Will you push the button?

[kidd]

a 60 yr. old man was cruising his bugatti (which he invested with his WHOLE life savings) and decided to park his car on the railroad track (god knows why) to take a stroll. halfway down the tracks, he noticed the train coming (OH shit). it was too late for him to turn back and move his car, and just his luck, he noticed the switch to change gears of the train (what's it called?lol) close by. but then, he also noticed a figure, a person walking up ahead in track B. his car is parked on track A, the direction the train was going towards.
he was basically given the 2 choices-- switch it so he can save his car and kill that random or, spare the life, but that means his whole life's earning just got ****ed over.
in the end, he chose to save his car and ends up killing the person.

Is this a real life case or a fix story? Questions like this usually don't have a definite answer.

[kidd]

Found this

The Moral Sense Test

The Moral Sense Test is a Web-based study into the nature of human moral judgment. How do human beings decide what is right and wrong? To answer this question, we have designed a series of moral dilemmas to probe the psychological mechanisms underlying our moral judgments. By presenting these dilemmas on the Web, we hope to gain insight into the similarities and differences between the moral judgments of people of different ages, from different cultures, with different educational backgrounds and religious beliefs, involved in different occupations and exposed to very different circumstances.

I didn't take the test. But, I know one of the test is the railroad test.

[xJadedx]

I didn't know Marc Hauser studies morality. I really should know this stuff.

[pemberly]

a 60 yr. old man was cruising his bugatti (which he invested with his WHOLE life savings) and decided to park his car on the railroad track (god knows why) to take a stroll. halfway down the tracks, he noticed the train coming (OH shit). it was too late for him to turn back and move his car, and just his luck, he noticed the switch to change gears of the train (what's it called?lol) close by. but then, he also noticed a figure, a person walking up ahead in track B. his car is parked on track A, the direction the train was going towards.
he was basically given the 2 choices-- switch it so he can save his car and kill that random or, spare the life, but that means his whole life's earning just got ****ed over.
in the end, he chose to save his car and ends up killing the person.

"most people will be apalled; enraged and say he's a bad man. but we're all the same, going back to the $200 to save a kid's life or buy an ipod example"

we had this whole class discussion and none of us were able to come up with a valid reasoning as to why we are not 'bad' like the man up there.

damn i'm surprised i actually retain some info through classes HAHAHAH

bc in the bugatti example, he is taking an active role in taking a life. in the not donating, it's your inaction that has the same result. so, in the car example, the guy wouldn't have died if you didn't kill him. in the a poor kid in africa example, he wouldn't live unless you save him. ie, one is choosing to kill and the other is just choosing not to save.

[GuGu]

seriously, that $200 bucks buy an ipod or save an african kid crap is not even valid. like someone said, we're all born into this world without anything. we work and get whatever we need or want. chance, luck, and opportunities being another factor, if we're able to make our own life a little easier, a little more entertaining, who wouldn't do it? so why am i morally obligated to 'save' an african kid who i would never meet in this life and who will more than likely have no impact on my life. when i buy an ipod it makes me happy. it keeps me company when i'm bored. i can download a piano or guitar and play it for my own enjoyment or for the enjoyment of others around me. i worked for that money and i'll use it however i like.

[Lucre]

a 60 yr. old man was cruising his bugatti (which he invested with his WHOLE life savings) and decided to park his car on the railroad track (god knows why) to take a stroll. halfway down the tracks, he noticed the train coming (OH shit). it was too late for him to turn back and move his car, and just his luck, he noticed the switch to change gears of the train (what's it called?lol) close by. but then, he also noticed a figure, a person walking up ahead in track B. his car is parked on track A, the direction the train was going towards.
he was basically given the 2 choices-- switch it so he can save his car and kill that random or, spare the life, but that means his whole life's earning just got ****ed over.
in the end, he chose to save his car and ends up killing the person.

"most people will be apalled; enraged and say he's a bad man. but we're all the same, going back to the $200 to save a kid's life or buy an ipod example"

we had this whole class discussion and none of us were able to come up with a valid reasoning as to why we are not 'bad' like the man up there.

damn i'm surprised i actually retain some info through classes HAHAHAH

it goes to reflect when that the situation comes to our ownself, we tend to be very 'selfish' ~ much as i cannot say how i will react given the same scenario, i would probably tie myself if i have to, so that i would not deviate the path and kill the fellow.

money can never replace moral integrity.

[kay &!*]

Is this a real life case or a fix story? Questions like this usually don't have a definite answer.

ummm i'm not sure. probably fix

bc in the bugatti example, he is taking an active role in taking a life. in the not donating, it's your inaction that has the same result. so, in the car example, the guy wouldn't have died if you didn't kill him. in the a poor kid in africa example, he wouldn't live unless you save him. ie, one is choosing to kill and the other is just choosing not to save.

okay.
well, say the story changed by a small, TINY detail.
what if he noticed the train but it was already going towards the tracks of the person?
he still has the option of changing it to save the person's life, or walk away as if he didn't see the person.
isn't it the same?

seriously, that $200 bucks buy an ipod or save an african kid crap is not even valid. like someone said, we're all born into this world without anything. we work and get whatever we need or want. chance, luck, and opportunities being another factor, if we're able to make our own life a little easier, a little more entertaining, who wouldn't do it? so why am i morally obligated to 'save' an african kid who i would never meet in this life and who will more than likely have no impact on my life. when i buy an ipod it makes me happy. it keeps me company when i'm bored. i can download a piano or guitar and play it for my own enjoyment or for the enjoyment of others around me. i worked for that money and i'll use it however i like.

are u also suggesting that what the man did wasn't wrong at all? he saw the person up there but he didn't know him. he's not obligated to save anyone so instead, he'll just save himself (his $$).

