Poll: Poll: What is your moral code?

[Robert632]

one life instead of 4? of course i'd do it. unless the one large man was in fact 5 small midgits.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

I'm not going to sacrifice someone's life to save people who are too stupid to get out of the way of a moving train

 

[w-Jinksy]

no for both because you would be implemented for those mens murders and spend life in jail.

 

[Silver]

How does pushing the man off the bridge stop the train? Why couldn't I throw a rock down, or jump myself, or shoot the driver or something? Not that I would, most likely, but still, how the hell does pushing a man off a bridge stop a train? If he's THAT big, how can I push him off?

 

[lostclause]

I'm fairly certain that this has been lifted from a book (I think it was either the God Delusion or the Selfish Gene).
And if I remember correctly, the perfect answer is supposed to be yes to the first and no to the second because in the first the fat man is simply a causilty but in the second you are using him as a tool against his will.
However I think this is much more accurate:

Why can't we discuss moral codes along the lines of Dungeons & Dragons? Makes it a whole lot simpler.
[small]Chaotic Neutral, BTW[/small]

Same.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

Couldn't I just hold up a stop sign to the train...

Or better yet end this ridiculous situation by realising I'm just hallucinating a train as the workers are obviously still building the railway and as such there wouldn't be any trains on it yet.

I like those options.

OT: Probably not. I would probably just go into shock.

 

[XJ-0461]

I'd probably shout something like "get the fuck out of the way, you fools!" rather than do something to save them.

Also, this doesn't seem like a discussion of moral codes to me, more of a discussion of what we would do in a given situation.

 

[Gerazzi]

I'd do both, just to screw with your weird morality choices.

Also, one large man would not stop a train, unless physics is just fooling around that day.

 

[ThreeWords]

Intellectually, yes to both. Logically, it is better to kill to one to save the many.

However, my moral instinct says better to watch and grieve for the many than to kill a single man by my own hand.

 

[klakkat]

no to both. If you do nothing, then you aren't liable; if you do something in either case, then you have just committed murder and will probably go to jail for at least 20 years. Sorry, but I'm not willing to fuck up my entire life just to save someone else; I don't believe in self-sacrifice.

 

[crudus]

Yes to first, No the second. To me it seems like one thing to indirectly kill someone rather than directly like in the second.

no to both, witnessing death is not as morally wrong as causing them

The lowest levels of hell are for those that do nothing and traitors (both show that you have no allegiance or loyalty). At the very least you could try to save the workers some other way. I don't know about you but I would condemn myself more for doing nothing rather than killing one to save several.

 

[Shadowfaze]

im crazy. they die. hahahaha