Poll: Another train dilemma.

[Lilani]

I'd get the kids, as they are less observant and have less of a survival instinct and are thus less likely to notice the danger and save themselves.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Can we hit both? I just want extra points

 

[JoJo]

and also I feel that children's lives are worth more than those of adults.

Why is that?

Because young children are special. They are free from the sin and inpurity which plagues older humans. Those orphans are innocent and therefore from my moral perpective deserve life more.

You do realize they will eventually grow into 'sinful and impure' humans? Children are not special, they're just naive enough to make them appear cute.

I've thought for a couple of minutes of the best way to reply and I hope this can suffice:

Spoiler

The above picture is of my little sister Rosie. I love her more than anything else in the world. Any parent, or alloparent/guardian will tell you exactly the same thing. When I see any child I see her reflected in them. I'm sorry as this is probably confusing but if you have yet to take care of a child then I doubt it is possible for you to understand.

 

[Lilani]

If "IRobot" taught me one thing, it is that the children with parents are most likely to survive, and must be saved first.

So, the women.

Not quite. In I, Robot (the film, anyway) Spooner, the adult, was saved rather than the girl because the robot calculated he had a better chance of survival. If you apply it to this situation, that means the pregnant women have a better chance of survival over the kids. So based on your logic, you should be rescuing the kids, not the women.

 

[Nimcha]

and also I feel that children's lives are worth more than those of adults.

Why is that?

Because young children are special. They are free from the sin and inpurity which plagues older humans. Those orphans are innocent and therefore from my moral perpective deserve life more.

You do realize they will eventually grow into 'sinful and impure' humans? Children are not special, they're just naive enough to make them appear cute.

I've thought for a couple of minutes of the best way to reply and I hope this can suffice:

Spoiler

The above picture is of my little sister Rosie. I love her more than anything else in the world. Any parent, or alloparent/guardian will tell you exactly the same thing. When I see any child I see her reflected in them. I'm sorry as this is probably confusing but if you have yet to take care of a child then I doubt it is possible for you to understand.

It's not confusing at all, it's perfectly natural. Almost everyone who takes care of children thinks like you do. The problem with a lot of them is that they can't seem to realize children are not the most important thing in the world for everyone.

Don't take this the wrong way though, I do not hate children.

 

[drbarno]

I take option 4: derail the train, therefore saving both groups.

 

[veloper]

This is not even a dilemma at all. #3
Neither group is clearly worse than the other.

You don't touch the lever here unless somebody in charge tells you to.

 

[JoJo]

It's not confusing at all, it's perfectly natural. Almost everyone who takes care of children thinks like you do. The problem with a lot of them is that they can't seem to realize children are not the most important thing in the world for everyone.

Don't take this the wrong way though, I do not hate children.

I somewhat understand your perpective, most people of my age including virtually all of my friends have never really had any proper exposure to children and feel the same as you. However I hope you have found that your original question you asked me has been answered now, as to why I place higher values on children's lives. Morals are subjective after all.

 

[bad rider]

Saying everyone lives to eighty and the mother are 27.

240 years (3 babies)
+189 years (3 mothers)
=429 years

5 orphans
75x5
375 years

54 years means more life saved for the pregnant women. Sorry, but Mothers are greater than orphans in life.

 

[beniki]

The orphans. That way the husbands could punish me for not being able to save their wives.

And strictly speaking, the genetic diversity from 5 unrelated individuals whose parents are already dead is more valuable than 3 mother-child combinations with the father's genetic data still available.

I think. I'm not a geneticist... can we get someone to run numbers on this?

 

[3aqua]

Are any of the pregnant women carrying twins?

 

[TilMorrow]

I take Option 66. Get someone with a timetraveling device, Im looking at you Dr. Who, to save both groups.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Are any of the pregnant women carrying twins?

No but thanks for asking.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

and also I feel that children's lives are worth more than those of adults.

Why is that?

Because young children are special. They are free from the sin and inpurity which plagues older humans. Those orphans are innocent and therefore from my moral perpective deserve life more.

Um, you do realize that these kids could have been vicious little bastards for all you know right? So you can't really claim that they are innocent. Also I like you pic, very festive.
OT: I save both parties. Why? Because I can, that's why.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Since I would get arrested if I did anything, I'd walk away.

 

[WanderingFool]

Option 4) Stop the train... Seriously... all I need is these two guys (below), problem solved.

 

[Loud Hawk]

I would take the group I had saved and push them in front of the next train.

 

[Loud Hawk]

Start a second train so both groups would be run over. MWAHAHAHA!!

 

[CryptoKeyblade]

let the train hit em both. If they're stupid enough to just on the tracks while the train speeding down them they deserve to die. Thinning the heard as I like to call it

 

[Anarchemitis]

I take option 4: derail the train, therefore saving both groups.

It can be easier and less catastrophic than often depicted in fiction.