Ethical Dilemmas

We don't know if its a good or bad thing

I already have an answer to this, since this is the exact way it was first presented to me, with two parts. You see, this is where the rubber hits the road. In the first situation, I wouldn't want to pull the lever, but since i'm an accessory to murder either way, I might as well maximize the benefit. But actually pushing someone to their death? No, I wouldn't push the guy. Me directly being the cause by pushing someone to their death (most likely against their will) is a lot different than just pulling a lever.

@Savage well here's the thing. If you think about it. Pushing the man off the cliff just to save 2 other people is committing murder. Even if you do manage to save 2 people's lives. You will serve a life-sentence instead of letting those people die. If I were down from the building I would push them out of the way to save their lives but there's nothing you can do. I mean it's a tough one but pushing the man would lead to serious consequences. I'd have to let those people die. There's nothing I can do to escape.

@Mr_Incognito @SSpiderGwen But isn't it virtually the same problem? The only difference might be jail time, but that's not included in the scenario. It might be more difficult, but in the last problem you would be a murderer as well. You were in the trolley before, but you wouldn't have killed anyone if you hadn't moved it. In this situation it's the same thing. Do nothing and you aren't a murderer, but two people die. Kill someone and you are a murderer, but only that person dies. It's the same in both problems, it would just be harder to bring yourself to do it here.

But in the second situation it isn't as easy. The first time all you have to do is pull a lever. The second time you have to directly kill someone to save the other two. If I was on trial, the judge would likely treat me a lot harsher if I pushed someone to their death in front of a train vs not stopping two people from getting hit by a train. In one situation, the argument that i'm a murderer is very simple. I pushed someone to their death, and I intended to do it. The other situation would be a harder argument to convict me on, since there would have to be proof I had a way to save the other two people. If the only way that I could do so was to murder someone, that's a harder argument to make me guilty. There's also the fact that this is likely a split second decision. In such a short period of time, my first instinct would not be to kill someone. I would try to get the other two off the tracks by yelling or pushing them off or something else.

I wouldn't push the man, literally you can't do anything above the building to stop the trolley, and murdering someone to save other have no meaning, would actually leave bad mental issues and jail for sure.
The destiny of those two below me has come, but the man next to me, no.

I was also aware of the 2nd part to the Trolley problem which complicated things. I have to agree with @Mr_Incognito. Its the method in which you actually save/kill. Pulling a lever to decide how many will inevitably die isn't as bad as having to actually push a man to his death. He wouldn't have died if it weren't for you as he was safe. Somethings a lack of action is far better than having to actually kill someone to save someone.

idk

option 2 sorry
𝓘'𝓶 𝓼𝓸𝓻𝓻𝔂 𝓵𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓸𝓷𝓮

Publicly humiliating a loved one. Not nearly as serious and happens all the time.

But is he gonna change his mind if I decide to hurt myself and not be evil and then not give me what I want?

option 2, and that seems fairly obvious

both ride or die

@Mr_Incoginto just like I said I'm a loyal friend and I'm a true-blue one too. I'd probably cut off one of my fingers if I had too. I'd do either one but it's best to do the pinky. I would never want one of my friends to be humiliated. Now look I would be afraid to cut off my finger but trust me I'd do it for real. If it's a choice that will cause my friend to suffer than I have to cut it off.

Publically humiliate a loved one, easy.

I feel as though this is a trick question. Technically the devil can answer truthfully while also being deceiving or not being clear on his answer. Also will I be able to tell the friend. All in all I probably wouldn't do the dare. There isn't a question I want the answer to that badly.

Sorry fam...

Obviously press it! Money > people.

No, if you press it, you can't buy anything because everyone else is dead.

Supes is right. No people = no whamen

Yeah, I actually made this thread with the trolley problem in mind. It’s basically net benefit vs emotional baggage. I would move it to the other track, since you’re an accessory to murder either way.

Yeah, i move the trolley.

If you chose the one track - Would you still move the trolley to the one person track if it was someone you know and like?

