The true question is if you can stop the train by giving your life....would you do so ?? There is no question I would divert the train away from the children, but would I give my life for them??? hmmmmmmm...... Many people ( firefighters, policemen, Coast guard) are faced with this type of decisions day in and day out........you have to hand it to them........
These people have a choice to give their lives for someone else. If you divert the train, the guy in the tunnel has no choice. You decided for him. You murdered him. While it maybe true that the guy would be willing to give his life for the 5 kids, you would have to ask him first. If you don't ask him, it's murder.
Why are children considered more valuable in our society? The urge to protect children is the same as the urge to over eat; it's an antiquated genetic program. There are plenty of children around now a days, as such they don't don't need to be preserved at all costs. The future of the human race is not at stake. In fact, there're probably too many kids around. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect kids. I'm just pointing out that a child's life has the same value as an adult's life, despite what your instincts may tell you. Most people just think...KID...MUST SAVE...MUST SAVE...
Why are children considered more valuable in our society? Because there is something more innocent and promising in a child's eyes....
Move the tracks halfway so that the train jumps the tracks and hope that the end doesn't whip around and kill me in the process.
The posed problem is a nice introduction to the scenario set out below. Perhaps we could ask a catholic doctor how it feels having to make decisions like that ? If a woman has a baby in a catholic hospital and if complications arise then, given the choice between saving the baby or the mother, the doctor is under a religious obligation to save the child and sacrifice the mother. I understand that the situation is that, irrespective of the fact that the mother may have another seven children at home waiting for her to come home to look after them, the rule remains as is i.e. save the child irrespective of what the circumstances are. What do YOU think about that ? Would you be pragmatic and save the mother instead of the baby and in the process provide a live mother to the seven children at home or would you save the baby, let the mother die, disregard the other children's interests AND, in the process, save your own soul from going to hell ? freealways
Forget the kids and guy working on the tracks thing. Here is a more realistic scenario. You are in a room with: Saddam Hussein Momhar Khadaffi (or however you spell it) Mr Market You have a gun with only two bullets....who do you shoot. Obvious answer Mr Market.....TWICE
Edit ⢠Quote ⢠Kill El Cohon Junior Member Registered: Jan 2003 Posts: 14 02-04-03 07:04 PM Moral Dilema - Different View Forget the kids and guy working on the tracks thing. Here is a more realistic scenario. You are in a room with: Saddam Hussein Momhar Khadaffi (or however you spell it) Mr Market You have a gun with only two bullets....who do you shoot. Obvious answer Mr Market.....TWICE ============================================ With out a doubt, the FUNNIEST post I've read.....
What do YOU think about that ? Would you be pragmatic and save the mother instead of the baby and in the process provide a live mother to the seven children at home or would you save the baby, let the mother die, disregard the other children's interests AND, in the process, save your own soul from going to hell ? ========================================== Save the child....the father can take care of the remaining children. Incidentally, why does it have to be a catholic doctor? especially when there's so many jewish doctors out there...just curious