Originally Posted by RayA75
But that's not the point. The unawareness of those men does not justify you deliberately choosing to kill them. Nothing really does, except that you have to make a choice between them and the child. Also, you think choosing to kill a child is morally objectionable, but not ten men?
The point is that you have to kill either nine or ten men or a child, no matter the circumstance. I wouldn't put any other factors into the equation about the circumstance because it's supposed to be an ethical dilemma rather than a circumstantial dilemma.
Ok, so if its an exorcise in pure numbers then i cant really say anything other than say run over the child. That does not sit well with me. Its possible that i cant distance myself enough from the situation to make an objective decision about it, but circumstances matter in situations like this. I will still stick by what i said, the ten men have a greater chance of surviving.
to OP: Take the rip/turn, claim you didn't see the kid, but offer to help the grieving family.
to Tinerr: Save your son. The people who chastise you for crashing the train are dicks anyway, and your son will think of you as a hero.
to Tinerr: Save your son. The people who chastise you for crashing the train are dicks anyway, and your son will think of you as a hero.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
What's the point of the whole story? IRL there's plenty of ways to make everyone live.
Why not just say "would you rather kill 9 men or 1 child"?
Oh yeah, 1 v 9? I kill 1.
To humanize it. Also, probability isn't set in stone. 90% = 90%. It isn't guaranteed that only 9 will die/only 1 will survive.
Hoss.
