Heather is part of a four-person mining expedition. There is a cave-in and the four of them are trapped in the mine. A rock has crushed the legs of one of her crew members and he will die without medical attention. She's established radio contact with the rescue team and learned it will be 36 hours before the first drill can reach the space she is trapped in.
She is able to calculate that this space has just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36 hours, but definitely not enough for four people. The only way to save the other crew members is to refuse medical aid to the injured crew member so that there will be just enough oxygen for the rest of the crew to survive.
Should Heather allow the injured crew member to die in order to save the lives of the remaining crew members?
heather's legs are disgusting, fuck heather.
>>28250483
Yes, his life is worth less because he will be able to do less because he'll be a fucking cripple even if he lives. I sthis supposed to be trying? ezpz, kys tripfag
For the purpose of the exercise, lets pretend its the only possible choice available.
I would say not to provide medical aid. Im basing my decision strictly on the outcome of helping the injured person.
The pros of helping:
-Its the right thing to do
The cons
-Everyone dies
The best way to maximize the number of survivor that get out alive is to let the injured one die.
The utilitarianism base its decision on the outcome of the event, even tho the right action would be to help the injured man.
hell yes. unless the one cunt actually means something to her quantity over quality
>>28250570
L O W T E S T
O
W
T
E
S
T ~~d3su
>>28250483
Obviously 3 healthy people are worth killing one person who will be crippled.
Plus are you implying that they will all die if they don't kill him? And how did she calculate how much oxygen would be needed?
Either way a women wouldn't have the ability to make these decisions and a man should be put in charge.
>>28250596
Heather is a trans.
yeah the girl in question might be a total bitch for doing what she did but in all fairness shes pretty fuckin hot judgeing by the pics she needs a guy like me show her that true feminine nature of hers by getting taken to a nice little place I like to call pound town so I can pummel her tight little asshole with my massive mushroom tip then flip her over and lay into her missionary style then I pick her up standing up bouncing her up and down on my hard ass cock as she grips my strong shoulders and with the other hand feeling up my ripped pecs and biceps then I throw her down on the bed and lay a huge bead of cum stretching from her face down to her vadge as she stares at me admireing me as I rise up looking super buff and badass
https://www.instagram.com/pernilwyn/
For anyone more interested in thicc womanhood than OP's bullshit dilemma.
>>28250483
heather should just fucking kill her self for being a filthy whore succubus. Problem solved.
>>28250483
If she saves his life, the crippled dude still dies because no air.
>>28250483
>this space has just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36 hours
Easy, just knock two of the four people unconscious/have three of them sleep, and now everyone gets to live after the 36 hours.
>>28250483
Salsa on that pic
>>28250483
"Do any of you want to die for the sake of others?"
"No."
In which case you kill the person who would be missed least by loved ones if that is known. Otherwise randomize it.
The only other option is to kill cripple-guy by default but crippled legs is still going to enjoy the full capacity of his cognitive abilities for which I would judge his desire to live to be of same value as the others'
>>28250483
I'd make them all hold their breath.
>>28250483
This situation has me very split, on the one hand my heart is telling me to save them all and hope that by some miracle we can be rescued before the oxygen runs out but on the other hand my mind is telling me to sacrifice the injured man to assure the safety of the others.
At the end of the day I'll go with trying to keep them all alive as best I can, even if that means running out of oxygen and slowly suffocating to death. This is what I know I'd do, if it were a different situation where we'd be on the run from a predator or some other form of immediate danger then leaving the injured man would be my initial instinct.Does this make me a bad man?
How would you deal with this situation?
>>28250673
They still breathe
>>28250610
So he is even more mentally unstable than an average female? She should have never been given responsibility in the first place
>>28250730
I would do the same IRL, hoping for some miracle, more air, faster rescue time, enough air.
But if all variable are correct and fixed, I would let the injured one die
>>28250483
>2016
> believing in moral dilemmas
I do whatever best suited my personal interests.
>>28250680
see
>>28250635
You're welcome famalamadingdong.
This hypothetical situation is commonly known as the trolley problem, deals with the doctrine of double effect. The main difference between this and the trolley problem is that the trolley problem doesn't affect your life, i.e. Whether you live or die. This fundamental difference means, it's painfully obvious you let one man die so YOU and others can live. It's not complicated, unless you'll survive no matter what.
>>28250761
Guess why youre stuck in cave with low air.
>>28250688
i agree with this mostly, but the best way to do it is drawing straws, shipwreck style, regardless of loved ones
if they have the ability to keep him alive for the 36 hours necessary then his being crippled does not cede his equal right to life
>>28250736
Correct, but during sleep you breath much less than when you are awake, ergo if they have "just enough" for 3 people for 36 hours, assuming her calculations are based on the average breathing rate of an adult compared to the volume of the space, then by reducing the breathing rate of 3 people by say, 25-30%, you allow for everyone to last the 36 hours, though you might be cutting it close.
