Two interesting questions

[Hitman]

In my Psychology lesson today we were given a couple of questions... they were interesting and the responses were very interesting. I can't remember exactly what it was called, it was to do with morality - do people do bad things with good intentions? Anyway, to the questions. You cannot change anything in this, you must either do one thing or the other. You cannot weevil your way out of it or do nothing. If you're going to reply then choose an option.

OK, so here it is: A woman has planted an atomic bomb somewhere in London and it will go off unless you can find it and stop it (the woman isn't in London, so she wont be affected). However, to find it you must torture the woman's baby. If you do so she will tell you, saving the people in London. If you don't then these people will die.

Now, you're faced with two horrible choices. Torture a baby and save the whole of London, which will include thousands of other babies and children, or not torture this one child but let all of the people in London die: many more babies will die in horrible ways from radiation poisoning, etc.

What would your choice be? Remember, you must choose one choice... DON'T say "well the Police can search for the bomb"... doing so defeats the whole point of the question: this question needs an exact answer of "torture or not torture".

Some people in my class said torture the baby... you will be doing something so wrong to one child, but saving so many more. Or do you not commit this terrible act and allow many children to die?

Remember this is just a question to point out morality... not to see if you're a sicko... both options aren't good.

Now, answer this:

There are 7 people dying in a hospital ward and need organ transplants but there are no organs. You walk through the ward and the doctor says "you, come here. We will use your organs to cure these people". Would you allow yourself to be killed to heal these people you don't know, or would you allow them to die?

Again, interesting responses... I personally said I'd save myself. Then it's like letting all of the people in London die...

I think this is the right place, sorry if it's not... kind of like a debate.

Thanks for reading and I'm interested in answers...

Thread moved by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); From 'Members Debates'
Thread closed by invincible (Forum Super Moderator) due to bullying.

[Seatherny]

I would torture the baby. Yes the baby will suffer pain, but atleast that way no one dies - neither does the baby.

[Japan]

For question one:

I'd go back in time and kill the woman when she's still a baby. I'd probably leave the baby and get a taxi out of London (oh how selfish ;o). I don't know how to explain, but I'd rather have nothing to do with the events and just let it go by default (if you get what I mean).
Though it depends on what happens to the baby- does it die after all the torture?

Question Two:

I'd save myself TBH. I know that is horribly selfish, but in my opinion a perfectly healthy and innocent human shouldn't have to die because 7 others are dying.

[scottish]

In my Psychology lesson today we were given a couple of questions... they were interesting and the responses were very interesting. I can't remember exactly what it was called, it was to do with morality - do people do bad things with good intentions? Anyway, to the questions. You cannot change anything in this, you must either do one thing or the other. You cannot weevil your way out of it or do nothing. If you're going to reply then choose an option.

OK, so here it is: A woman has planted an atomic bomb somewhere in London and it will go off unless you can find it and stop it (the woman isn't in London, so she wont be affected). However, to find it you must torture the woman's baby. If you do so she will tell you, saving the people in London. If you don't then these people will die.

Now, you're faced with two horrible choices. Torture a baby and save the whole of London, which will include thousands of other babies and children, or not torture this one child but let all of the people in London die: many more babies will die in horrible ways from radiation poisoning, etc.

What would your choice be? Remember, you must choose one choice... DON'T say "well the Police can search for the bomb"... doing so defeats the whole point of the question: this question needs an exact answer of "torture or not torture".

Some people in my class said torture the baby... you will be doing something so wrong to one child, but saving so many more. Or do you not commit this terrible act and allow many children to die?

Remember this is just a question to point out morality... not to see if you're a sicko... both options aren't good.

Now, answer this:

There are 7 people dying in a hospital ward and need organ transplants but there are no organs. You walk through the ward and the doctor says "you, come here. We will use your organs to cure these people". Would you allow yourself to be killed to heal these people you don't know, or would you allow them to die?

Again, interesting responses... I personally said I'd save myself. Then it's like letting all of the people in London die...

I think this is the right place, sorry if it's not... kind of like a debate.

Thanks for reading and I'm interested in answers...

I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.

[Hitman]

I would torture the baby. Yes the baby will suffer pain, but atleast that way no one dies - neither does the baby.

Interesting answer indeed. What you said is a good point.

What about the second question? What would you do there?

For question one:

I'd go back in time and kill the woman when she's still a baby. I'd probably leave the baby and get a taxi out of London (oh how selfish ;o). I don't know how to explain, but I'd rather have nothing to do with the events and just let it go by default (if you get what I mean).
Though it depends on what happens to the baby- does it die after all the torture?

Question Two:

I'd save myself TBH. I know that is horribly selfish, but in my opinion a perfectly healthy and innocent human shouldn't have to die because 7 others are dying.

You can't leave. You must torture the baby and save London or leave the baby and let London get blown up. No alternatives (that's the whole point of this). The baby would live I assume, unless you decided to kill it after you got the answer...

I am in agreement with the second.

I would torture the baby, no questions.

And I would allow them to die.

Honest answer. I suppose we must look at the interests of the people... one baby would suffer pain or thousands of people would die and suffer pain on the same level.

[Tash.]

I'd torture the baby, wouldn't be easy but you can't save 1 life from being harmed and allow hundreds/thousands of others to lose theirs.

And I would save myself, supposing I was completely healthy at this point of course. It's against human nature to do anything different.

[Seatherny]

For the second one, I would save myself.

[FlyingJesus]

What implements do I have that I can torture the baby with?

[Smits]

I'd otrture the baby. That simple. I don't know whether being required to actually kill the baby would change my decision though.

For the second question, i would save myself and walk out.

The two cases can't really have anything in common since the differences are so severe.

[Hitman]

I'd torture the baby, wouldn't be easy but you can't save 1 life from being harmed and allow hundreds/thousands of others to lose theirs.

And I would save myself, supposing I was completely healthy at this point of course. It's against human nature to do anything different.

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

What implements do I have that I can torture the baby with?

Anything (that would cause pain).

I'd otrture the baby. That simple. I don't know whether being required to actually kill the baby would change my decision though.

For the second question, i would save myself and walk out.

The two cases can't really have anything in common since the differences are so severe.

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.