The passive/active problem

[iago]

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]

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?

Another American territory?

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]
Save their country from *WHAT*?!?  Their attack on 9/11 PROMPTED an attack on their countries.

Well, they obviously hate Americans a lot.  What ARE you doing to them?

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]
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?

Have they not confessed, since then, that they knew the intelligence was weak and made up? 

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]
Do you hate Clinton because of dishonesty and lies?

Yes, absolutely.  I also hate Paul Martin, who has been the Canadian Prime Minister for the last couple years, for the same reason. 

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]
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.

I fully believe that there were WMDs in Iraq over 10 years before the war, because the US gave them to Iraq.  I also believe that they disarmed at some point, which is pretty obvious now.

x86] link=topic=4630.msg52094#msg52094 date=1138150195]
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.

It's hard to show that evidence doesn't exist, especially when the US are inventing evidence.  It's like a murder investigation where the police are making up evidence, or using evidence from sources who are known to be unreliable.  You can't proof that something doesn't exist, everybody knows that, that's why it's "innocent until proven guilty". 

[Sidoh]

This is a very interesting question.  I like these things you're posting! :)

1. I think my answer to this question would depend.  If I was simotaniously made aware of each person's existance, I would agree that the passive role would probably be the most suitable one here.  There's no point in veering the train off of it's course if you save nothing.  This is, of course, assuming that the values of the two people's lives are equal.  This must be assumed since you are given no evidence to judge them by.

2. I would kill the baby.  While the old man may not have many years left on the Earth, parting in such a fashion would be much more destructive to his friends and family than a more natural death which allowed him to give his parting words to those he cared about.  The baby is also much less aware of the threat posed by the huge momentum of a speeding train heading towards you.  I think dying in fear is worse than dying in pain.

3. I would kill me + the 50,000 people under one condition: the 1,000,000 people could somehow be made aware of why I made the decision the way I did.  While I do value my life greatly, I believe in Jesus as my savior, which I believe will grant me life beyond the Earth in Heaven.  Chances are the 1,000,000 people don't and I wish it is something all of them have the chance to accept.  I'd want to give them that chance.

[iago]

2. I would kill the baby.  While the old man may not have many years left on the Earth, parting in such a fashion would be much more destructive to his friends and family than a more natural death which allowed him to give his parting words to those he cared about.  The baby is also much less aware of the threat posed by the huge momentum of a speeding train heading towards you.  I think dying in fear is worse than dying in pain.

I hadn't really thought of how THEY feel about it before.  In the original question, my professor posed it as a child, not a baby, I guess I could have made that distinction.  But good call!  Also, I don't think there would be a whole lot of pain involved :)

3. I would kill me + the 50,000 people under one condition: the 1,000,000 people could somehow be made aware of why I made the decision the way I did.  While I do value my life greatly, I believe in Jesus as my savior, which I believe will grant me life beyond the Earth in Heaven.  Chances are the 1,000,000 people don't and I wish it is something all of them have the chance to accept.  I'd want to give them that chance.

So if there was no way they'd recognize that you were the one who saved them, you'd let 950,000 extra people die? 


Don't forget to read my second problem, I'm actually going to split it off to make it more obvious. 

[Sidoh]

I hadn't really thought of how THEY feel about it before.  In the original question, my professor posed it as a child, not a baby, I guess I could have made that distinction.  But good call!  Also, I don't think there would be a whole lot of pain involved :)

Hehe, yeah.  Most deaths, I think, involve quite a bit of pain.  One of the leading causes of death is cancer, isn't it?  That involves a lot of pain.  I'm just saying that I think it would be worse to die in fear than in pain.  Humans fear the unknown.  They may say the fear something known, but it is not the known they fear; it is what is going to happen after they confront the known: the unknown.

So if there was no way they'd recognize that you were the one who saved them, you'd let 950,000 extra people die? 


Don't forget to read my second problem, I'm actually going to split it off to make it more obvious. 

No, I don't care if they know it was me.  I care that they know the reason I chose to save them.

[iago]

Hehe, yeah.  Most deaths, I think, involve quite a bit of pain.  One of the leading causes of death is cancer, isn't it?  That involves a lot of pain.  I'm just saying that I think it would be worse to die in fear than in pain.  Humans fear the unknown.  They may say the fear something known, but it is not the known they fear; it is what is going to happen after they confront the known: the unknown.

Yeah, not to mention heart disease.

No, I don't care if they know it was me.  I care that they know the reason I chose to save them.

Ah, I misread that, but my statement stands: would you let 950,000 extra people die, because they don't know why you're saving them? :P

[Sidoh]

Ah, I misread that, but my statement stands: would you let 950,000 extra people die, because they don't know why you're saving them? :P

Since I am in control of the train, I would assume it's obvious that I would be held responsible for my decision.  Because of this, I would choose me + 50,000 people and cause the world less pain.