A difficult moral question.

[Crown]

Lex you are correct, the grammar isn't the best but since I specifically stated in brackets (with the pilots in their ejector seats, no one else). What did you think I meant?

verilon it's okay, I am taking a break from studying for my exam tomorrow, and well it's gone on longer than I expected. I apologise. Good night all, wish me luck for tomorrow!

EDIT: Fuck Lex did I just misunderstand you? AHHHHHH it's late, I have an exam, verilon will explain it if I have confused you more. Sorry. Good night.

[Lex]

Lex you are correct, the grammar isn't the best but since I specifically stated in brackets (with the pilots in their ejector seats, no one else). What did you think I meant?

verilon it's okay, I am taking a break from studying for my exam tomorrow, and well it's gone on longer than I expected. I apologise. Good night all, wish me luck for tomorrow!

EDIT: Fuck Lex did I just misunderstand you? AHHHHHH it's late, I have an exam, verilon will explain it if I have confused you more. Sorry. Good night.

ah np, gn, but now I'm really confused...

[Crown]

*Screams in rage*

Okay what I assume I can't do;

Stop the plane from flying off, and evacuate all on board.

Then have the plane reconfigured with ejector seats for the pilots.

Then fly the plane (with just the pilots in their ejector seats, no one else).

Plane still crashes, but no one dies 'cause no passengers (on board) and pilots have ejected in time.

The mysterous break through is discovered.

If you two cannot understand it from that I give up!

[Lex]

ahhhhhhhhhhh! now i got it!!! the confusion is gone!

[haas mark]

Okay, makes sense.

[Mike_6002]

Crazy idea it may work then a again if your not dragged away to the looney bin for beigning psychic and claming the flight is going to crash well that's my opinion

[Lex]

Okay what I assume I can't do;

Stop the plane from flying off, and evacuate all on board.

Then have the plane reconfigured with ejector seats for the pilots.

Then fly the plane (with just the pilots in their ejector seats, no one else).

Plane still crashes, but no one dies 'cause no passengers (on board) and pilots have ejected in time.

The mysterous break through is discovered.

but, if we come back to topic, it says: check in in 5 mins, so how do that that fast???

[Darth Wong]

I sense a lot of Kobayashi Maru action going on here. People trying to cheat their way out of a no-win situation.

Please deal with the dilemma, people. I know it's a silly scenario, but your choice in this moral dilemma is the issue, not how cleverly you can try to cheat your way out of it.

My engineering ethics course material outlined an interesting concept of ethics: majority rules. Take several moral systems and see how many of them come down on one side or the other.

System #1: Unitarianism. See which actions lead to the least overall death and suffering. Unitarianism clearly votes no. Do not stop the plane. The 500 deaths are tragic but if they will prevent thousands, it's the lesser of two evils.

System #2: Lockean human rights. Human rights are not being violated here; at worst, this is negligence. Therefore, human rights are neutral here.

System #3: Duty-based ethics. As an engineer and one who subscribes to the engineering ethical code 24x7, I have a duty to protect the public welfare. This includes the people on the plane, but it also includes the public at large. Duty-based ethics do not render a clear vote here.

System #4: Golden Mean (yes, this is the name of a logical fallacy; it is also the name of an ethical system). This system is about personal character traits; it has nothing to do with dilemmas such as this.

System #5: Judeo-Christian-Muslim: the Bible, the Koran, etc. do not mention this scenario or anything remotely like it. God apparently doesn't give a shit about airline fatalities or complex ethical situations. Therefore, I should go and beg forgiveness from God for fucking my wife up the ass last night, and tithe 10% of my income to the church.

So, the votes are 1 in favour of letting it go, and 4 no-decisions. I've got to let the plane go.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Thousands of lives in the future (all things being equal). To me this seems like a clear cut decision. Why would anyone choose 500 people over thousands (all things being equal). The only reason I can think of is a screwed up moral system.

[jegs2]

Imagine you are precognitive. You know from experience that your premonitions are accurate. Usually the details are hazy, and the future CAN be changed; but without your own intervention, the consequences you forsee happen more or less the way you predict.

One day, you are at an airport, and you are staring at one airliner (let's call it Flight xxx) that has yet to be boarded. You look into its immediate future, and know that it is going to crash hours after takeoff. All 500+ passengers are going to die.

But the premonition does not end there. Something is discovered in the wreckage. Your vision will not permit you to see it, but this something explains to investigators PRECISELY why the airliner crashed. This leads to unprecedented research into aerodynamics, engineering and airline safety. New inventions, designs and techniques result from this one freakish, fateful discovery.

In 10 years, worldwide airline fatalities will drop 60% because of this discovery.

In 20 years, they would drop 85%.

By the 2030's, aerodynamics reach a point where only one airliner crashes per year, although 2034 is considered a bad year because 2 airliners crash for the first time in 7 years.

