Two interesting questions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.

---

Agreed with this guy here. ^

I know it sounds harsh, but to save 1000s of people - it's worth it.

And for the second one, I can't explain it, but I know in my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biohazard

Agreed with this guy here. ^

I know it sounds harsh, but to save 1000s of people - it's worth it.

And for the second one, I can't explain it, but I know in my head.

---

Could you try explaining, I'm very interested Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Could you try explaining, I'm very interested Jack.

---

Well, it's kinda hard! But, the objective of life is basically to survive - I know it sounds really bad, so don't judge me!

But then, saying this... live together, die alone. So we're back to square one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Indeed. That is weighing up the interests, and the thousands of people have greater.

Anything (that would cause pain).

The thing I saw about them both is that you have to either save one person or many. In the first it seems neutral, you don't personally die/get hurt.

Now look at this. Most, if not all of us, have chosen to torture the baby to save all of the people, BUT we've saved ourselves and let the others die. So 1 person gets injured because we want to save many, but in the second scenario seven die because we want to save ourselves. We switch it around... indeed, the circumstances are different, but if you look at the first one we're only torturing the baby because loads of people > baby. But when it's us as risk it's us > loads of people.

---

Most people would torture the baby because it's for the greater good, it's morally correct to save hundreds/thousands of others. But for the second one it's within human nature, intrinsically to save yourself over others. Perhaps a better question would be:

You either shoot yourself in the head (aka killing you definitely) or a person will let off a bomb killing thousands in london. What do you do?

That is interesting, but i still think the two can't compare because the baby doesnt necessarily die, and the 7 people are already ill.

That being said, i can't say i'd kill myself to save thousadns either.

Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

You either shoot yourself in the head (aka killing you definitely) or a person will let off a bomb killing thousands in london. What do you do?

---

My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

What would you do in that situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman

Anything (that would cause pain).

---

Sexy I'd definitely torture the baby then

For the 2nd I'd save myself because I quite like being alive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SauravG

Hitman, in the baby scenario, what would you do?



My decision would be affected by many factors e.g. my age, who will die in the bomb? My family? Am I healthy or ill?

What would you do in that situation?

---

The factors are - your age right now, the people would be who is in london right now.. so if you're family/friends aren't in London now they won't die. And you're as healthy as you are right now.

In that situation, I know it's selfish but I wouldn't be able to kill myself with those factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

The factors are - your age right now, the people would be who is in london right now.. so if you're family/friends aren't in London now they won't die. And you're as healthy as you are right now.

In that situation, I know it's selfish but I wouldn't be able to kill myself with those factors.

---

Even then I would find it hard to shoot myself.

Yes to the first and No to the second.