The track must be changed to the single person. The way in which either will die will be the same however its really just a question at this point of will 1 person die or 2?

@Tyrannus Well it's funny you say that, sense it's the opposite of what you said before. You're willing to murder to prevent two other deaths, but before you weren't even willing to let one man die to prevent millions. What's the difference?

With this scenario someone has to die. The only question is how many will you let die. With the other scenario, choosing to sacrifice the cure means you haven't actually lost anything, you've just not gained the cure. That was a lose or gain situation.

I would move the trolley to one person but if that one person is a child then I wouldn't have the courage to move the trolley.

@Tyrannus That's not true. The trolley is already heading towards people, just as cancer is already out to get people. In the other section people need to die either way as well. In fact in this scenario you actually have to kill someone more directly, and it's only 1 life vs 2, rather than 1 life vs millions. In both situations, either way, you would be killing somebody.

Population control baby. I keep on a chuggin

Its different because its only in the trolley situation that people are going to inevitably die. You just decide how many.
With the other one, your friends life is in your hands. Whoever got infected and may die isn't your responsibility however. You didn't give them the disease so whether they die or not isn't your fault. Your friend dying will be.

In this situation you didn't set the trolley up to go towards them. If the disease sin't your fault, the trolley isn't either. In both situations you have the opportunity to save them from something you didn't cause. In both situations someone dies no matter what. In both you have to weigh lives. I don't see a difference other than numbers of people.

Yes the trolley deaths aren't your fault. However with the cure to diseases, its not your responsibility to cure all those people. Nothings been lost and the world is unaffected as a result. But abandoning your friend will be your fault because his life was in your hands.
That's like saying all the people who died on earth is Superman's fault because he didn't save them.

If superman could've saved them and chose not to, then yes. It's the bystander effect. The trolley would hit them if you did nothing, and you didn't cause the trolley to move. Same goes for the disease situation. both scenarios are the same, just with different amounts of people.

But people die everyday so is Superman murdering them?
With the trolley, people had to die. With the quicksand, by saving your friend and not the cure, technically no one's died.

I agree @Tyrannus.

@Tyrannus But if there's a million people with an asteroid about to hit them, and superman doesn't stop it, he's killed them. He's responsible for their deaths. If the scenario was "either save your friend or stop an asteroid about to hit a million people" what would you do?

In the asteroid scenario you'd be right but that was an external danger. Natural things like disease and famine really isn't one person's sole responsibility.
I would stop the asteroid because that's about to kill us all. By that point there'd be no point saving your friend

Well we're assuming the asteroid would hit a million people you don't know. So, in one scenario your friend vs a million people, and in another your friend vs a million people. The only difference is how they die, cancer or asteroid. If your argument is that cancer is natural, should a cure never be found at all?

This is only tricky because one option is so undefined. I have no context to how many people this monster would kill, so it's impossible to fairly judge the outcomes. Generally I would gran the hose, because the monster has a 0 death guarantee.

I'd call someone lol

I save my friend and myself, mere instinct

Definitely going to detach the hose. If the animal is released then there's a chance people will die. If I don't then people will definitely die.

I will detach the hose but depends if the animal kills me too but regardless I will try to save myself so I am gonna detach it.

How many people are on the expedition?

Let’s say more than 3

Okay and I get it that I don't wanna trade lives for another but I also have a firm belief in a sacrifice for the collective. It feels morally wrong to make the decision for the person stuck in the entrance. Unfortunately I would say yes I would do it...

Kill one person < killing several people including myself

I kill the person without hesitation.

All we can do is just amputate him and hope he survives which I doubt.

Isn't this an extension of the trolley problem?
Either way the person must be pushed out the way. As unfortunate as this outcome is, they jeopardised everyone else's life so having to be removed isn't so devastating.

