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.

 

The five will be comatose for the rest of their lives due to debris.

 

 

 

Still an easy decision?

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.

 

The five will be comatose for the rest of their lives due to debris.

 

 

 

Still an easy decision?

 

 

 

Hit the one and then send the train back for the rest. Simple.

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.

 

Let the 5 live.

 

 

 

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?

 

Kinda different, can we presume they are going to live in perfect health for the rest of their lives?

 

 

 

And do we have to do the surgery, if we did I'd end up killing everybody, probaly myself, if not then why the hell is it my decision!?

I would like to think that I'd switch the train, but depending on who was in the 1 or 5, I might be swayed one way.

 

 

 

As to the hospital scenario, I would let the 1 person live, but I don't exactly agree with organ transplants and stuff like that anyway. Playing God isn't for humans.

 

So if you had a messed up heart you wouldn't want a heart transplant?

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

 

That's why this thread seemed so familiar. A while ago there was one about killing 10k people or your family or something. So morbid...

 

What if it was their time to die after the donated kidney? Bad example though, you can live without two kidneys, you'd just have to go for dialysis 3 times a week in order to have your blood filtered.

 

This is where the debate of destiny v.s. choice comes in and both have reasonable arguments, but I really can't see which is the right one

 

Yea you can live without kidneys, but one could still argue that being on dialysis would still be "cheating." And the destiny vs. choice argument is exactly why my mind wrestles with the idea so much. Personally, I believe very strongly in destiny and fate and if something did happen that I needed a transplant, I would forgo it. However, most others don't share these feelings and I'm not incredibly articulate on the subject, so it's difficult to accurately portray my own feelings.

Who tied these people to the tracks and why? To make someone mad enough to tie you down to train tracks, you must of made someone mad. I'd probably walk away.

 

 

 

For the hospital question, survival of the fittest. I'll attend the funeral(s).

Choose the lesser of to evils.

 

 

 

Hospital: without the healthy one's consent, there isn't much to do.

If someone took the time and effort to tie the people to the tracks but is absent to watch their demise,though I am,I assume that it is I who tied them to the tracks.Therefore I kill the odd guy and watch the train kill the five.

 

 

 

As for the hospital,rig the sick guys' LSM to stay stable while I kill them and then kill the healthy guy for being a witness.Can say they died during the ops.

That's why this thread seemed so familiar. A while ago there was one about killing 10k people or your family or something. So morbid...

 

 

 

Yeah, that's a morale invoking one. :shock: I'd save my family. I mean, 10k people is devastating but not on such a personal as your own family - and after all, it is a personal decision.

Train kills five, I get mushroom, I go massive and I kill everyone :twss:

Switch the train track to the one person and then untie that person? There's one guy tied up instead of five. I bet you could untie him.

 

 

 

Also, the healthy person is going to live.

With the hospital scenario the healthy person must live.

 

Who are we to decide that an innocent life should end? (I have to say "innocent" because I support executions)

 

 

 

Why not surrender your own organs to save the 5 innocent lives.

Kill few to save many.

 

 

 

And how are organ transplants a way of cheating God?

 

I actually think it's more a way of cheating Death. If someones kidneys had failed (through no fault of their own, purely a genetic disorder) and they received a donated kidney and survive, they're living on borrowed time. They basically gave Death the finger and a nice, big '[bleep] you.' They shouldn't be alive, the only reason they are is because surgeons stepped in and removed their future cause of death.

 

I don't know if that came across quite the way I wanted it to; it's kind of hard to explain.

 

 

 

yea bro i totally agree. [bleep] medicine lets just lie back and let everyone die young.

It all depends on who each one of them is.

 

The lives of 5 criminals are not worth the same than the life of an honest person.

 

 

 

But if you don't know the background on each life, then I think I would save the 5 lives.

Five to one baby one in five! No one here gets out alive!

 

 

 

had to do it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imo... it's the healthy person's decision not ours.

That was the Lincoln/Douglas debate topic for September/August.

 

"Is it morally permissable to take the life of one to save more"

 

or something along those lines.

Well...in the train track case... I would stop the train, get out, untie them all, and get on with my life.

 

You've never been in a train, have you?

 

 

 

Of course, the question doesn't specify where the train is...Or if it's a super-train...

 

 

 

You maybe onto something there.

Lol well how about these situations never actually happen and this thread is full of [cabbage]. /thread

i say the healthy person gets to live.

 

stupid unhealthy people should have decided not to go and be unhealthy before this happened.

 

and if they have cancer. they can go fall down stairs. cause everyone who has cancer is all whiny a [bleep]y about it. and that sounded really insensitive. but you know its true. most of the time.

 

 

 

oh and with the people on the train. i say you just blow the train up and save all 6 people. and let the chance that its a train with nobody on it, or only one person on it save 6 people.

 

and then throw chainsaws at the six people for being stupid and getting tied to train tracks.

secret option 3, shoot the train with sidewinder missiles, then do the same with the people :twisted:

Lol well how about these situations never actually happen and this thread is full of [cabbage]. /thread

 

 

 

epic. :lol:

^So there are never healthy people in a hospital?There are never people dying in a hospital?Oh,maybe hospitals never existed.

 

 

 

Lets play rugby so I can score a FACEPLANT!

Depends on who is there. If the one person is a doctor, I would save him. If he was my dad, I would save him...

^So there are never healthy people in a hospital?There are never people dying in a hospital?Oh,maybe hospitals never existed.

 

 

 

Lets play rugby so I can score a FACEPLANT!

 

I'd play, but I'll be too busy firefighting.

 

 

 

You know, since there are so many BURNS around!