Glad nothing like this will happen in my lifetime, or at least not involving me.

 

 

 

Depends if you consider all lives equal, or not. I do not, and would save the 1 person as society overall would benefit from his survival (Depending on what he actually does, if he is a useless person, then I'd probably kill him off). The 5 sick people would require medical attention, which they might not get or it might not be successful. So save the useful person and kill of the useless.

do the 5 people have insurance!?

 

 

 

if not kill em all! the healthy guys healthy for a reason eh

 

 

 

if hes fine.. and the other ones r donna die anyway.. their probably amputated and stuff.. id wanna die anyway.. waste of a good body on the healthy guys part..

Read this somewhere, and don't remember it word for word, but here goes.

 

 

 

There are 6 people tied to a train track, 5 on one track, and 1 on the other. Right now the train is headed towards the 5 people, and you have the switch to make it change tracks and head towards the other person.

 

 

 

There are 5 dying people in a hospital room, and 1 perfectly healthy person is there. Do you take the healthy persons organs (also making them die) and give them to the 5 dying people so they can live, or not?

 

 

 

What would you do?

 

 

 

1. Put as many visible obstacles such as tree trunks or large rocks on both train tracks to make the trains slow down & stop. Not every solution has to involve death.

 

 

 

2. Let the healthy person live. Attempting to implant organs into an unknown recipient's body involves a massive risk of rejection by the body, not only would those 5 people be dying, you'd also be murdering a completely innocent person, with a high probability of the other people not surviving either way. It makes no mathematical sense.

A slight variant that makes things even more "fun" is that the one person is someone you know well, like a best friend, spouse, etc..

Swing down on a rope and hit the switch then swing back and grab the one guy in the nick of time and be praised as a hero for about 47 minutes.

Read this somewhere, and don't remember it word for word, but here goes.

 

 

 

There are 6 people tied to a train track, 5 on one track, and 1 on the other. Right now the train is headed towards the 5 people, and you have the switch to make it change tracks and head towards the other person.

 

 

 

There are 5 dying people in a hospital room, and 1 perfectly healthy person is there. Do you take the healthy persons organs (also making them die) and give them to the 5 dying people so they can live, or not?

 

 

 

What would you do?

 

 

 

Yeah they're totally different situations. Screw mathematics, common sense tells me that two different decisions are required, from an ethical standpoint.

 

 

 

Save the 5 people in the first situation (train track), Let the 5 ones die in the second situation (hospital), rather than sacrifice a healthy one.

 

In the first situation, all 6 are at the end of the same rope. You're forced to act as quickly as possible, in order to minimize the effect of someone else's evil deed (who decided to tie a bunch of people to train tracks). But in the second case, 5 are already so ill that they're close to death and one is perfectly healthy and you're just randomly deciding he's gonna die for the noble reason of saving 5 people? That's insane, what are you, god? :P

Pull the lever so the track half-switches, and the train de-rails. Saves everyone except the hundred or so people in the train.

 

Just what I was thinking.

Kill the dying, save the living.

Personally,I'd only save the five if they gave me a huge bribe for my trouble.If not,they're going to die anyway,I'd just kill the odd guy since he'd be a witness. :twisted:

 

 

 

There are 6 people tied to a train track, 5 on one track, and 1 on the other. Right now the train is headed towards the 5 people, and you have the switch to make it change tracks and head towards the other person.

 

 

 

There are 5 dying people in a hospital room, and 1 perfectly healthy person is there. Do you take the healthy persons organs (also making them die) and give them to the 5 dying people so they can live, or not?

 

 

 

What would you do?

 

 

 

1. Save the 5 people and switch the train tracks, I'd do the same for 2 to 1.

 

 

 

2. Unfortunately although it would save 5 peoples lives you can't kill one person to save 5 others without their consent as it is technically murder. If they consent to it and realise they will die then I would do the operation. But there is also the chance the dying would all reject the 5 organs and die, meaning 1 healthy person died and 5 very sick people died as well.

Pull the lever so the track half-switches, and the train de-rails. Saves everyone except the hundred or so people in the train.

so siggied!

I would kill 10,000 monkeys to save one person.

The real answer is to kill the person who tied them there in the first place.

Pull the lever so the track half-switches, and the train de-rails. Saves everyone except the hundred or so people in the train.

 

 

 

Lol'd. I'd kill 1 to save 5, like most people.. but like Pure said, how would all the organs work for five different people? If they would, I would still steal his organs and give them to the needy (Heh, I feel like Robin Hood).

I would switch the train track towards the single person, as I would be able to cut him/her free faster than the group of five.

 

In the medical situation... That's a loaded question no matter how you view it. I personally would never be able to kill someone, so I guess the five ailing patients would die.

imo, it all depends who the 6 people are

I would kill 10,000 monkeys to save one person.

 

 

 

 

BRING IT.

1 life for 5?Does that mean if I kill one person I get +5UP?Deal.

 

 

 

No jk,my real answer page 2

A better question would be rather you would save your best friend or 5 total strangers.

A better question would be rather you would save your best friend or 5 total strangers.

Rather save as in I don't have to kill one? They're all doomed anyway?

 

In that case, the strangers. My best friend would agree with me, and if not, I would need a new one anyway.

I would kill 10,000 monkeys to save one person.

 

 

 

 

BRING IT.

 

 

 

I found that so incredibly cheesy and lame that I had to post this message saying so...

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

I'd watch all of em die right before my eyes and play in their blood afterward! :twss:

Wait a minute. Didn't getting 5 kills with 1 shell give Mario an extra life?

With the train track I'd switch it to the one. With the medical thing though, I'd let the one live, kill off the weak.

I don't know how anyone could feel any differently... Assuming that all the people are moral and decent human beings overall, saving 5 over 1 is far better.

 

 

 

As for the hospital case, I don't know how anyone could feel any differently... That one person has far more right to live than a million dying people. It's his/her choice alone to die for them.

Wait a minute. Didn't getting 5 kills with 1 shell give Mario an extra life?

 

It defiantly did... :shock: