Do you save the life of one or save the lives of many Veeky Forums...

Do you save the life of one or save the lives of many Veeky Forums? Is there really even a right or wrong answer when it comes to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I run over the group then beat the other one to death

Barring extenuating circumstances, the many. Anyone who answers otherwise is a faggot who puts rules over human life.

I shout "am I being detained? I do not consent" and walk away

Multi track drifting

>Is there really even a right or wrong answer when it comes to this?
>implying objective morality
Disgusting. It's an ethics thought experiment, in which you apply your set of ethics to it. And you generally should justify why you pick one and don't pick the other for the thought experiment to be interesting. There's no "right" answer. It's just a tool to testing ethics.

Au contraire, my utilitarian friend. The torso of the five are lined up perfectly with their torsos between the wheels, perfectly preserving their organs for harvesting. There's also 25 people waiting for organs whose lives could be saved with the death of those 5 people. If you only kill the one person, you save 5 people in need of the transplants, and the five on the tracks.

Not utilitarian, but admirable try. Pragmatist virtue ethics.

What if you 'halfway' the lever and cause the tram to derail?

Easy, I think about too long and the five die

You kill the 40 people on the trolley.

That's a framework for ethics, not a set of ethics in of itself.

>*teleports in front of it*
>*unsheates katana*
>*shred the train before it reaches people*
>you don't need to thank me
>*teleports away*

Thats not indicated in the picture though. Screwing with the lever is at least pheasible within the logic of how those levers work.

You asked for clarification. I clarified.

>*go home and cry because no one thanked you*

Please dont reply to me in this thread again.

But that's how the trolley experiment works in conversation. You come up with an answer, then someone else responds with additional information based on your ethics to make the decision complicated again. It's not about beating the problem. It's about analyzing your ethics.

I'm prepared to be a murderer by definition then responsible for the deaths of several people.

I kind of look at it through ASIMOV's law

The people on the tram may not die though. Where as the tied people surely will.

Jump in front of the trolley and die so I can't be held responsible for anything.

>so I can't be held responsible for anything
Kek. You could achieve that by not touching the lever and walking away too.

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

What are the legal consequences of pulling the lever?

The one that will make the people in the train die too

But then I would still be alive.

Is that not what you'd prefer?

And you put your own self-interest above all. Implying you are some stalwart of human life is pathetic when you would kill millions to get the outcome you desire because to you the ends justify the means.

It depends on which one I like better

you would be violating natural law by murdering another person

I ain't touchin' that lever nigga

Fourth post best post.

cut the train in half with a 1000C knife

I don't do anything and I make sure that this never happens again.

Okay here's one: there are four patients: each one require an organ transplant or they will die, if one of them dies, the rest can each recieve the organ they need. Is it okay to kill either of them?

No because one of them would have to be the same blood type or O negative to be compatible with the rest

Who is the one? That is the real question.

They're all the same

Figure out which group has the hottest chick, have the cart run the other one(s) over. Proceed to rape and murder the other when I'm done