A moral question

You have a choice:

You stay alive, but 100 people die. However, no one else in the world knows you made this choice, so you wouldn't be harrassed by choosing it.

or

You die, but the 100 people stay alive. This time, everyone in the world is told of your act.

What would you choose? (I mean what would you REALLY choose).

My first instinct is to say option 2, but if I think deep down I find it hard to make a decision.

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


You die, but the 100 people stay alive. This time, everyone in the world is told of your act.

BUT YOU ARE DEAD THEREFORE DOES IT REALLY MATTER THAT THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS OF YOUR SACRIFICE!?

Depends why the other people are dying.

[Geeza]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon
You have a choice:

You stay alive, but 100 people die. However, no one else in the world knows you made this choice, so you wouldn't be harrassed by choosing it.

or

You die, but the 100 people stay alive. This time, everyone in the world is told of your act.

What would you choose? (I mean what would you REALLY choose).

My first instinct is to say option 2, but if I think deep down I find it hard to make a decision.

it would depend on who the other 100 people were, the cause of their death, the reason behind this whole thing.

My gut instict is option 1, I don't ever want to die.

I think I'd go for option 1.


I don't know these people, so chances are that I do not like them. Therefore I feel that I would be able to lead a guilt-free life with such a 'burden' hanging over me.

1

This would be my choice even if everybody in the world would be informed of it.

I hold my life dearer than anything else.

I hate people.

So it's quite simple.

[eple]

me




I'll just catch up by rescuing some 100 people later in my life

Originally posted by Sarina_Joy



BUT YOU ARE DEAD THEREFORE DOES IT REALLY MATTER THAT THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS OF YOUR SACRIFICE!?

But you'd be a hero! Everyone would respect you for thousands of years to come.

2, because
a) the whole world sux anyway and
b) how would you feel in your life if you know that you are responsible for the death of 100 people?


(and no, people would forget within 1-2 week max so it really doesnt matter if anyone knows in the first place)

Originally posted by wu_trax
2, because
a) the whole world sux anyway and
b) how would you feel in your life if you know that you are responsible for the death of 100 people?


(and no, people would forget within 1-2 week max so it really doesnt matter if anyone knows in the first place)

but you might save ME :eek:

[nickhall]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


But you'd be a hero! Everyone would respect you for thousands of years to come.

For saving the lives of 100 ppl, i don't think so. not even 10000 is likley to have that effect. Make it more like 100,000+ and theres a chance you may be remembered for a few years!!!

I still chose option one. I don't no these ppl, so am unlikley to care.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by wu_trax
2, because
a) the whole world sux anyway and
b) how would you feel in your life if you know that you are responsible for the death of 100 people?

(and no, people would forget within 1-2 week max so it really doesnt matter if anyone knows in the first place)

You wouldnt be responsible. Choosing not to sacrifice yourself to save someone does not make you morally responsible for their death.

[Deffeh]

faced with the paranormal, id always choose the moral option etc

Id love to believe in divine intereference of some sort

so

If this was a choice put to me by a terrorist in some sort of scenario (but sitll nobody but me would know afterwards)

1

If it was by a divine force of any kind,

2

Originally posted by nickhall


For saving the lives of 100 ppl, i don't think so. not even 10000 is likley to have that effect. Make it more like 100,000+ and theres a chance you may be remembered for a few years!!!

I still chose option one. I don't no these ppl, so am unlikley to care.

What if it was 10 million people? Where would you draw the line?

Originally posted by Insane Badger


but you might save ME :eek:

that would in fact be a problem, but then id sacifice your live to safe the other hundrets, that would be the only time you have done something 'social'

Originally posted by Nodrog
You wouldnt be responsible. Choosing not to sacrifice yourself to save someone does not make you morally responsible for their death.

the choice is them or me. if i live they die, how am i not responsble for their death?
lets take another example: is it morally ok for you to kill someone because you need a heart transplantation?