Just tell the police or assuming your already in court, tell the usher what's happened and they'll triple the guy's charges, send him straight the jail without a court hearing and evacuate the city for the bomb squad. Easy peasy (dust hands)

the Police are also taken hostage, including bomb squad,

Is this an Arrow episode? :)

no, I Had this idea for JLA and Avengers, where The Avengers have every DC City with Nukes and they of course get destroy, The Avengers also have the JLA Friends and family and everyone in their cities and the League were given bow and arrow where if they move or fire the Arrows, The Cities and Everyone dies :)

I wouldn't have the person killed because of that. I'd still decide to send him to jail. But why were we given a bow and arrow if we can't use it? What was the point?

A Gun you can still fire and take down your Enemy, however with a bow, you need the force and hold the arrow with the string, so a Bow you need to wait and when the Target is where you want him to be, you fire your arrow,

I wouldn't hesitate to kill the man.
(assuming it's kill the man or watch the city burn)

basically the Man takes everyone in your city including friends, family , etc

This is tough, I would rather die than having my children and wife see a fake father. I've always been a loyal friend. So I'd probably be courageous and tell them to kill me. Since I'm never returning to earth

I would vanish because it's better that way rather than ny family living with a fake

technically it's not a fake if it's 100% like you. Also look at it this way
A: You disappear forever & family never sees you again
B: You disappear forever & family gets some version of you.
I'd give my fam the clone

I would leave the clone. There would be no difference, so it's better for my entire family. I have no idea why one wouldn't, it seems selfish to not leave the clone just because I don't like the idea of it.

Bringing down a clone for your family would just be depressing. I'd vanish.

It'd almost be cruel on all your family, friends and even yourself knowing that the clone wasn't the real you at all and yet no one noticed. It'd be so horrible if anyone ever found out and it'd be even worse if they went their whole life never knowing.

vanish i'm irreplaceable and i want them to remember the real me

Can anyone prove the clone isn't them? It's only *technically* not you. Logically it would be as if I didn't die. I see no flaw with the clone.

@Savage It depends on whether you don't mind the people you know not knowing you were kidnapped as replaced. I personally wouldn't want that and it'd probaly be hurtful to the people I know.

@Tyrannus They wouldn't be able to tell, so they aren't negatively affected by this at all. The clone situation would be painful for me, mentally, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice for my family. The clone is me, in every sense except that I won't be living it.

I found this question to be surprising the hardest

It should be the man because of these reasons

1. The Child's weight shouldn't be a problem as he's the lowest weight on the air ballon. Throwing the child out first just means you're actually pathetic.
2. You can already infer that they are married in matrimony because they have a child in conflict. If it had to be someone it would have to be the Man. Despite the injury the man should do it.

More Notes: Now look here's how it goes in real life. When you fall in love with a Woman. The woman doesn't come to them first. The man comes to them first. Now when you think about it like that. That's one of the reasons why the man drops first. I don't know if this is a good example but it just shows you who does the action first.

I'm pretty sure the logical answer is the child but for the ethical part... ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's hard.

I assuming the speed at which they're falling is lethal so I'd pick to yeet them all
#PopulationControl

For me, this is the easiest. Throw the child. The Woman is out of the question, and then it's the quicksand problem all over again. Even if the child did survive, he wouldn't be innocent anymore, since by not killing himself he cost hundreds of millions of people their lives.

Clearly the man must go. Throwing the woman would doom them all anyway and the child is an innocent who must not be punished for the sake of a gain in the future. Throwing the man and losing the cure to world hunger just means that the world won't gain anything.


I'm assuming for argument's sake they all weight the same.

@Tyrannus same argument as below applies, it's one life vs millions.

@Savage But like the previous argument, those people were going to die anyway. You cannot hold yourself responsible for everyone that dies that you could have maybe prevented. This is why Batman always saves Joker despite what he does afterwards.

