The passive/active problem

[iago]

This is a thought problem.  There are only 2 answers, if you try to answer anything else (like 'stop the train') I'll just delete your post. 

1
You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

2
Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

3
This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?


I'm interested in seeing the answers.  This relates to another proble that I will post later. 

[Hitmen]

This is a thought problem.  There are only 2 answers, if you try to answer anything else (like 'stop the train') I'll just delete your post. 

1
You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

2
Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

3
This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?


I'm interested in seeing the answers.  This relates to another proble that I will post later. 

1. Do nothing. A dead person is a dead person, not worth the effort to kill the other.
2. This one has me stumped. Dead babies are funny, but so are dead old people.Probably do nothing since the old person will die anyway, giving me twice the enjoyment.
3. Do nothing. If I get killed, who will be left to laugh at the dead people?

[RoMi]

You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

I say hit the person on your tracks, the person on the other tracks doesn't deserve to die because the train isn't supposed to be on that track at that certain time.

Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

There is more potential in the younger person, the older person already has experienced more life.  Its like the old saying, "Women and children first."

This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?

This question reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode of the person everyone thinks is from the future but really isn't.  The planets atmosphere was evaporating (or something to that extent) and Picard was faced with this decision.  Should he:
A. Do nothing and have everyone perish slowly, or have to leave their home world. 
B. Try to save the planet, but in the process possibly killing everyone on the planet and destroying his ship with everyone aboard.
Picard chooses to act rather then not to act, to take a chance rather then to not take a chance.  (In somewhat his own words)
The question is also presented that what if one of those people on the planet turn out to be the next Adolph Hitler.

[Blaze]

This is a thought problem.  There are only 2 answers, if you try to answer anything else (like 'stop the train') I'll just delete your post. 

1
You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

2
Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

3
This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?


I'm interested in seeing the answers.  This relates to another proble that I will post later. 

• 1

Do nothing, for the same reason RoMi said

• 2

Same as RoMi, who sucks for stealing my thoughts.

• 3

I'd rather kill the 1,000,000 because as is taught in Lifeguarding, don't endanger yourself to save others.

[d&q]

1
You're driving a train.  Before you on the track, you see a person.  The only way to avoid hitting him is to change tracks.  Unfortunately, there is another person on the turn.  So there are two options:
- Do nothing and kill somebody
- Turn and kill somebody
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill somebody or if you let somebody die?

I would do nothing and kill somebody. I don't believe that it makes a difference if you actively kill someone or not, but why waste my time changing tracks when it will result in the same outcome?

2
Same situation, except the person in front of you is a child and the person on the other tracks is old.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill a child
- Turn and kill the old person
What do you choose? Why? Does it make a difference whether you actively kill an old person, compared to letting a young person die?  Or do you make the decision that gives greater utility (overall happiness)?

As previously stated, I would just be wasting my time switching tracks. To me, a life is a life, no matter how long they have left.

3
This is more unrealistic, but bear with it.  In front of you there's 1,000,000 people.  On the other track is 50,000 people, and yourself.  Do you:
- Do nothing and kill 1,000,000 people?
- Turn and kill 50,000 people and yourself?
What do you choose?  Why?

My life is not that important to me, so I would most likely turn and kill 50,000 people. Obviously, I wouldn't have to "live" with the guilt of killing people!

[Ergot]

I agree with Blaze all the way.

[iago]

My life is not that important to me, so I would most likely turn and kill 50,000 people. Obviously, I wouldn't have to "live" with the guilt of killing people!

Ok, so second question: do you support terrorism/suicide bombings?

[d&q]

No. In the last situation I answered, I was faced with killing people, or killing MORE people. I stuck with just killing people. If I was a suicide bomber, I would be faced with killing people, or not killing people. I would choose the latter. However, I would alter the question into asking: "If you were a suicide bomber/terrorist, and you were forced to kill either 50,000 people from afar, or 5,000 people with a suicide bomb, what would you choose?". My answer there would be suicide bomber, because it's killing less people, regardless of my life.

[iago]

No. In the last situation I answered, I was faced with killing people, or killing MORE people. I stuck with just killing people. If I was a suicide bomber, I would be faced with killing people, or not killing people. I would choose the latter. However, I would alter the question into asking: "If you were a suicide bomber/terrorist, and you were forced to kill either 50,000 people from afar, or 5,000 people with a suicide bomb, what would you choose?". My answer there would be suicide bomber, because it's killing less people, regardless of my life.

Terrorists are fighting to save their people/country, which means that they're trying to save more people than they're killing. 

[trust]

1. Kill the person on my track. It's his fault that he is there, and as said earlier the one on the other track isn't doing anything wrong because the train wasn't supposed to be there.