[Scoot951]

I'd say 2, unless there was some reason to make me believe that the 100 people in question didn't deserve it. Death is inevitable after all.

[nickhall]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


What if it was 10 million people? Where would you draw the line?

NO you missed my point!!!

I wasn't replying to the origanal question untill the end of my post. My point was that noone will remember you or see you as a hero for saving 100 ppl or 10000 ppl.

For ppl to see you as a hero you would be looking at saving more like 100000+ ppl and even so you would be forgoten about in time.

As for drawing the line for a number of ppl who i would die i don't know would never wish to be put in the situation where had to chose between 100000's of thousands of ppl dying or me dying as i feer i may chose the 'wrong' option.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by wu_trax

the choice is them or me. if i live they die, how am i not responsble for their death?
lets take another example: is it morally ok for you to kill someone because you need a heart transplantation?

Silly example. Killing someone is not morally equivalent to failing to save someone. One is an active event, while the other is passive. Not throwing yourself in front of a moving car to save the life of a pedestrian is not the same as shooting someone.

The person who killed the 100 people would be responsible for their deaths - not you.

Originally posted by nickhall


NO you missed my point!!!

I wasn't replying to the origanal question untill the end of my post. My point was that noone will remember you or see you as a hero for saving 100 ppl or 10000 ppl.

For ppl to see you as a hero you would be looking at saving more like 100000+ ppl and even so you would be forgoten about in time.

I got what you meant.

Originally posted by nickhall
As for drawing the line for a number of ppl who i would die i don't know would never wish to be put in the situation where had to chose between 100000's of thousands of ppl dying or me dying as i feer i may chose the 'wrong' option.

There's a gun against your head - you HAVE to make a decision right now - what is it?

(Note: please don't be pedantic and pick up on the gun against the head bit )

Originally posted by Nodrog
Silly example. Killing someone is not morally equivalent to failing to save someone. One is an active event, while the other is passive. Not throwing yourself in front of a moving car to save the life of a pedestrian is not the same as shooting someone.

The person who killed the 100 people would be responsible for their deaths - not you.

in both cases they die because of your decision, there is no 3rd person in the orginal question, just your decision. (and there is no moral anyway, just a vague standard within society)

im not even sure if i would do it, but i am sure that i would feel guilty for the rest of my life if i wouldnt

[Nodrog]

If a person was asked to kill himself to save 10,000,000 others, I do not believe that he would have any moral obligation to do it.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by wu_trax


im not even sure if i would do it, but i am sure that i would feel guilty for the rest of my life if i wouldnt

I think upon hearing this question, most people would feel that they were 'expected' to say 2. However, as much as you try and deny it to yourself , 1 feels more instinctively right.

[Ruler]

Your basic instinkt tells you to survive what so ever!
Or you were planning a suicide already that might change it.
But all the hero's that took option 2 aren't telling the there true story.

Maybe you can die for some one you really care about, but not for 100 strangers ffssss

[nickhall]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


I got what you meant.

A sorry wasn't clear.

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


There's a gun against your head - you HAVE to make a decision right now - what is it?

(Note: please don't be pedantic and pick up on the gun against the head bit )

Right now i die or 100 ppl i don't lnow die i would 'unfortunatly' chose the 100 ppl to die. I would like to say i would chose to die but i don't think i could.

If on the other hand it was 10 ppl who i knew (and liked) then i would be willing to die or for one person who i loved. But unfortunatly could not do it for 100 ppl who i didn't know.

as from the origanal post about where i would draw the line i am unsure, 3000+ i guess if forced to chose, but that is a high number of ppl to die because i am selfish and want to live

You shouldn't be ashamed of your answer. I think that deep down nearly all humans are 'selfish' (in this sense), even if they are a genuinly nice person.

A question for people who go for option 2:

Why?

[queball]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon


What if it was 10 million people? Where would you draw the line?

