I notice there are those people that always look behind or around the question. There are people who go "neither." And there are people who go "Why are they there in the first place?"
Printable View
I notice there are those people that always look behind or around the question. There are people who go "neither." And there are people who go "Why are they there in the first place?"
because its not a very good hypothetical question :? you would have to be an idiot to not know a train is coming
a blind person would hear it
a deaf person would feel it
the ground shakes, its loud, you will know. give us a more logical theoretical question
I mean we can ask all sorts of nonsense theoretical questions all day long, it doesn't matter what the answer is because its a situation that will never happen in life
heres a question for you all
5 people are tied on a train track and the train is coming fast, you can stop the train if you push a object infront of the train, but the thing is that object is a fat man who just watching and is out of harms way. would you murder a man to save the five traped people?
__________________________________________________ __________
-the fat man cant save them
-you cant run up and untie them
Oh my god, all these worthless objections...Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
IT'S A MORAL QUESTION!!!
FINE! Okay, you really want it to be realistic, huh? Is that what you want? Huh? They were tied to the track by Juroara and you are standing by the switch. You are in a control office and can see the people on the track through cameras. There is no way to signal to them, and you cannot run outside because you are being held hostage by Juroara. No force fields, lasers, aliens, tractor beams, jump-packs, divine intervention, signal fires, flares, roadblocks, earthquakes, teleportation devices or telepathic communicators allowed.
It's like explaining it to a six-year old. I bet you can't comprehend infinite mazes or any of Plato's hypothetical questions. What the heck. Alright:
There is a situation where you have to choose between five men dying or saving the men and purposely killing one by interference.
Now, the train analogy was presented so you could visualize the situation better, not ramble on pointlessly about how big of an idiot you would have to be even if you were deaf and blind and in a wheelchair not to feel a train coming. Maybe I'll make a picture book for you, with pop-ups.
And by the way, I found that question in a book on philosophy and ethics, so go complain to that guy and see if you can get him to rewrite his entire analogy because you can't stand the fact that the people don't know the train is coming.
I'd kill the 5 men, but kill the baby and save the rest. Don't ask me why, I just would.
I guess it has to do with the number of people involved, their importance (a motherless baby might even be an extra weigh, if you think of it), and the presense of consciousness. On the first case, it's thinking-human-being versus thinking-human-beings. On the other one, it's baby versus thinking-human-being.
Though, if there was a mother for the baby, and she asked me not to kill him, I wouldn't do it.
IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
:roll: