I wouldn't stop, I'm no expert or own a helicopter so the fact I'm flying one and not crashing is amazing. Trying to land is probably not going to be fun and I'm not going to try that until I know for fact I am somewhere safe.
A moral choice
- Thread starter Xanadu84
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was reading Justice:What's the Right Thing to Do? and it explored the concept of utilitarianism and libertarianism. More in a moral sense of course. I'm wondering what they would do here. Would the former work out a math equation to see how many lives they could save? Would the latter flip a coin or pick at random? Hmm...
Personally, I'd either get all of them with the mindset that I leave no-one behind or take 3. It becomes easier if one volunteers to stay behind.
Personally, I'd either get all of them with the mindset that I leave no-one behind or take 3. It becomes easier if one volunteers to stay behind.
I would only take one person back with me. Being able to save one person from that hell hole with my limited resources would at least give me a sense that I did all that I could.
Heroically speaking, taking everyone at once would be my decision. However, this would not fair well and we would be lucky if we even survive.
Logically speaking, I would probably not take anyone. I would say, "Don't worry. I know where you are now. The military is going to send help and this nightmare will be over," and then fly away. I wouldn't want to take anyone for a few reasons:
1.) There might be an argument/problem between choosing who gets to go with me (unless they are all noble and choose who deserves to be saved). They might try to overpower me or struggle with each other on who gets to go.
2.) The person that I save would turn out to be infected and once the outbreak ends, they start to infect people, causing another outbreak. A much worse scenario is that I save someone who was responsible for the outbreak, only for them to cause another outbreak in the future.
3.) All the people who are present are really bad people, essentially murders, rapists, thieves, gangsters, drug dealers, etc. who all managed to somehow survive by being 'street smart.' I wouldn't want to allow their evil to continue, so I would just leave them for the nuke to decide their fate.
Heroically speaking, taking everyone at once would be my decision. However, this would not fair well and we would be lucky if we even survive.
Logically speaking, I would probably not take anyone. I would say, "Don't worry. I know where you are now. The military is going to send help and this nightmare will be over," and then fly away. I wouldn't want to take anyone for a few reasons:
1.) There might be an argument/problem between choosing who gets to go with me (unless they are all noble and choose who deserves to be saved). They might try to overpower me or struggle with each other on who gets to go.
2.) The person that I save would turn out to be infected and once the outbreak ends, they start to infect people, causing another outbreak. A much worse scenario is that I save someone who was responsible for the outbreak, only for them to cause another outbreak in the future.
3.) All the people who are present are really bad people, essentially murders, rapists, thieves, gangsters, drug dealers, etc. who all managed to somehow survive by being 'street smart.' I wouldn't want to allow their evil to continue, so I would just leave them for the nuke to decide their fate.
Let's assume out of 5 people there's 2 girls and 3 guys.
I'm a guy.
Both girls can get on, the guys can go f*** themselves.
Helicopters don't give a shit how much weight you have. They will either take off, or they won't, and considering the helicopter is big enough to fit 5 people on it, it would take off unless those 5 people weighed 200kg each.
I'm a guy.
Both girls can get on, the guys can go f*** themselves.
This, too.Revnak said:
Helicopters don't give a shit how much weight you have. They will either take off, or they won't, and considering the helicopter is big enough to fit 5 people on it, it would take off unless those 5 people weighed 200kg each.
Thank you to the...maybe 2 people who listened, and tried to answer in the spirit of the question rather then inventing loopholes. I suppose I have to make the question less interesting, but in a way that encourages people to not ***** out.
You are in a room with 6 other people, who are in 6 identical boxes with no distinguishing features. You are paralyzed and can only look at these boxes. You are automatically "tagged " and can't Untag yourself. You can, with your mind powers, tag any number of boxes. Tagging 1 other box is safe. For each additional box, there is a additional 20% chance that all tagged people explode and die. All untagged people explode and die. Afterwards, all survivors, if any, are telepoted back to there houses safely. How many boxes do you tag? If you think this question is different from the first question, you are not listening to me when I ask you to answer in the questions spirit. What number of people would you tag, and what number would be moral or heroic?
Just as a quick aside, if your real answer is tagging no one, you are a either a sociopath (like an actually mentally ill person), being facetious, or you aren't actually answering the question in spirit. Tagging 1 person is exactly as selfish as tagging no one, as there is literally zero additional cost or risk.
Also, the math you are talking about is above. To my knowledge, it is accurate. If it is confusing, let me clarify. Save 1 person, you definitely have 2 people live, yourself and 1 other. The value, or utility, of that course of action is 2. Save 2 people, you basically have an 80% chance of saving 3 people, each person has a utility of. 0.8. 0.8 *3 is 2.4. 3 people, each person has a 60% chance, .6*4 is 2.4. 4 people, each person is. 4, .4*5 is 2, your saving fewer people on average.
You are in a room with 6 other people, who are in 6 identical boxes with no distinguishing features. You are paralyzed and can only look at these boxes. You are automatically "tagged " and can't Untag yourself. You can, with your mind powers, tag any number of boxes. Tagging 1 other box is safe. For each additional box, there is a additional 20% chance that all tagged people explode and die. All untagged people explode and die. Afterwards, all survivors, if any, are telepoted back to there houses safely. How many boxes do you tag? If you think this question is different from the first question, you are not listening to me when I ask you to answer in the questions spirit. What number of people would you tag, and what number would be moral or heroic?
Just as a quick aside, if your real answer is tagging no one, you are a either a sociopath (like an actually mentally ill person), being facetious, or you aren't actually answering the question in spirit. Tagging 1 person is exactly as selfish as tagging no one, as there is literally zero additional cost or risk.
Thank you! Thank YOU! Athousand times thank you, you are actually addressing the questions SPIRIT! You may find my distinction between n=1 and n=2 interesting.isometry said:
Utilitarianism for life!Nouw said:
Also, the math you are talking about is above. To my knowledge, it is accurate. If it is confusing, let me clarify. Save 1 person, you definitely have 2 people live, yourself and 1 other. The value, or utility, of that course of action is 2. Save 2 people, you basically have an 80% chance of saving 3 people, each person has a utility of. 0.8. 0.8 *3 is 2.4. 3 people, each person has a 60% chance, .6*4 is 2.4. 4 people, each person is. 4, .4*5 is 2, your saving fewer people on average.