[skylee]

Yes, if:

- "a terminally ill patient in great suffering will die". (why prolong their slow and agonizing death when you can end their misery and use the reward to benefit another's cause?)
OR
- "a person will die 5 minutes before he/she would have died otherwise". (if their death is inevitable, a mere 5 minutes more/less is quite insignificant, IMO)

I mean, 5 million is a lot of money and if I donate most of it to a good cause, I kinda think the ends justify the means.

a 60 yr. old man was cruising his bugatti (which he invested with his WHOLE life savings) and decided to park his car on the railroad track (god knows why) to take a stroll. halfway down the tracks, he noticed the train coming (OH shit). it was too late for him to turn back and move his car, and just his luck, he noticed the switch to change gears of the train (what's it called?lol) close by. but then, he also noticed a figure, a person walking up ahead in track B. his car is parked on track A, the direction the train was going towards.
he was basically given the 2 choices-- switch it so he can save his car and kill that random or, spare the life, but that means his whole life's earning just got ****ed over.
in the end, he chose to save his car and ends up killing the person.

Well it's a good thing insurance exists.

In theory, I'd instinctively switch the gears to save the person if placed in this situation. I simply can't fathom myself having to debate between sparing the life of a living, breathing human being and that of an inanimate object no matter what its value. Quite incomprehensible why anyone would invest their ENTIRE life savings on a car, though.

[Banh Mi]

are u also suggesting that what the man did wasn't wrong at all? he saw the person up there but he didn't know him. he's not obligated to save anyone so instead, he'll just save himself (his $$).

That's what I reckon.

[GuGu]

are u also suggesting that what the man did wasn't wrong at all? he saw the person up there but he didn't know him. he's not obligated to save anyone so instead, he'll just save himself (his $$).

no, i'm not agreeing with that. it was stupid of that old man to choose to save his car. his actions caused the other idiot's death. why he was walking on the tracks is beyond me. and why the old man chose to park his car on the track is an even more stupid choice.

[Dirt]

I'd do it if the guy's name was Yang Guo.

[Candide]

All talk.

Show me the bloody button!

[Lucre]

All talk.

Show me the bloody button!

well you must be gullible if you think anyone would offer it to you. i bet the topic starter is busy pressing the button right now.

[kay &!*]

no, i'm not agreeing with that. it was stupid of that old man to choose to save his car. his actions caused the other idiot's death. why he was walking on the tracks is beyond me. and why the old man chose to park his car on the track is an even more stupid choice.

how is it different to u?
the man wasn't obligated to save the guy. he needed his car.
just like u would rather get urself an ipod than save a kid u will never meet in this life.

[Guo Xiang]

how is it different to u?
the man wasn't obligated to save the guy. he needed his car.
just like u would rather get urself an ipod than save a kid u will never meet in this life.

You never saw that kid before. You saw that guy's life in obvious danger.

[kay &!*]

You never saw that kid before. You saw that guy's life in obvious danger.

i can show u a picture of the kid right now and you can see how frail and sick the kid is. your $ would go to THAT kid.

[Ren Wo Xing]

False choice and pseudo-philosophy.

There are three major differences between the 'train' scenario and the 'ipod' scenario.

1) Immediacy: Being willing to watch a human being die in front of you is tremendously different psychologically from simply being intellectually aware of the fact that someone is dying a continent away. That's why soldiers get PTSD and you or I don't.

2) Urgency: Action, or lack thereof, in the case of the 'train'/'box' scenario will result in immediate death of the bystander, which is not the case in the 'ipod' scenario.

3) Relevancy: In the 'train'/'box' scenario, you and you alone are directly responsible for a single choice which will result in that person's life or death. In the 'ipod' scenario (aka real life), this is not the case; there are multiple other factors, including his family, his community, organizations/NGO's/governments/etc. that play a role in deciding whether the kid will live or die. For that matter, it is entirely possible that even if you don't put in the $200, someone else will. It is also possible that if you put in the $200, the kid will die anyhow, or that if you don't put in the $200, he will still manage to live. This is not a possibility in the 'train'/'box' scenario.

It is normal for a human being to be relatively psychologically unaffected by something which is distant, non-urgent, and which they have a limited impact on.

It is sociopathic for a human being to be psychologically unaffected by something which is immediate, urgent, and which they hold the 100% final decision on.

[yittz]

bravo, well put.

[Candide]

I don't like RWX's response.

We were nearly there with shaming people for buying iPods. *This* close. Until he had to butt in with some sober analysis.

Now the world will remain infested with shitty Apple products.

[xJadedx]

Now the world will remain infested with shitty Apple products.

You crossed the line there, buddy. Never badmouth Apple. At least, not Macs.