Originally Posted by gobuki (Post 612489)

Spontaneously i would have pulled the switch in the first scenario. But i guess i would be passive in the second two out of confusion.

I read the whole thread and i didn't like your first post. But your following posts convinced me to respect your opinion and were interesting to read.

What if we change the scenario for a little experiment. Say you are driving on the street and get rammed by a car. The impact was so heavy that you are now on the sidewalk and you are steering right into 5 people. You can't stop in time, but you could steer further onto the sidewalk and kill only one.

Would you still be passive and run over the 5 people? I don't know .. probably not. But what is the difference really?

Originally Posted by Flynx (Post 612870)

I would be very interested to ask this question to war vets who have actually killed people before. I think their answers would be statistically different.

Originally Posted by dkwatts (Post 612030)

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

Originally Posted by YoDude (Post 612902)

The classic Hitler question "If you knew in 1939 that Hitler would eventually exterminate 11 million people and you had the chance to kill him; would You?" is the same moral dilemma but the answer is also the same. If action equals murder than morally you should not act.

Originally Posted by CrashandDie (Post 612925)

Another way to look at it, is that your action would make Hitler a hero/martyr rather than a mass murdering bastard. In 1939, he had changed Germany's morale and economy, and inspired more people than most current politicians can only dream of. I'm not saying saying that 1930-1939 were extremely good years, but compared to what happened after those dates, it wasn't extremely bad.

Another way to look at it is this: If you had the opportunity to murder him when he was a child. In essence, you would murder an innocent child, as he hadn't done anything bad, and would never be able to.

Originally Posted by YoDude (Post 612902)

Light up a joint and walk away...

It is very easy. In all 3 situations action = murder. Simple azat.

Depraved indifference isn't murder.

Originally Posted by RevdKathy (Post 613031)

I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)