I'd save the test tube guy because with this cure we could finally put an end to cancer we would save thousands of lives

It is at times like these where we have no choice but to save lives. I would pick the test tube, without question.
I would also like to reference superheros, since this is after all a superhero sight. I have thought a lot about philosophy through superheros, and it's always intrigued me. What would Captain America do for instance? Would he save the test tube, knowing it would save lives? Or would he save his friend, knowing that if he didn't, he would take a life. I think Steve would go for his friend. But what about Wolverine? Unlike Steve, Logan doesn't hesitate to weigh lives. He would understand that millions if lives will always outweigh the one, and go for the test tube.
Another thing that's important to consider here is what it means to take a life. By not saving the friend, would I be killing them? In short, yes. I'm a utilitarian (type of ethical philosophy), so I see not saving the friend as killing them. But at the same time, not taking the test tube is killing millions. One may not think they're killing, since they are not the cause of death, but anytime a life could be saved and isn't, is a murder by the bystander. Which of course brings of to the amazing Spider-Man.
What would Peter Parker do? Surely he would see it as killing someone either way. He's truly a mix of wolverine's philosophies (general consequentialism), and Captain America's philosophy's (Borderline kantianism at times). So for Peter, I do not know.
This is the type of situation that makes me dislike Batman. Batman is the complete opposite of Logan, and his understanding of ethics is even more riddled with kantianism than Steve. Bruce is clearly a deontologist. He wouldn't hesitate to save the friend. He may think what he's doing is just, but in the end, Logan kills a life and saves millions, Bruce kills millions to save one person. As with most ethical questions, it boils down to consequentialism vs deontology. (in theory both Steve and Peter actually follow more Aristotle style virtue ethics, but that's just dumb if you ask me).

Side note (in case you don't know a lot about philosophy): Deontology is a type of ethical philosophy, the general opposite of consequentialism. Consequentialism believes that all actions can be justified, it will always depend on the scenario. Deontology believes that you should do the right action no matter what. Kantianism is a form of extreme deontology, named for philosopher Immanual Kant. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that believes any action can be justified based on how it benefits the entire population's general well-being and happiness.

@Savage That's a really good way of thinking about it! The hilarious thing though is that technically, the characters you named are so fast that they could do both pretty easily.

If we cured cancer the rate of death would drop, increasing global population causing congestion, lack of food/space & eventually either a Thanos style purge or a Global Civil War. I know that saving all the cancer victims sound fine but it's too much of a good thing cause nothing but pain.

It appears I'm alone here but I'd save my friend. Its very easy to say that you'd be saving more lives with the cure however in that moment your friend isn't going to be thinking that. They'll die knowing you chose to abandon them to their death in their final moment when you could have saved them.
If you look at this practically, you either lose something (that may scar you for the rest of your life) or you gain something. By saving the friend you've lost nothing and the world isn't any worse off.
The analogy gave by @Savage was excellent but this is why I'll always admire Batman. As hard as the consequences may be, the Joker must live.

i'd just die the guilt would be to much anyway

@Tyrannus I figured you would disagree, I was waiting for your response actually.
Why is one life ever more important than millions? By not taking the vile aren't you murdering many more?

You cannot hold yourself responsible for those that were going to die anyway. The rest of the world won't know what difference their lives could have had and from their point of view nothings changed so nothings lost. Your friend will see it that way however. All life is precious and sacrificing one for the other doesn't right the wrong.

@Tyrannus Why isn't ignoring the test tube killing millions? What the world thinks shouldn't matter to a true hero. That's why Wolverine cares very little what others think of him. As Logan himself says the whole concept of trading lives being unavoidable is flawed. No matter what lives will be traded. If I saved my friend all I would be doing is ignoring the millions of deaths I'm causing.

I think I actually agree with @Tyrannus here. With the trolley problem, it’s different since WHO the people are is never specified. It’s choosing an outcome between strangers by pulling a switch. In this case, if I let my friend die to grab the cure, it’s different because it would be someone who trusts me looking me straight in the eyes and watching me let them die. I wouldn’t be able to live with that. The Utilitarian choice is easy, and if you fed this situation into a computer it would have no problem deciding, but my moral compass would prevent me from saving the cure. If I abandon my friend, the results would happen right before my eyes, with a living and breathing person.