>>28250483
[X] Drink Heather's pussy juice.
>>28250483
the two other crew members should kill Heather for being a degenerate slut and save the injured guy. Whatever this cunt's job is, it's a guarantee that she's worthless and is only there thanks to affirmative action.
>>28250483
>2016
>not IMMEDIATELY smothering the injured person as soon as you realize the air will run out on you
Good insight from you guys. Here's another.
Ken is a doctor. One of his patients, whom he has diagnosed as HIV positive, is about to receive a blood transfusion prior to being released from the hospital. He has told Ken, in the confidence of their doctor-patient relationship, that after he gets his transfusion, and his medicine from Ken, he intends to infect as many people as possible with HIV starting that evening.
Because Ken is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, there is no legal way to stop this man from carrying out his plan. Even if Ken warned the police, they would not be able to arrest him, since his medical information is protected.
It occurs to Ken that he could contaminate his medication by putting an untraceable poison in it that will kill him before he gets a chance to infect others.
Should Ken poison this man in order to prevent him from spreading HIV?
>>28250688
>kill the person who would be missed least by loved ones if that is known.
Though I disagree with the whole third sentence, how can you judge this? Quantity of the loved ones? How close he is to them? I don't get it.
>>28250854
I actually don't think that's how confidentiality works, the doctors are legally required to breach confidentiality if they believe the person is a threat to themselves or others
>>28250854
Ken shouldn't poison him, and shouldn't tell anyone. Those other people are not his responsibility, and he cannot confirm with absolute certainty his patient will infect others. Therefore, his patient is a dick, and Ken isn't morally obligated to do anything.
hi donatel
>>28250854
He shouldnt based on the Deontological code they follow. They have to do the right action even tho its wasting resource.
Plus that guy is promoting his business.
Creating more client.
I would kill him personally
>>28250906
hi hack blackstar
If they have access to medical suppiles they should immediately seate the injured one and as many others as they can for as long as it's possible, that way the air might just last. If no other alternative exists then it'd be fairer to openly discuss who should die and let them draw straws or something.
>>28250854
This is an easy yes.
>>28250854
Reminds me of a House episode.
No, Ken has no way of knowing whether his patient is lying or telling the truth. To act under the assumption that the patient will actually carry out his plan is to impose a permanent, non-reversible judgement on a situation with an uncertain premise.
Plus practically there are a number of other solutions - knock the patient out, incapacitate the patient, scream from the rooftops the patient is HIV positive. The last violates doctor/patient confidentiality and would end Ken's career, but would be morally justified.
I say let Ken call the police and discharge his moral obligation.
>>28250854
Don't poison him and don't tell anyone. Falsify an STD panel for the patient and release him with a clean bill of health. Normalfags deserve to get HIV for having sex.
Just do nothing and Heather will turn out to have been wrong and the rescue team will turn out to get there a bit early, and you won't have blood on your hands over a masturbatory ethics experiment.
>>28250804
The point of a moral dilemma are not the technicalities, but you know this, and good proposed solution. Let me ask you now.
>If under the best possible scenario, only 3 people could survive this situation, who would you pick to kill and why?Error: You are temporarily blocked from posting for violating Global 7 - Announcing Sage.
>>28250874
You're right, it can't be known. So from a practical standpoint only randomizing works.
My logic for the third statement was that As it is empirical to kill someone and once one is dead, he will not care about his pain previous to it, only the living will be left to suffer a greater amount of grief, and on top of it, suffering suffered before death, emotionally and physical, is assumed to be almost equal for all individuals (maybe you could argue less for the cripple?)
I was trying to minimize suffering basically, but as you said. Not practical in any way.
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, only to see she is trapped in her car with another man. He is obviously her lover, with whom she's been having an affair.
You reel back in shock, devastated by what you have just found out. 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 immediate 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.
If you attend to your wife, her lover will bleed to death, and you may not be able to save her anyway. If you work on the lover, you can save his life, but your wife will definitely die.
Who do you choose to work on?
>>28251137
My wife's sister
>>28251115
>trying to minimize suffering
then why aren't you trying to end all life as quickly and painlessly as possible?
>>28250854
>>28250903
But assuming confidentiality is as you described in your post, it really is up to the doctor if they value more their word (contract to confidentiality) than their own moral code. If I signed something and gave my word for it, as long as the initial conditions of the contract do not change then I will do as I said initially.
