Moral and logical decisions.
 

Why would a child die?

Because it helps the strawman argument, of course.

Salvanas, I believe you're thinking too hard. Unclench before you pull something.

The question for me would also be... Why is the child going to die?
Without knowing that I can`t answer.

I don`t think there is ever a correct answer. The child could have an undetected health condition and die tomorrow. The grandmother may have 20 years of life left.

In reality, even if I knew a child would die if I saved the grandmother (mine or that of another person) I would probably still try to save the grandmother.

As sad and cold as this thinking is - you can make another baby. You can`t make another grandmother.

There usually isn`t a situation where a child will die if a grandmother is saved. :mtongue:

Anyway - everything after the "In reality" was just that. My honest answer.

Would YOU die for your granny Or parents?

No. No questions about it. Nor would I die to save my children.
Yes I`m a terrible and cold person - please don`t feel the need to point it out.

No, that isn`t what I meant. My logic is that you can make another child while you cannot make another grandparent or parent. That combined with the likely reflex of simply not wanting to see someone be killed in front of me while I just stood there.

Why not save both of them instead of wasting time thinking how to save just the one? :)

If you save one then you would have guilt from not saving the other...right?

I have a feeling no one can say with any certainty what they would do or wouldn't do unless the situation was presented in front of them in real time and in real life.

We like to think we can separate ourselves from our moral fibers, and it's easy to say what we would do on paper, but you really can't know for sure until after it has happened.

As long as you tried your best, i guess its the thought that counts... :)

Well, in my case I`d be more likely to die for a random person on the street than my parents, but I am guessing that is irrelevant. Even if my parents were the most loving and wonderful people - I still wouldn`t sacrifice my own life for them. There simply isn`t enough merit in it for me even if it were my child. Die knowing they`d live on? Even if I love them to death, it wouldn`t matter as I would be dead.

I think that in such a situation, or a similar one in real life - reflex would rule all. The chance you`re going to weigh logic against emotion is very very low.
At least I can say I`m pretty sure that is the case for me. If I could reach out and save someone, reflex is going to likely push me to do so - regardless of the effect that person`s survival will have on others and the future.

ETA;
Then again - now with a bit of thought - in such a situation I figure I`d be calm enough to think it out. I`ve done the "self or child" bit, and had no hesitation about choosing myself over child... And felt pretty devoid of emotion at the time.

I kinda like it when a lot of people die.

Im sure if you were killed they would be too sad to kill themselves. :)

In the car situation, if it was a completely even split where you action would decide which person the car would hit, on both the logical and moral side I think I'd have to choose the child. Even if the lady was my grandmother.

Start a giant congo line. That way everyone will come onto the road slowing traffic down. Then puncture the persons tyres when they are not looking and run off somewhere no one will find you... :)

i get it. you cant save a life without taking one away. you can kill a cow to feed the village or you can save the cow and allow the village to starve for the day. or something like that. the same applies to good and evil. you cant have peace without chaos and you cannot have chaos without peace.

i have one for you that ive heard from a comedian named jimmy carr. he asked an audience member a question which is a bit graphic but still makes you think. the question was

would you sleep with your dad to save your moms life.

the boy said no and everyone booed him. jimmy said "think about what your booing. your booing him because he didnt want to sleep with his dad."

would such a decision be a logical one or a moral one? save your mom or commit immorality.

Actually, the new PS3 game out called Infamous gives you a Choice such as the orignial poster that would probably make this easier for people to understand.

SPOILER-






On one building there is a bunch of doctors strung up by ropes tied to their hands and they are hanging over the side. On another building your girl friend is strung up by rope tied to her hands hanging over the side. Both have an explosive charge attached to the ropes in order to cut the ropes and allow them to fall. The buildings are too far apart for you to save both, so you have to choose which to save. A whole bunch of doctors or your girl friend.

It's kind of like a 'head over heart' situation.

In some walks of life, I always choose my head. In others I go with my heart or the 'moral' decision. I usually go with my gut instinct in things. I do things that I want to do on a whim, sometimes without thinking logically about the consequneces for a long time.

Though in a few short seconds in my head two lists appear - the positives and negatives of each action. Each of the positives will have points as to how important they are, so that the list with the most points will win. That's a weird way of thinking but that's how I make all decisions. Some say that would be logical, but then obviously how the points go depend on my moral emotions.

And that sounds really weird so I'll shut up now. :p

Hmm? How can this happen IRL? Dad will gently ask you to sleep with him to save mom's life?

You can report him to the police next day... so why should he bother to do that, he can force you right there to sleep with you without the need of 'mom's death menace'. Unless that certain dad is retarded.

But wouldn't the sense of an obligation to save one's own mother also evidence moral influence?

I'm not choosing a side here, my jury is still out on this scenario. It's difficult to decide when circumstances wouldn't give rise to the situation. . . .

its just a hypothetical question

Ultimately, I don't think I would, either. Some of the reasons that come to mind are:

1) Obviously, I would not want to. As damaging to the psyche as either option would be, I think the "save Mother" choice would be more permanently scarring to me. That may seem selfish, but it is what it is.

2) I like to think the majority of mothers would not want their children to go through that.

... no i would not. it may be logical to do so, but its just waay wierd and i wouldn't i would look for alternative ways to save my mother, for instance, if it was the dad that would kill her if you didnt, i would try to call the police before he could

but to this question there is no other option. lets say theres a man who breaks into your home and tells you to do what i just mentioned. would you be able to do it or not. its just a lose lose scenario

but if you kill him you wont know where the treasures buried.also he's luke farigno with hulk smash hands and laser eyes and indestructible like wolverine.


just kidding. actually you seemed to work that out nicely

Saiyan

Sorry, I have been an addicted fan since a kid and it always bothered to me when someone made a typo of that word :mtongue:

And yea, I'd refuse as well.

I`d sleep with someone to save another person`s (if they were important to me) life, regardless of who the person I had to sleep with.

I mean, the unpleasant experience of sleeping with them would literally be done in a few minutes. Losing someone is for life. It isn`t quite on the same level.
Weighing two lives is one thing, but... A few minutes of suffering in exchange for someone`s survival seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I believe in logical decisions.
Considering I dont really have a great set of moral standards. Everything that happens is mainly based on logic.
I like the question that you presented, it really makes one think but I'm sure you could come up with a better one that truely tests this.