Author Topic: lets talk about moral quandries  (Read 5066 times)


if he volunteers i won't stop him, plus, i'm legally invincible

if he volunteers i won't stop him, plus, i'm legally invincible

He's volunteering under the pretense that he'll survive the operation.

He's volunteering under the pretense that he'll survive the operation.
he should have read the


no but seriously i'd rather my brother live than this random volunteer because i'd rather see my brother live than him die because no one was available to donate kidneys
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 12:55:38 AM by UnoriginalGuy »


earlier today he was arguing about something in the FMT and i wanted to say something but didn't
if you wanna say something to me. something real, like you think I'm acting like a jerk or something. don't say it on the forum, send me a message on steam instead. I'll be 100x more likely to listen and not be upset about it
you said that the area near NYC and up would get decimated
i won't be near new york
well that was a different situation. at some point it kinda forked off and now we're talking about project trinity and the risks associated with it, not the cloverfield thing
...didn't god kill tons of his own people for the errors of select few?
yeah idk. but that was like the old testament or something. the new testament god is supposed to be better I think
the point is that nobody really deserves to die. I'm not really gonna get into that too much cus of people like Riddler and stuff but as far as normal people go, any mistakes they make are correctable or at least forgivable
but if everyone was gone. that would make it all worthless. like, we'd never have even gone to the moon, much less would we ever send a robot to mars or eventually even make a colony on the planet, and every single accomplishment any human being has ever made in any field would be pointless
I have a hard enough time already dealing with the concept of one person dying

that was an early belief held by the scientists working with oppenheimer

the ignition obviously doesn't happen
everyone knows about the dumb theory

how's about you discuss this "ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone" scenario at another time
 

how's about you discuss this "ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone" scenario at another time
why??? it's even still relevant to the thread

Individual rights are above the wants of the majority.


Dren and me are pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Individual rights are above the wants of the majority.
did you specifically say wants on purpose? because if so, I agree. but if you also meant to include "needs" then I think it depends

I like thinking about these kinds of issues in an objective manner. Unless it's an almost unanimous opinion, as in something most sane people can agree on (e.g. rape is bad), morals can differ from person to person and the best option is the one that benefits people in the end, despite any moral or immoral shortcomings that come from said option.

As an example, I'm against the death penalty simply because it costs more time and taxdollars, and not because of any personal beliefs associated with people dying.

You are a doctor. One morning, your brother comes in with renal failure and requires a kidney transplant immediately. A compatible kidney will allow him to live a normal life once again.

You are incompatible, as are the rest of your siblings. However, a random patient volunteers to donate his kidney. What he does not know is the operation will kill him, but with his kidney your brother would survive.

What do you do?
It's the patient's kidney, and his choice. He deserves all the information I can give him. I would tell him that the operation would kill him, and if he still decides to go through with it, then all is well (kind of). In the likely case he doesn't, I would either wait for another donor, or just say forget it because life sucks sometimes.

You can bring peace on Earth, and make all men happy, excluding yourself. In order to do this, you have to torture and kill a young girl.
Do you do it? You could save millions of lives by ending violence.
Edit: It will not prevent you from being happy, it will just not force you into happiness.
How exactly would killing the girl bring peace on Earth?

A madman has planted bombs all over New York city. He has been captured, but will not reveal where he has placed the bomb. He has a rare condition so he does not feel pain, and the only way to get the locations of the bombs is to torture his (innocent) wife.
Do you do it? You could save thousands of lives, and nobody would die.
Torture the wife because she probably isn't actually innocent. Let New York City die anyway because it should be a lesson to them that they need to not let people plant bombs all around. There are consequences to this sort of behavior.

A small train is coming down a track. 5 people are tied to it, and will be killed by the train. You are on a bridge with a large burly man, and his body could stop the train, saving the 5 people. Do you push him off the bridge, to stop the train? You could save 5 people, at the cost of 1.
You can't stop even a small train with a burly man. Just the engine bit would plow right over him. Furthermore, I would consider the likelihood of the train derailing and killing everyone onboard. Also, if I'm standing on a bridge with a burly man, it might be bad idea to think that I could push him off.

morals are for nerds