Tuesday, March 11, 2008 3:00:13 AM
All these are supposed to be questions of morality? he, ok. I'd have to be there in that situation before I could answer any of those. I bet there are better ways to save people than to kill others if that ever happened. Who knows. I totally agree about the baby thing, you can make him pass out for a while as opposed to killing the poor thing. On the other hand, you may have to save the baby from others who would kill it for the same reasons, YOU NEVER KNOW what will happen in a crisis unless you`re there. Proven fact; people aren`t always thinking on their toes in a time of chaos. Most people freak out! So, you tell me, moral? Blahh.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:30:12 PM
this is stupid. i menan seriously. if you see someone standing on a track when a train is coming any normal person would start screaming like crazy. they wouldnt sit there and think "should i throw the switch? would it be moral to throw the switch?" and you dont have to kill the baby to make it be quiet.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:26:56 AM
Psh. The only one anyone here would ever do is 3a, because while the others involve you directly killing someone to save others, 3a involves you saving others and accidentally killing one person as a result.
And of course, the morality comes in because in every situation you're being asked to play god. Hardly a great spectrum here. And on 3b/3c, what gives you the right to kill a man to save 5 others? The best option would be self sacrifice, otherwise you technically would be accepting that the other man on the bridge would be right to throw you off.
As for the boat one...the guy is fully alert, and if he`s gonna die soon then he probably would volunteer to throw himself overboard if he`s fully aware that he`d die either way, which they do indeed state.
While this type of thing would make for a good discussion, I doubt that could easily be found here.