Parrhesia Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The baby, so easily. The least conscious, with the least ties to people. Who cares if the baby might cure cancer? It might grow up to be an axe murderer. Who cares if the man means little to the world in general? We all do. He means a lot to his wife and child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Hey, don't belittle yourself like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm awesome. It's just that I'm a pacifist and I can't destroy the world due to my hatred of all things bringing violent deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Author 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." According to what you said, I can. THAT'S THE POINT. The whole situation is evaluating one's mindset on 'if' or 'maybe'. Let me rephrase the question. One of the three people will die. Not the killer. Who shall die? @ Furetchen, that's how one is supposed to answer the question. I'm sure the baby means a lot to his mother. What about the affect on your conscience that you selected a baby for death, rather that some random, normal man? I'm just playing the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 THAT'S THE POINT. The whole situation is evaluating one's mindset on 'if' or 'maybe'. That's a fairly worthless, and limited, proposition. At least the train example calls attention to the chooser's mentality, ethical spirit, and morality. This version does nothing other than ask belittling "ifs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Hypothtically i'd pick myself. We are all going to die anyway, the man has a reason to live for (a kid and a wife, why should they have to be forced to live without him?), and the baby (he doesn't know any better and i can't see myself telling someone to kill a fully developed baby [they so cute :3] (I agree with abortion to a certain extent, as some of you may know, though)). Me, i don't have anything to live for really. It sounds depressing really, but its true. I only cling to life because i'm scared of whats to come. (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) Edited November 21, 2011 by SlayerX 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) Along with the fact that I'm perfectly willing to take a gamble on the baby. If he becomes the next Stalin/Hitler, then I'll be dead-or very old. If the baby becomes a great scientist capable of lengthing life spans, I'll still be an old fart by the time he does that. (And self-preservation comes first, it's human nature.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 Celice, the question is about taking the chance with 'if', and if you're willing to take the chance. Stop trying to smartass around it, it's not like I actually put time and effort into thinking this up. Just sorta came together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Celice, the question is about taking the chance with 'if', and if you're willing to take the chance. Stop trying to smartass around it, it's not like I actually put time and effort into thinking this up. Just sorta came together. I agree with Celice 100%. You've stated that the shooter will shoot whomever you say, so why can't I say the shooter? My question would be whether you would save your own baby vs. random mulitiple people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I agree with Celice 100%. You've stated that the shooter will shoot whomever you say, so why can't I say the shooter? My question would be whether you would save your own baby vs. random mulitiple people? The intent of the question was clearly that the shooter will shoot whoever out of the three people previously noted that he is holding at gunpoint. This is not a difficult inference to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lux Aeterna Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Kill the 30 year old man. He has no detriments in relevance to dying that the baby and I wouldn't. He might make the people around him sad, but so would my death and the baby's. I have the same potential as the baby--no one knows if I'll cure a disease, save a life, take one, or wipe out the human race. We both will potentially benefit mankind, he apparently will make no significant contributions. If you said "choose one person to live" then my answer /might/ have been different. But there is no point saving a life without any likelihood of helping humanity in exchange for one that could. I'd have to agree with Obviam--where's my choice to take out a gun and shoot them or take a knife and throw it at them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Because, if I gave the option to kill the shooter, probably 99% of the people who answered the question would pick it. Doesn't show all that much in terms of one's mind, that's just common sense. OH GOD, sorry guys, I messed up slightly on the wording. But, the question you (Bryan) state is another interesting one. I'm not in a position to answer, because I have NO idea how having a child makes the parent feel, and what they would do to protect that child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenrir Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The 30 year old guy. As my excuse, i'm about half his age. Real reason, I'm a selfish mofo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Celice, the question is about taking the chance with 'if', and if you're willing to take the chance. Stop trying to smartass around it, it's not like I actually put time and effort into thinking this up. Just sorta came together. Then don't expect people to put time and effort into answering it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) There is no right answer. No matter who dies, who's to say that the killer will even keep his promise? If you're so unafraid to die, then the best option is to sacrifice yourself tackling the guy and hoping someone else there is smart enough to back you up. If I really had no choice though, then option 2 because I support abortion. Edited November 22, 2011 by Blademaster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So then, who is our killer: the man with the gun, who will not shoot anyone until we choose, or us who choose the victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I made my decision without really thinking about it, and before reading all the possible victims(and realizing that I myself was an actual option). Then I looked at the question again and made the same decision as before No matter who the people are, I pick myself. I honestly don't care who the victims are in the situation, what their age or physical health or status in society is; for me it's just principle. Trying to determine the worth of other human beings just doesn't work. If the choice is mine then I'm choosing myself(and pissing off my parents bigtime ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'd probably choose the baby, for similar reasons as Furetchen. Killing a creature that hasn't had much of a life to begin with always seems less sad to me than killing someone who's made so many "connections" (unless they're about to die anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not asking for long, drawn out thought. Really, it doesn't take that much time to come up with an answer. Getting around the question isn't proving anything, it's not like I'm judging you all based on your choices. Celice, take a guess. Phoenix, are you sure about that answer? If you were actually about to be shot (I'm using this as just a typical example of an about-to-die scenario, don't pull crap saying you'll disarm the gunman), would you just stand there and take it? Or have another take the blow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Phoenix, are you sure about that answer? If you were actually about to be shot (I'm using this as just a typical example of an about-to-die scenario, don't pull crap saying you'll disarm the gunman), would you just stand there and take it? Or have another take the blow? I'm not pulling crap about disarming the shooter, so please don't pull crap about people being cowards in the face of death 100% of the time. If you doubt I would let someone execute me in the place of your example people then doubt away, but then why ask the question in the first place? Are you aiming for particular answers or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So then, who is our killer: the man with the gun, who will not shoot anyone until we choose, or us who choose the victim. Generally I don't regard suicides as killers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) Generally I don't regard suicides as killers. But then, what if your moral beliefs or religious beliefs keep you from committing suicide. Would that, under these rigid circumstances, force you to willingly kill another? Does that put the blame on you, or on your beliefs which force you--as much as the blame is then put on whoever forces you to choose in the first place? Edited November 22, 2011 by Celice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But then, what if your moral beliefs or religious beliefs keep you from committing suicide. Would that, under these rigid circumstances, force you to willingly kill another? Does that put the blame on you, or on your beliefs which force you--as much as the blame is then put on whoever forces you to choose in the first place? I tend not to blame people, so I would say the beliefs, but I could see how someone would put the blame on the person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The killer is the one whose decisions and actions have determined that one of the three will die, in other words the gunman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 No, not at all. For the gunman, as our topic creator has pointed out, has no decision in the matter. The gunman has no opinion, he will shoot EXACTLY who you tell him to. He is nothing more than a vehicle for our choice. He's a passive prop which we command. If we say nothing, then no one dies. If we tell him to shoot himself, he must shoot himself. If we tell him to shoot God-- I'm not sure if his lack of opinion could allow the belief of a God for him to target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Celice makes a good point. What if we just didn't tell him to shoot anyone, and walked away? Would he default to shooting one of us, or would he just let everyone go? If we're restricted and have to stay there, and you don't tell him to kill anyone, will he just wait until we've all starved to death? 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.