I must say that this is a pretty grim scenario showcasing how much people value the life of a child over that of an adult. I don't know the exact reason as to why people think that way but I'm not arguing it either.
Anyway, I would have to go with running into the poor kid. It would suck, and I would feel bad. The thing is, I would feel even worse if I wound up taking the route with the 10 men and killed even one of them.
What if that one man was a father? I may be wrong but I feel that, at the end of the day, the death of an adult would most likely affect more people than the death of a child. Adults usually have close friends, possibly a spouse and maybe even kids. A family. Now imagine if one of the main components of that family suddenly disappeared. You would have the widow (assuming that she loved her spouse) broken up emotionally, as well as the child having to grow up without a father. Close friends would feel the blow as well.
In the case of the kid dying, it isn't easy at all, or fair, to say that the parents can make another kid. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The death of the child may affect the parents and immediate family pretty bad, but the main makeup of the family would still be intact (Father + Mother).
When looking at it from this perspective, the choices you have are to either:
Fuck up 10 families
or
Temporarily Fuck up 1
I'll choose the last one.
Anyway, I would have to go with running into the poor kid. It would suck, and I would feel bad. The thing is, I would feel even worse if I wound up taking the route with the 10 men and killed even one of them.
What if that one man was a father? I may be wrong but I feel that, at the end of the day, the death of an adult would most likely affect more people than the death of a child. Adults usually have close friends, possibly a spouse and maybe even kids. A family. Now imagine if one of the main components of that family suddenly disappeared. You would have the widow (assuming that she loved her spouse) broken up emotionally, as well as the child having to grow up without a father. Close friends would feel the blow as well.
In the case of the kid dying, it isn't easy at all, or fair, to say that the parents can make another kid. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The death of the child may affect the parents and immediate family pretty bad, but the main makeup of the family would still be intact (Father + Mother).
When looking at it from this perspective, the choices you have are to either:
Fuck up 10 families
or
Temporarily Fuck up 1
I'll choose the last one.
"Fear not the Tori who has practiced 10,000 openers once, but fear the Tori who has practiced one opener 10,000 times."
As you present it, I'd kill the child. Maths work, and if there isn't strong feelings for none of then, then ok.
I've seen it with as a bit more dramatic scenario;
You take care of a kind of bridge wich goes up and down every now and then, for letting a train having its normal course. Now your son sees that the train was coming too fast, and he tried to turn on the alarm (wich is on the bridge), so the train is alert and brakes. He falls under the bridge, and the train is coming. Then, the 2 options are:
1. Kill your own son by activating the bridge.
2. Kill and injury people on the train, meaningless lifes for you actually, by not activating the bridge.
That last case will make harder the decision of "killing the kid".
I've seen it with as a bit more dramatic scenario;
You take care of a kind of bridge wich goes up and down every now and then, for letting a train having its normal course. Now your son sees that the train was coming too fast, and he tried to turn on the alarm (wich is on the bridge), so the train is alert and brakes. He falls under the bridge, and the train is coming. Then, the 2 options are:
1. Kill your own son by activating the bridge.
2. Kill and injury people on the train, meaningless lifes for you actually, by not activating the bridge.
That last case will make harder the decision of "killing the kid".
I'd bail out of the moving train and plead insanity.
Pope of BnW • [Torigod] • Lord of Wibbles • YouTube • Toriblog Admin • Interface Artist
(,,ﾟДﾟ) -"Become a fan. DO IT."
Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
Play out God's holy pantomime
Also, Gubbin is neat.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
(,,ﾟДﾟ) -"Become a fan. DO IT."
Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
Play out God's holy pantomime
Also, Gubbin is neat.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Originally Posted by Hyde
Here it is:
You are the conductor of a freight train, alone, and realize the train's brakes are shot. There is nothing you can do to repair them, but the train will head up a steady incline and it will eventually stop.
You see 10 men walking on the rails directly in front of you, who don't see the train. On a rip which you can turn into, there is a child playing on the tracks. If you turn, you will kill the child. If you proceed straight, you have a 90% chance of killing each of the men(90% per person). What is your decision, and why do you decide that it is the right choice?
Honestly, this is a situation that even Aristotle would have a tough time thinking about. Assuming this isn't a trick situation, the choice is between virtually killing nine men or one child. The math is easy, killing one child is not as bad as killing nine men, but the justifications are not.
I'll say that it is one of those situations in which there is no proper thing to do. Choose the lesser evil of killing one to save many as opposed to killing many to save one.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