That might be what you would do, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. In the end it's one life against millions. I would die for millions to live, and I would kill too. The fact that it's a "real" person, and that it's my friend would only cloud my judgment, a true hero shouldn't be drawn away by personal bias towards who they want to save, or how they think people will think of them.

It’s not about how others would think of me, it’s how I would feel about myself. Not saving the cure doesn’t actually kill anyone. Yes, there will certainly be future deaths due to cancer, but me not grabbing it doesn’t directly cause anyone to die. If a living, breathing person was sinking to their death right in front of me, and looking me in the eyes with trust, I would never be able to live with the feeling that I watched someone who trusted me die in front of my eyes.

I wouldn't care how I feel about myself. I'm willing to sacrifice all of my own humanity to save millions of lives, if that's what it takes. My mental stability doesn't compare to that many people.
Thinking of causation in that way doesn't work. Cause and affect just looks at the outcomes. Either one person dies, or millions do. It matters not if you "killed" them, by not saving them you are causing their deaths. Like the trolley problem, one way or another you would be a murderer, to avoid it is futile, it's more logical to accept that trading lives in a necessity.

I'd save my friend.

Because to put it simply, your friend's life is in your hands. The rest of the world isn't. You didn't infect those people with diseases so their fate should not be your responsibility. The are other ways to cure dieses but there is only 1 way to save your friend.
If everyone (with sufficient funds obviously) donated money to charity, most of these problems would have been solved by now. Are the people who don't donate to charity responsible for all the world's problems?
Batman gets blamed for Joker's killings but he didn't make Joker commit those crimes. What he does if (or when) he breaks out of Arkham is a problem for the future which can also be solved.
This is where is differs from the trolley problem because you have to let someone die where as in this situation you don't have to let your friend die.

And Batman has killed thousands, because every time he let's the joker live he's letting others die. Frankly I'm not a Batman fan at all for this very reason. In the trolley problem people were going to die anyways, just like in this one.

Ah, so this is where we see things differently. You believe Batman killed those people however I don't. Choosing the save the Joker is what separates Batman from the bad guys. The means don't always justify the end and once you cross that line it becomes far easier to justify sacrificing more people

@Tyrannus Perhaps, but being a hero is crossing that line and trying to maintain balance, not refusing to cross it. That's why Wolverine is a better hero than Batman, because honestly his ethics are better. Wolverine saves more people by killing a villain. Batman costs thousands of lives by not killing. That's why Wolverine has gone across the world, throughout the past century, and has saved people everywhere, while Batman still can't fix Gotham.

The line is what separates the good from the bad. By bending the rules whenever you wants is hypocrisy because your basically deciding what you think is right. Its why Wolverine is not a good person at all. He kills and trains children but acts all high and mighty whenever someone else does it. Killing is not the answer. That's when justice becomes vengeance. Batman will never kill anyone because he knows how important that rule is. Wolverine did a lot of damage to the mutant cause and tends to spread violence wherever he goes.

So we stay we all our current tech but can't improve it ummm... I think I would press the button

I wouldn't press the button. It's a question of faith. Not faith in a god or in nature, but a faith in humanity. Natural illness and disease may kill millions, but it's part of a natural cycle of life.
Here, we are presented with two scenarios.
In one we defy nature without any struggle. We conquer all illness. We would live, as a society, in a state of peace, but at what cost? Human exploration is over, as is struggle, and what is life without exploration and struggle? What would it mean to be human? Overpopulation would soon become a major issue, with no end it sight. An overpopulated world where society doesn't advance is not a world I would ever want to live in. The desire to create and advance as humans and as a society is greater than any amount of lives.
In the second scenario all would continue as is. This again brings us to faith in humanity. Will we improve as a society? Will technology better us? Will society advance? These are the questions that we ponder. I have thought many times about this, and in the end I realize that no matter what the answers may be, we most hope. It is beyond question. As a people, humans most have faith, faith in themselves. If we do not believe that we will advance and improve, then we have nothing to live for.

