|
Post by ionysis on Apr 8, 2008 4:45:45 GMT -5
How about a new thread for the "opinions" board.
Post a moral dilemma and see what the person below you would do (then viciously judge them if you don't agree).
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
|
|
|
Post by goods on Apr 8, 2008 7:42:40 GMT -5
Waterboard him... not the wife. (I see you have been watching 24 ion, ) (Shoot the wife in the knee!)
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Apr 8, 2008 9:08:43 GMT -5
I read about this one time years ago:
Some Highjakers Hijacked a Russan Plane
The Russians brought a Gift to the Highjackers
Some of the HighJackers Familys Bodyparts
with the Promise of more to come, if they did not quickly surrender
They Surrendered because that was when the Russans were Mean
And they knew what they would do to thier relatives
I dont know if that story is true or not
|
|
|
Post by ionysis on Apr 8, 2008 9:16:14 GMT -5
That'll learn 'em!
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 8, 2008 9:20:41 GMT -5
I read about this one time years ago: The Russians brought a Gift to the Highjackers Some of the HighJackers Familys Bodyparts My grandpa always said beware of Russian's bearing gifts.
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Apr 8, 2008 9:32:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jules on Apr 8, 2008 9:35:37 GMT -5
i have a major weakness for russian men... mmm.... er, sorry, what was the question?
|
|
|
Post by ionysis on Apr 8, 2008 9:38:35 GMT -5
So what is your view JimB? Would you pull his teeth out or let the innocent masses die?
Are you Malcom X or Martin Luther King?
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Apr 8, 2008 9:56:53 GMT -5
Morally, I'm closer to Dr. King. Torture dehumanizes the torturer. That's actually one of the great things about 24 - you can see how the things he has to do detract from his humanity.
I can also say with certainty, though, that I'm very glad the chances of me having to actually make a decision like that are very, very small. If it were my own loved ones at risk, I might think differently.
|
|
|
Post by ionysis on Apr 10, 2008 5:27:00 GMT -5
Moral Dilemma 2:
You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man.
She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”…
You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair.
You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die.
You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die.
If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided.
Who would you choose to work on?
(The answer "neither of them" is also acceptable!)
|
|
|
Post by Phoenixx on Apr 10, 2008 5:35:15 GMT -5
I'll call someone over and work on both. Failing that, I'd work on the person with the highest chance of survival.
So that was the impassioned logical idea.
But probably - humans would choose to work on the person they love, even if they have been hurt. We cant help it. We're stupid like that.
|
|
|
Post by redskyatnight on Apr 10, 2008 6:40:18 GMT -5
I'd work on the person I love and let the other one die. At least that way, you know for sure the affair is over.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Apr 10, 2008 8:23:54 GMT -5
I'd work on my wife. Of course I might lean over, introduce myself to the guy and let him know I could save him but I won't be trying.
(Hmm I thought I had suppressed that part of me.... guess not)
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Apr 10, 2008 9:39:49 GMT -5
Moral Dilemma 2: You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man. She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”… You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair. You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die. You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die. If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided. Who would you choose to work on? (The answer "neither of them" is also acceptable!)
|
|
|
Post by jules on Apr 10, 2008 9:59:09 GMT -5
work on the guy. at least then you know that you could save one life, rather than none.
|
|