Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Nanori · F
View 3 more replies »
Eternity · 26-30, M
@PepsiColaP it says that for anyone; it is objective. Can you overcome your own morality in order to save some over others? Are the ones who you know more important than the strangers that outnumber them?
These are concrete questions that are the same for everyone though different the answers may be. An attempt to flee the scenario, no matter how it is dressed, is still an attempt to flee.
You can't do a cost analysis on human lives? Are you sure? Pretty sure big pharma and wartime doctors have been doing it for years and years...
I would choose scenario B
Why?
Because I love my family and friends more than the faceless masses of the Earth, and my want to see them happy and safe is greater than my personal moral scruples.
These are concrete questions that are the same for everyone though different the answers may be. An attempt to flee the scenario, no matter how it is dressed, is still an attempt to flee.
You can't do a cost analysis on human lives? Are you sure? Pretty sure big pharma and wartime doctors have been doing it for years and years...
I would choose scenario B
Why?
Because I love my family and friends more than the faceless masses of the Earth, and my want to see them happy and safe is greater than my personal moral scruples.
@Eternity you don't understand. Who has said that any choice in this case scenario is such a specific analysis of others? It's a very generic question that like I already said resembles an ethical dilemma that's really not new at all.
Also either choice is based on personal moralities ,A or B. They are both motivated by what is deemed as morally correct to you. You say B because you love the people you love more than the faceless masses ,even if it is against your moral beliefs. It sounds like your moral beliefs are in actuality based on the gravity these people hold for you ,or what you describe as love. this is your personal ethics and what motivates you ,had it been otherwise you would have chosen otherwise .
Also either choice is based on personal moralities ,A or B. They are both motivated by what is deemed as morally correct to you. You say B because you love the people you love more than the faceless masses ,even if it is against your moral beliefs. It sounds like your moral beliefs are in actuality based on the gravity these people hold for you ,or what you describe as love. this is your personal ethics and what motivates you ,had it been otherwise you would have chosen otherwise .
Eternity · 26-30, M
@PepsiColaP [i]you[/i] don't understand what I am trying to say. But that's okay 👍🏼
Scarfface · 46-50, M
Definitely B it's a natural choice.
I would first try and hack what ever was carrying out these commands and try to diffuse the situation first.
I would first try and hack what ever was carrying out these commands and try to diffuse the situation first.
LucyFuhr · 56-60, F
Does it really matter since I'll be dying either way? LOL
I'd choose B, but mostly just for my niece and nephew.
I'd choose B, but mostly just for my niece and nephew.
Ferric67 · M
Press them both
What happens next, happens next
This whole world needs a massive reset
What happens next, happens next
This whole world needs a massive reset
Elessar · 26-30, M
It ain't easy but since it's an obligated choice, button B, sorry strangers.
Mikeawesome1986 · 36-40, M
If I press them both, does everyone die?
Eternity · 26-30, M
@Mikeawesome1986 scenario B plays out
Mikeawesome1986 · 36-40, M
@Eternity Seems to be the only fair way to do it is to press one at random and leave it to chance.
in10RjFox · M
Let me call the Avengers !
SW-User
B, reset and population control
Sharky86 · 36-40, M
BUTT on
SW-User
SW-User
Neither. Choosing either one would go against my moral code.
Eternity · 26-30, M
@SW-User that's fair. I'm just saying that even if you do nothing blood is still on your hands.
So doing nothing to avoid blood on your hands will not save you from what you sought to avoid.
You'd do better to say that you will do nothing simply because you don't want to do anything.
So doing nothing to avoid blood on your hands will not save you from what you sought to avoid.
You'd do better to say that you will do nothing simply because you don't want to do anything.
SW-User
@Eternity Well that's a matter of interpretation and your take on morality.
I wouldn't believe myself responsible.
In my eyes, whoever arranged this scenario would be responsible for death. I would not be choosing for anyone to die. They would be choosing it.
And my only option to prevent them doing that would be to explicitly choose to kill people. Which I couldn't do
I wouldn't believe myself responsible.
In my eyes, whoever arranged this scenario would be responsible for death. I would not be choosing for anyone to die. They would be choosing it.
And my only option to prevent them doing that would be to explicitly choose to kill people. Which I couldn't do
Eternity · 26-30, M
@SW-User fair enough.
What if the people responsible for orchestrating this scenario were the people of the world?
Similar to how the people of our world have made it so that we are always just a few bad decisions away from nuclear annihilation, what if the people in this hypothetical world were responsible for the circumstances that facilitated this choice?
Would that change your answer?
What if the people responsible for orchestrating this scenario were the people of the world?
Similar to how the people of our world have made it so that we are always just a few bad decisions away from nuclear annihilation, what if the people in this hypothetical world were responsible for the circumstances that facilitated this choice?
Would that change your answer?