Yes Press the button. @Mr_Incognito I have autism dude. Lol I wanna live without autism. But beside me having that illness. I would also press it because we would be immune to everything. Look @Savage it was nice knowing you but I'm better off without technology XD!!!

Honestly being immune to everything without any tech would just be good because then we would have become more educated by then. Take a look at social media platforms and video games how they affect people's mind. You know what I mean? We'd be better off without tech. I'd like to live in a world where I could just go outside everyday in my neighborhood. I never wanted to play games, use Facebook, any of that stuff. I like nature better than tech.

I will not press the button. Technological advancements do far to much good to go without them. I know the question we only stop improving but actually return back to the stone age but technology means we can do practically anything. Stopping it would limit human potential to live better lives.
We'd cure diseases but lose so much more.

I refer to my answer for the cancer-quicksand-friend scenario

I agree with @Tyrannus
Many people take "technology" as video games and stuff, but we're really talking about all human advancement here.

@Tyrannus take a look at what Technology does to us. It impairs the ability for us to learn new things. Almost everything on the internet is unreliable. If we continue with technology we wouldn't be as educated without it. If we go back to Albert Einstein era where he invented math. We would possibly have more intelligent people like him if we discontinue with tech. Besides that look, I'd still have electricity in my house because it would be easy to invent that again if we had to start over. Why wouldn't you want to end cancer, Bipolar disorders, Autism Disorders, all that. I mean just pressing the button just means there would be less conflict in the world. We start wars with technology. If we keep on going. Take a look at the next 30 years and we have robots now. What if there was a robot revolutionary then would you forgive your choices?

Look if we keep on going with tech. I think the world is going to keep on getting negative. Pressing the button just means that we can always have a happy life without any mental illnesses, diseases, or any genetic things you're born with.

Technology is what forces us to learn new things. The recent cure for the coronavirus was achieved because of technology. Providing enough heat and electricity to homes was made possible because of technology. It saves far more lives than any end all dieses vaccine would ever do. It lets us not only survive but thrive.

one disease can be eliminated with tech two i need legends of arceus three ending all disease is bad humanity need to have so sort of problem so we strive to beat it and advance in the process

@Tyrannus I want to make a compliment. I like that you would choose you're best friend over the test tube because it doesn't make any sense to leave your friend die than just curing one disease. I'm a loyal friend and I would do the same thing. I like that you picked that over the tube.

But Tyrannus I get that technology helps us learn new things, it improves life but it's going to destroy us eventually get what I mean? Do you not know how much people suffer with mental illnesses? Like people with severe autism. Do you know how much their mother has to take care of them for the rest of their lives? Who would want to do that? Another example would be. Don't you want to end cancer? There are thousands of people dying from it and half are in hospitals barely alive. If we discontinue with technology there would be less conflict in the world. What do you mean we won't survive? Everyone would just become a hunter who brings food back to their homes. There would still be democracy but there would be less religion/political views in the world. Hey we would even be able to get better at socializing. Nobody would be autistic everyone would get to know each other very well. We would still have schools and even colleges to learn from each other and I'm fine writing on pencil and paper again let's go. Doesn't matter if we don't have technology anymore we could just build new things because we still have education to evolve from.

@SSpiderGwen human nature says a lot of blood shed would happen before peace

@SSpiderGwen Cheers man. Sometimes its better to do what your gut knows is right rather than to follow cold hard logic. Its what separates us from the psychopaths.

The problems caused by technology are dwarfed by the good it causes. And technology can provide the cure to all these problems.
I'm not saying everyone won't survive but technology is responsible to several lives being saved. And then it provides us with a better state of living.
Its not as simple as just hunting for food and bring it back for everyone else. All of a sudden the other problems come in like extreme weathers, predation, accessibility to people with knowledge/skill etc.