Thousands of lives would be saved. But for this to be possible, all 500+ passengers of Flight xxx must be sacrificed. The flaw must be revealed for the discovery to be made at all.

"Flight xxx will commence boarding in five minutes."

The announcement snaps you out of your trance. This is your chance to make your decision - save hundreds of lives here and now, our save thousands of lives through your inaction.

What do you do?

It's a difficult decision, but seeing as how much good would come out of the deaths of those 500, and if there is no other way, I'd likely have to let the flight take off without my intervention. One could make the decision even harder by adding, "...your wife and children are also on that flight."

[Lex]

I sense a lot of Kobayashi Maru action going on here. People trying to cheat their way out of a no-win situation.

Please deal with the dilemma, people. I know it's a silly scenario, but your choice in this moral dilemma is the issue, not how cleverly you can try to cheat your way out of it.

My engineering ethics course material outlined an interesting concept of ethics: majority rules. Take several moral systems and see how many of them come down on one side or the other.

System #1: Unitarianism. See which actions lead to the least overall death and suffering. Unitarianism clearly votes no. Do not stop the plane. The 500 deaths are tragic but if they will prevent thousands, it's the lesser of two evils.

System #2: Lockean human rights. Human rights are not being violated here; at worst, this is negligence. Therefore, human rights are neutral here.

System #3: Duty-based ethics. As an engineer and one who subscribes to the engineering ethical code 24x7, I have a duty to protect the public welfare. This includes the people on the plane, but it also includes the public at large. Duty-based ethics do not render a clear vote here.

System #4: Golden Mean (yes, this is the name of a logical fallacy; it is also the name of an ethical system). This system is about personal character traits; it has nothing to do with dilemmas such as this.

System #5: Judeo-Christian-Muslim: the Bible, the Koran, etc. do not mention this scenario or anything remotely like it. God apparently doesn't give a shit about airline fatalities or complex ethical situations. Therefore, I should go and beg forgiveness from God for fucking my wife up the ass last night, and tithe 10% of my income to the church.

So, the votes are 1 in favour of letting it go, and 4 no-decisions. I've got to let the plane go.

come back to basic! you have only 5 minutes, not that you really have a chance to stop it! as an engineer, you have the ebst change to change it. uc an sabotate the plane, so the crush will never happen. but considered to the death you will cause... but as you said, as an engineer you are responsible for the people on the plan, so do u have another possibility than save em?

[Colonel Olrik]

come back to basic! you have only 5 minutes, not that you really have a chance to stop it! as an engineer, you have the ebst change to change it. uc an sabotate the plane, so the crush will never happen. but considered to the death you will cause... but as you said, as an engineer you are responsible for the people on the plan, so do u have another possibility than save em?

I'm also a mechanical engineer. Don't ask me to sabotage a plane in five minutes.

[Lex]

come back to basic! you have only 5 minutes, not that you really have a chance to stop it! as an engineer, you have the ebst change to change it. uc an sabotate the plane, so the crush will never happen. but considered to the death you will cause... but as you said, as an engineer you are responsible for the people on the plan, so do u have another possibility than save em?

I'm also a mechanical engineer. Don't ask me to sabotage a plane in five minutes.

well, if u say there's something wrong at the plane they will have to listen to you, and that gives time

[Darth Wong]

as you said, as an engineer you are responsible for the people on the plan, so do u have another possibility than save em?

As an engineer, I also have a duty to protect the public welfare, which includes those future fatalities. There is a conflict; that is why duty-ethics do not render a clear verdict, and we must turn to unitarianism.

If you cannot prevent fatalities entirely, your next best choice is to minimize them. Letting the plane go minimizes the overall fatalities in this dilemma (it's a silly scenario, but we're going along for the sake of argument).

[Raptor 597]

This thread sort of like what the Christain teen group spewed."My, God was there preventing the planes from filling. My God was there, telling people bot too go to work early. etc" Now if God was so powerful couldn't of he saved everyone instead of just most. Note: these are the same nutcases that said they an Agnel if the smoke billowing from the WTC, and the same people's supersitions wjen you fold the $20 bill you see the WC burning. For sakes people it's th White House surronded by trees. Oh, yes it's a conspiracy.

[Cal Wright]

two things. first off, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. you would live with the knowledge that you could have saved those 500+ but didnt. so if you have a conscience youd be bothered for a while. then again you can tell someone and when they dont believe you, run through the airport ranting like a maniac allowing police to arrest you. in a few hours when the plane crashes the FBI or whoever comes to get you. They want to know why you knew the plane was going to crash. of course they get it all wrong and fucking screwed. so in the end, not only did you lose the 500+ passengers, you are now bothered because you could have saved them, you lose your sanity, and your freedom. hmm. let em die for the greater good. besides, you can rest assured in one thing. of those 500+ passengers are a few men who would have persecuted you claiming you sabotaged the plane and were having second thoughts.