But yeah it is a ridiculous position to put someone in, which is why that house episode was pretty great.
>>28251167
NICE
original original original
I know this is OPs thread, but I love moral dilemmas. This one is called the "survival lottery." By John Harris. The idea is simple, every year there are tens of thousands of people who die because of organ failure. We as a society could save these people by choosing one person totally randomly to be killed, and their organs used to save the patients lives ( the people with organ failure.) the main point of this is to save quite a bit of a people for the cost of one.
Before you respond, think back on the original post, and think about the parallels. IMO it's a slam dunk on the original post to save the many over the few. But in this scenario it feels different, not so easy.
>>28251179
You are right that life is suffering, and that to minimize it it's better if everyone died. I'm sure someone smarter or more educated than me can tell me why that's wrong, though.
>>28251137
The wifes lover, you would be doing your job, and when your wife dies you would inherit her shit.
>>28251072
>who would you pick to kill and why
No need to kill anyone. If the rock had crushed a person's leg at any point above the knee, they would die/become unconscious from blood loss long before the oxygen levels become a problem. The problem solves itself without any action on my part.
>>28251137
The "human" answer to this question is: the wife, of course.
The rational answer to this question is: the lover.
>>28251137
This one's hard. Dunno. I believe i would probably save my wife as I still have emotional attachment to her but it's not a rational decision. it's purely emotional.
>>28251137
You should save the man. Simply because the likelihood of saving of your wife is lower than that of saving the man. Your feelings for him may suck, but hey at least you won't have a cheating wife :^)
>>28251210
because minimizing suffering isn't the only or most important value to have in a moral framework
>>28251228
>The point of a moral dilemma are not the technicalities
But yes it's possible he would die from blood loss, or the rock trapping his leg would stop him from bleeding out. I don't know enough about anatomy to really be able to tell what would happen.
>>28251208
I like the parallels in this one. If I were in the position to decide, I would have criminals on death row be the ones killed and used for their organs. Seems fairer while still helping the issue.
>>28251273
That works, thinking only in terms of suffering is limiting and simplifying the problem.
@OP is there any best answer to these?
>>28251297
Of course there isn't a best answer. It depends what viewpoint you're looking at it from. For the utilitarian stance you'd want to maximize lives saved, though. Not an exact science which makes it an interesting topic to discuss.
>>28251208
>totally randomly
Everything already acts as if it were random in nature, this would be no different I believe and I think it's just a win/win/win. The chance of being picked is astronomically less than any other common cause of death for which we already don't have a choice in.
Allow him to die of his wounds naturally, yes.
>>28251208
This one's simple. Take no action and let the 10,000 die.
>>28251274
Fine, since we're not allowed to have any fun: tell everyone that the room can only support enough air for 3 people, give them the chance to volunteer who will die. Obviously no one will volunteer with 36 hours to go, so wait until 24-30 hours have passed, when they start feeling the effects of oxygen deprivation then ask again. Crushed leg will volunteer or be unconscious, at which point the three remaining will off him together.
>>28251322
Whoa, don't say that. Utilitarians want to maximize utility, they want to create as much happiness as possible.
Take for example a man who lives an unhappy life, and is very miserable. However he chooses an unhappy life over no life at all. But, killing him
Would remove unhappiness from
The world, and as such increase utility. So by utilitarian standards, it's ok to kill him.
This is just to show you the extreme of utilitarianism.
>>28251369
Yeah, I worded it incorrectly. You're right.
>there are people on /r9k/ right now that believe that killing another human being is ever justifiable
>>28251443
>there is someone in this thread right now that still believes the world is all fairytales and a powerful sky ghost watches over us
*flips trilby*
M'gentlesir.
>>28250854
are you pulling these scenarios out your ass without any prior research? I'm pretty sure the doctor would be able to tell people. He could speak to a legal department to make sure
why is this aids ridden faggot getting a blood transfusion anyway?
>>28251796
Are you a retard? You work without the bounds of the presented scenario. Technicalities are irrelevant,
>>28251137
>implying emergency workers don't work in pairs
>let colleague work on wife because i might fuck up due to emotional attachment
>help tyrone
>>28251821
*within the bounds
>>28251821
This board has a lot of engineers.
>>28251369
Utilitarianism
the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
>>28251828
within the bounds of your scenario i am a retard
>>28251208
People die of organ failure because of age, poor life choices, or bad genes. An organ donor suitable to save several people would have to be young and healthy. Why sacrifice someone with a future to prolong the existence of genetic deadends? When you consider the longterm consequences of unfit people being alive, the best choice for society as a whole is to let the weak die. You lose more lives right away, but you win even more in an unquantifiable way.