2. I'd kill the old person. They've most likely already made their contribution (or lack thereof) to society, while the child has his whole life to positively (or negatively, but hopefully positively) affect the world.

3. I'd most likely kill the 50,000 and myself. I'd much rather die a hero than live and be a coward.

The correlation between #3 and sucide bombers is stupid, they are doing it to intentionally harm people whereas in #3 you're just put in that situation and you're picking the lesser of two evils.

[iago]

The correlation between #3 and sucide bombers is stupid, they are doing it to intentionally harm people whereas in #3 you're just put in that situation and you're picking the lesser of two evils.

Then you obviously have absolutely no understanding of why they do what they do.  Do you think they're killing themselves and others for fun?

[trust]

The correlation between #3 and sucide bombers is stupid, they are doing it to intentionally harm people whereas in #3 you're just put in that situation and you're picking the lesser of two evils.

Then you obviously have absolutely no understanding of why they do what they do.  Do you think they're killing themselves and others for fun?

You obviously don't understand that they have a choice, whereas in number three you don't. They didn't kill 3,000(approx) people on 9/11 to avoid killing 50,000 somewhere else. That is where this flaws.  Eitherway somebody dies, and hopefully you choose the more noble way and save 950,000 people.

[MyndFyre]

The correlation between #3 and sucide bombers is stupid, they are doing it to intentionally harm people whereas in #3 you're just put in that situation and you're picking the lesser of two evils.

Then you obviously have absolutely no understanding of why they do what they do.  Do you think they're killing themselves and others for fun?

No, Ron, they're doing it to meet a political agenda.  EXACTLY the reason you DISDAIN the BUSH WAR.  Except that when we're fighting, we only target fighters.  Terrorists go out of their way to target civies.  Evidently that's what makes terrorists better than us.

It's not possible to logically argue in support of terrorism.

[iago]

No, Ron, they're doing it to meet a political agenda.  EXACTLY the reason you DISDAIN the BUSH WAR.  Except that when we're fighting, we only target fighters.  Terrorists go out of their way to target civies.  Evidently that's what makes terrorists better than us.

The ultimate goal, however, is to save their country.  And you're absolutely wrong about me, I hate the Bush war because of the dishonesty and lies.  The rest of the world KNEW that the US government was lying about WMD being there, and guess what? They were!  If Bush had said that Saddam is a bad person and has to be taken out of power, I would have fully agreed with it, but that's not what happened.  But my political views aren't particularly relevant. 

It's not possible to logically argue in support of terrorism.

I fully disagree.  Just because most of the western world is too dense to understand what they're doing doesn't make it illogical. 

You obviously don't understand that they have a choice, whereas in number three you don't. They didn't kill 3,000(approx) people on 9/11 to avoid killing 50,000 somewhere else. That is where this flaws.  Eitherway somebody dies, and hopefully you choose the more noble way and save 950,000 people.

However, you agree with killing a few to save the many which is what they're trying to do.  In fact, you support the war on Iraq which killed 30,000 Iraqi civilians, but I don't see how it has saved any lives.  It has certainly saved less than 30,000 lives. 

So you support the Iraqi war, killing 30,000 for political reasons, but condemn the terrorists, who killed 3,000 for political reasons.  How does that work?  Or are American lives worth more than Iraqi lives?  I don't really understand..

[MyndFyre]

So you support the Iraqi war, killing 30,000 for political reasons, but condemn the terrorists, who killed 3,000 for political reasons.  How does that work?  Or are American lives worth more than Iraqi lives?  I don't really understand..

What political gain has Bush gotten from the war?

The ultimate goal, however, is to save their country.  And you're absolutely wrong about me, I hate the Bush war because of the dishonesty and lies.  The rest of the world KNEW that the US government was lying about WMD being there, and guess what? They were!  If Bush had said that Saddam is a bad person and has to be taken out of power, I would have fully agreed with it, but that's not what happened.  But my political views aren't particularly relevant. 

Save their country from *WHAT*?!?  Their attack on 9/11 PROMPTED an attack on their countries.

And if it wasn't Bush's political agenda (see my question above), whose was it?  Someone in the CIA?  Or is it maybe slightly possible that someone picked up bad intelligence?

Do you hate Clinton because of dishonesty and lies?

I still fully believe that there were WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion.  We gave them 3 full months of notice, plenty of time to bury or ship out covertly most if not all of them.

And if the rest of the world *knew* that there weren't WMDs, why didn't they show the evidence?  They pussyfooted because the UN is a big sack of pussy, not because of a lack of evidence.