I'd draw the line at the number of people where it would significantly impact the survival of my ideas and of humanity. I'd estimate about 6 billion.

[Nixjim]

Most people, faced with the actual situation, will choose to live themselves unless they KNOW at least one of the other 100 who will die and wish to save them. I have no desire to die for 100 strangers, so would save myself if given the choice. After all, how could you ever be sure your sacrifice would really save the 100?

[W]

Originally posted by Vince McMahon
You have a choice:

You stay alive, but 100 people die. However, no one else in the world knows you made this choice, so you wouldn't be harrassed by choosing it.

or

You die, but the 100 people stay alive. This time, everyone in the world is told of your act.

What would you choose? (I mean what would you REALLY choose).

My first instinct is to say option 2, but if I think deep down I find it hard to make a decision.

1) I always choose life over death.

I honestly do not know

[Taratang]

Originally posted by wu_trax
2, because
a) the whole world sux anyway and
b) how would you feel in your life if you know that you are responsible for the death of 100 people?


(and no, people would forget within 1-2 week max so it really doesnt matter if anyone knows in the first place)

in a me/them situation i couldn't care less. especially if i didnt know them.

i always keep 5 free spaces


i suck at this game

[acropolis]

I don't see a difference between killing the 100 to survive and choosing to let the hundred die. Everyone has a right to make their strongest attempt at surviving.

However, I see an issue popping up. Are you reponsible for your situation? If the issue created was your fault, I would say you morally have to take responsibility for your actions (ie, die).

i might be an evil bitch but i would live

[[GAP]Obiwan]

in the end it doesn't really matter

[MrL_JaKiri]

Only 100?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
I don't see a difference between killing the 100 to survive and choosing to let the hundred die. Everyone has a right to make their strongest attempt at surviving.

It depends how you define responsibility. If a person walks up to me in the street with a gun in one hand and a baby in the other, then tells me to give him all my money or else he shoots the baby, then I do not believe I would be morally responsible for the baby's death if I chose not to comply. He would be 100% responsible - noone else. Failure to 'do good' is not the same as 'doing evil'. Negation of a potential positive is not the same as a negative.

I do not believe that a person can ever be morally responsible for the actions of another person, unless he personally created the situation.

Originally posted by acropolis

However, I see an issue popping up. Are you reponsible for your situation? If the issue created was your fault, I would say you morally have to take responsibility for your actions (ie, die).

Thats a different scenario, and I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nodrog

HI NODDYKINS

[Ditcher]

1 of course.
I would expect everyone to do the same and therefore wouldnt mind even if i were in that 100 people group.

[Ugly Monkey]

1. Those silly people would only waste their lives surfing the internet and playing games.

I, however, am different.

[ELeeming]

For me this comes down to a balance of a balance of payments. If it was say, 100 old people or 100 people in a coma, then it would be goodnight Vienna. If on the other hand it was 100 people who were still contributing to society, then it would be the second option.

And what use is fame when you're dead?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
If a person walks up to me in the street with a gun in one hand and a baby in the other, then tells me to give him all my money or else he shoots the baby, then I do not believe I would be morally responsible for the baby's death if I chose not to comply. He would be 100% responsible - noone else. Failure to 'do good' is not the same as 'doing evil'.

I would take it a step further and say that 'sacrificing' to save the baby isn't even necessarily a 'good' thing. Perhaps my wife and kids depend on me etc.

In general I think people would do it if they weren't all that interested in living longer. Also, some might do it in the interest of being remembered, or because they don't want to continue on being known as 'the guy who let 100 die' (which rhymes so it would never be forgotten).

These are not moral reasons.

In addition, many would probably live simply because they were afraid of death. This is not a 'moral' reason either.

To a moral person, the options are
A) Choose life, because you want to live
B) Choose death, because you want them to live

Pretty simple really.

Kill them all.

KILL THEM ALL!

KILL THEM ALL!