodging the bullet kill the baby, seeing as the death of the kid affects the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zahlman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The old guy Oi! I happen to be 30 myself. >_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 Obviam, I guess if you want to take the question to the bare minimum. But that still leaves out what comes next. What if that baby had grown up to cure Cancer? The normal guy will NOT amount to ANYTHING, good or bad. The only reason I can see for somebody shooting themselves is their own emotional or psychological beliefs, or how a baby's life is more valuable than an elder person. No, you cannot tell the shooter to kill himself -.- Kam, the baby may or may not affect the lives of many. The kid has the chance to do SOMETHING in his life, whether for good or bad is yet to be determined. If he becomes the next Hitler, killing him would have few downsides. But if he becomes the next Einstein? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Who cares if? Also, there's far too much assuming which lives are meaningless and won't impact anyone if killed, and which ones are inherently better to preserve by lieu of "possibility." No, you cannot tell the shooter to kill himself -.- According to what you said, I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 This is just like the train thing I've heard of before, except it's multiple old people, and one baby. The Old people are all going to die soon anyway, but are the multiple lives better than one? (80x5)=?=(1x1)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.