Ethical Dilema #1 - The Button

@corndogman presents an interesting diversion, there is little to no chance of surviving, although the scope of this was never touched upon. Yet action can be taken to intervene completely.

There is a lot of unknown and a lot of risk with that scenario, but it leaves the conscience intact. It offers some various potentials:

Potential to survive and win all
Potential to survive and 20 still die
High probability of getting killed and 20 still die
Martyr for what you believe
Justify action and ideals through confrontation of injustice


Interesting that a Si dom is thinking outside the box. :)

Or perhaps it is just a quick response to elicit comic relief without any real bearing on what would actually occur in a real-life scenario.
 
Siamese cat said:
No matter how much you try to paint it only black and white, there will always be those who would tell you that they see something greyish in it. I would probably be the first one to do so. In my opinion there are no black and white situations or dilemmas in the world.

Still I do find what you propose as a moral dilemma to be quite interesting.
Click to expand...

I would say there is nothing black and white about the subjective values one places on the decision, just black and white in terms of the two options you have.
 
I'd push the button.


Basically in this scenario if you don't push the button 20 people will die. You can try to shift the blame to the kidnapper and say that it's on their shoulders or whatever but really? If you had a chance to save 20 people from death wouldn't you do it? Even if the price of saving them was high.

I would and it I probably wouldn't hesitate.
 
Last edited:
The choices here are surprising in a way when contrasted with how this would be dealt with if one were to be judged by a legal system.

The legal system wouldn't focus on the balance in the value of life, but only on action vs inaction. Taking the life of one would be punishable regardless of the context. I purposely left anything legal out of the scenario to prevent this potential from interfering.

I am actually seeing more action-oriented responses than I had imaged there would be.
 
Ok, NAI, I have a scenario for you:

What if it were all about emotion. What if the choice was to kill one child you knew and loved or 20 children you didn't know... Or if you're one of those people out there who doesn't like kids, imagine it is one person one love and 20 innocent people you don't. What would you do when the choice was necessarily emotional?

Would you choose to sacrifice one person you love to save so many, or would you knowingly send 20 innocent people to their death to save the one you know?

And let's leave romantic love out of it for now... let's say this person you love is not a significant other...

What would you do?
 
Cyrus said:
Ok, NAI, I have a scenario for you:

What if it were all about emotion. What if the choice was to kill one child you knew and loved or 20 children you didn't know... Or if you're one of those people out there who doesn't like kids, imagine it is one person one love and 20 innocent people you don't. What would you do when the choice was necessarily emotional?

Would you choose to sacrifice one person you love to save so many, or would you knowingly send 20 innocent people to their death to save the one you know?

And let's leave romantic love out of it for now... let's say this person you love is not a significant other...

What would you do?
Click to expand...

I think the method of death matters, especially if the method differed from the known person vs the unknown.

If it were me having to kill them, I don't know. I might just refuse to act altogether. If it was only a choice, it would be 80% for saving the person I know. Having to personally kill 20 people would have a big impact on my decision.
 
if i was convinced the scenario given was complete accurate i'd push it. wtv the legal system and all that says if you see all humans as equal, 20 is more than 1. and as someoen already said (n2mention geddy lee in the rush classic freewill), if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
 
press the button, because not doing so is the same as pressing the button twenty times.
 
@ NAI: I see. Fascinating! So, your emotion wouldn't allow you to make someone you loved suffer, but your values wouldn't allow you to personally kill 20 people to save 1... Would it be different to you if you were "pulling the trigger" versus if you just knew your decision would lead to their deaths? Would it be more personal to you to watch the 20 die?

Don't mean to be overly morbid here... Just curious about your thought process...
 
Do I know that the person/people are killed? Am I given proof afterwards?
 
I wouldn't push the button.
 
Cyrus said:
@ NAI: I see. Fascinating! So, your emotion wouldn't allow you to make someone you loved suffer, but your values wouldn't allow you to personally kill 20 people to save 1... Would it be different to you if you were "pulling the trigger" versus if you just knew your decision would lead to their deaths? Would it be more personal to you to watch the 20 die?

Don't mean to be overly morbid here... Just curious about your thought process...
Click to expand...

Being executioner would be completely different than judge. Watching would have a huge impact as well.

I think I would completely break down in a situation like that.
 
Barnabas said:
By refusing to participate you have no burden at all.
Click to expand...

Wyote said:
Inaction is just as much of an event as action.
Click to expand...

I agree with Wyote, at least when the choice to not act is based on awareness of the situation and its consequence potential.

---

I thought at first I would press the button. As I considered it further, I decided I would not press it.


cheers,
Ian
 
In this situation, not making a decision is a decision in itself, especially in the eyes of the family members of the 20 you killed. It's a simple numbers game, I'd push the button.
 
Barnabas said:
the thing is, they are giving you a choice and while the burden isn't solely or mostly on you. You still have had a part in the death of another man. By refusing to participate you have no burden at all.
Click to expand...

By refusing to participate you are also refusing to save them.
 
I guess I'll push it. There will be substantial guilt either way, just for the truth of killing / letting others die.

But the amount of people lived is something that's also important.
 
I'm inclined to say I'd push the button. But my issue lies here, how can I trust someone who kidnapped me not to kill the other 20 people as well? They can promise all they like, but in my mind there is no way I can know what they are really going to do or why they have presented me with this scenario.
 
So in other words, I have 5 minutes to subdue my kidnapper, steal his keys, and free the hostages?

Let's do this
willise.jpg
 
I'm a bit confused.
You have the choice to kill 1 or 20 people?
1, obviously o_O
What didn't I understand? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top