[Lex]

there are other optiosn taht runnigna round while screaming!! why not scare them with a bomb???

[XaLEv]

I'd do nothing. Very simple choice.

[neoolong]

good point....but u could say that there's a bomb on the plane and stop them from starting...they'd examine the plane and maybe find the problem

They'd probably arrest you. Even if there's not a bomb you're not supposed to do that. It's like yelling fire when there isn't one.

well, at least you would save 500 lives...they dont know that there's no bomb, so they will have to be sure...and as i said, while searching for a bomb, they'd might find the problem which would cause the crash

I'm just saying that you would be arrested. Nothing about whether one should do it or not.

[Slartibartfast]

I'd somehow try to disable or steal the black box before the flight, that way nobody wins and I preserve the statuos quo.

[Joe]

System #1: Unitarianism. See which actions lead to the least overall death and suffering. Unitarianism clearly votes no. Do not stop the plane. The 500 deaths are tragic but if they will prevent thousands, it's the lesser of two evils.

FYI, you're thinking of Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill's philosophy, not Unitarianism. Unitarianism is Christianity without the trinity.

[Ewo]

So long as there wasn't someone on the flight that was going to save more lives than the discovery from the crash, I would have to say "let them die". By doing nothing, you haven't changed the future. It would have happened without you knowing; don't be so hard on yourself. Plus, you have just saved the life of little Johnny who boarded the plane in 2019 to see his long lost dad for the first time.
I'm sorry but if I had to kill my best friend or some poor innocent in order to save hundreds (in which would contain more innocents and perhaps more friends), them my friend is gonna get himself capped.
I think that if you did something and they didn't discover this THING from the crash that you would feel even guiltier in the long run. That means that another flight (if not multiple flights) of 500+ people or a flight with someone you may have known will go down but you might not have had the premonition. They would die because you interfered to save a measley 500, when they could have been saved if you just let it go.
Bite the bullet and say nothing. DOn't take the flight yourself. It would do less good for you to be some sort of personal martre.
As for the WTC. There was that other plane that took itself down and crashed before harming any big cities. I would say that they made the same kind of moral sacrifice. They took themselves instead of taking them and the people on the ground down.

[Zaia]

But the premonition does not end there. Something is discovered in the wreckage. Your vision will not permit you to see it, but this something explains to investigators PRECISELY why the airliner crashed. This leads to unprecedented research into aerodynamics, engineering and airline safety. New inventions, designs and techniques result from this one freakish, fateful discovery.

In 10 years, worldwide airline fatalities will drop 60% because of this discovery.

In 20 years, they would drop 85%.

By the 2030's, aerodynamics reach a point where only one airliner crashes per year, although 2034 is considered a bad year because 2 airliners crash for the first time in 7 years.

Given this information, and assuming that something unforseen to myself doesn't happen to screw up my version of upcoming events, this is what I would do:

I would try to convince the passengers of the boarding flight that they will not live if they leave now, hoping in my calm, matter-of-fact voice at least a few people will be spooked enough to not board the plane. In so doing, I would share all of the knowledge that I had concerning my vision, to tell them that if they do indeed stay on the plane, they will at least be dying for a cause, because in ten years, blah will happen, and in twenty years, blah blah will happen.

Then, the passengers either get on the plane or they don't. I, meanwhile, get arrested/detained/something else unpleasant by authorities, because they think I am crazy and a possible threat to myself and others.

Knowing that the black box will shed new light on air travel safety, I know that whatever the authorities think I am guilty of before the flight takes off will clear me after it crashes, since I didn't actually sabotage the plane. Therefore, after whatever time I would have to spend in jail, waiting for evidence to prove that I did nothing to bring the plane down (as I would be a prime suspect), I know I would eventually be set free. I would know that I did what I could to save the people from the flight, the black box's information would lead to new discoveries, and that people's lives in the future would be spared.

Not that I'm sure that's a good thing (stupidity and overpopuation being what they are)...but that is what I would do.

[Darth Wong]

Therefore, after whatever time I would have to spend in jail, waiting for evidence to prove that I did nothing to bring the plane down (as I would be a prime suspect), I know I would eventually be set free.

Is that before or after the big lesbian orgy scene with the guards and the other prisoners in the womens' prison? Or am I watching too much porno?

[Kuja]

Therefore, after whatever time I would have to spend in jail, waiting for evidence to prove that I did nothing to bring the plane down (as I would be a prime suspect), I know I would eventually be set free.

Is that before or after the big lesbian orgy scene with the guards and the other prisoners in the womens' prison? Or am I watching too much porno?

Go read more of Kelly's fanfic. Work it out of your system.