The Courthouse

[Master Q]

I think it will be cool if we could sort of have debates and discuss issues in this thread.

I'll kick it off:

What would you do?

There are 200 80 Year Olds on a Train. a few kilometres away, the track is broken. If you continue down the track, everyone will die. However, there is a Second Track, which will save everyone, however there is a Baby sitting on it.

Would you go down the 1st track or go down the 2nd Track and kill the baby, but save all the 80 Year Olds.

[ossie85]

I like these :)

And I've heard a similar one to this before, but with 1 adult and 1 baby.

200 makes it much difficult!

....

you've stumped me Q. I think 200 pushes me over the edge, and would go with 80yos. I would then proceed to be in therapy for the rest of my life, cos instinct is to protect the next generation.


... if it was my baby? Well the grannies can go to hell ;)

[Master Q]

Yeh good thread idea hey? Good why to get some laughs, think, and kill time.

Once I get a few more answers I've got something to make the decision a little more tougher...

[Justin Bieber]

I remember when I took Yr 8 Philosophy. Teacher gave us a bunch of sheets with moral dilemmas. Some involved train tracks, shopping trollies, etc. Then there are extension questions that make the decision even more harder.
I would have to agree with ossie here. 200 is too many to sacrifice for 1 life, even if it is a baby :'(.

[Master Q]

Ok, what about this.

What if the 80 year olds where very ill and had no family/friends. What track would you take?

[j959]

that makes it easier ... baby everytime - the 80yr olds have had their chance!  ;)

[Barlow 21]

BB check your PM`s.

[roo boys!]

BB check your PM`s.

Random?

[Justin Bieber]

that makes it easier ... baby everytime - the 80yr olds have had their chance!  ;)

Yep. The Baby would have it's whole life ahead of it while the Older people have had a good life and are just waiting now.....

[Master Q]

Alright, here's a new one:

What is Worse?

Pushing someone into a River (and they drown)

Walking past someone who's drowning in a river and not saving them (and they drown).

[roo boys!]

If it's not accidental I think pushing them into a river is worse, as you intentionally ended their life, but if you are walking past someone drowning you have to look at DR. ABCD, and the first letter is for Danger so if you see danger to yourself then you shouldn't risk 2 lives.

[Justin Bieber]

Had similar questions to these.

The second scenario is better. First scenario makes you apart of the death as you physically push them in. Second one only requires you to see it but not neccessarily have anything to do with the actually way they die, you just don't help.

[ossie85]

Alright, here's a new one:

What is Worse?

Pushing someone into a River (and they drown)

Walking past someone who's drowning in a river and not saving them (and they drown).

On the face of it, clearly the 1st one is worse.

But pushing someone into a river implies to me that you know that person. Perhaps it is a personal conflict?

Whereas and not lifting a finger to help a stranger is dispicable

[Master Q]

If it's not accidental I think pushing them into a river is worse, as you intentionally ended their life, but if you are walking past someone drowning you have to look at DR. ABCD, and the first letter is for Danger so if you see danger to yourself then you shouldn't risk 2 lives.

You've learnt your stuff  ;)

But no, saving them will not put you in Danger.

I'll rephrase it as all of you guys said made a statement/question sort of thing.

Someone pushes someone in on purpose (You don't know them.)

You standing there watching them drown when you could do something (on purpose if you want to look at it that way. You don't know them.)

[Master Q]

A few more answers and I have a much harder one  ;)