Moral dilemma on the 5th of July (hypothetical)...

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-07-05 05:46pm

--Via an act of god all life in the universe will cease to exist. However, this can be prevented by [insert technobable solution] which will result in 1 intelligent and sentient entity suffering as much as pain and misery as possible (the exact amount varies, but it is >> 0) for the entire duration of life in the universe. The pain and misery of the selecty is << than the net pleasure and happiness of life in the universe (think absolute values if you confused). There are no volunteers in the entire universe because [insert unreasonable plot device #1] and the poor bastard choosen will not go willingly. The good news is that there is plenty of time to make this decision and it will have no impact on you since [insert unreasonable plot device # 2]. The bad news is that you have to make said decision.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-07-05 05:48pm

OK, all life in the fucking universe versus one guy suffering horribly. What a hard question.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-07-05 05:51pm

Cant you just kill him or choose the guy? -insert nazi/dictator here

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-07-05 06:00pm

the .303 bookworm wrote:Cant you just kill him or choose the guy? -insert nazi/dictator here

--While there may be loop holes in what I've written, the intention was for people to decide between no life in the entire universe or life with one guy sufferring as much as possible for the entire span of life in the universe.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-07-05 06:08pm

If it is someone like Himmler/Hitler (spit)/Pol pot/random dictator then without the slightest twinge of remorse.
If not then I would still agree after all a 1oogleplex^x lives is more important than one unfortunates suffering.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-07-05 06:13pm

the .303 bookworm wrote:If it is someone like Himmler/Hitler (spit)/Pol pot/random dictator then without the slightest twinge of remorse.
If not then I would still agree after all a 1oogleplex^x lives is more important than one unfortunate's suffering.

--It might be a Hitler/Stalin type, but they are probably rare so it isn't likely. I was thinking the poor bastard would be selected randomly and that people in the universe will not have any knowledge of the event so that they cannot commit suicide to escape the possibility that they might be chosen.
-I've made following correction: unfortunates > unfortunate's.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-07-05 06:15pm

This isn't even worth the question. Who would seriously choose a lifeless universe over serious hurt for one man? Shit, I'd volunteer to be that guy if it came down to it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-07-05 06:56pm

There's enough rapists, child molesters and serial killers in the world that I don't think finding a likely candidate would be too terribly problematic.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-07-05 06:58pm

How about I choose the destruction of all life in a fit of ennui?

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-07-05 07:07pm

General Zod wrote:There's enough rapists, child molesters and serial killers in the world that I don't think finding a likely candidate would be too terribly problematic.

--A. That is a cop out and while I didn't specify, you aren't shouldn't be able to choose.
B. The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-07-05 07:14pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:
General Zod wrote:There's enough rapists, child molesters and serial killers in the world that I don't think finding a likely candidate would be too terribly problematic.
--A. That is a cop out and while I didn't specify, you aren't shouldn't be able to choose.
B. The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

Ah, so you're saying that I don't get to choose the poor bastard in question, but rather I get the choice of keeping all life in the universe active or sentencing some random sod to death? Okay, if that's the case, then the OP wasn't very clear.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-07-05 07:20pm

General Zod wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:
General Zod wrote:There's enough rapists, child molesters and serial killers in the world that I don't think finding a likely candidate would be too terribly problematic.
--A. That is a cop out and while I didn't specify, you aren't shouldn't be able to choose.
B. The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.
Ah, so you're saying that I don't get to choose the poor bastard in question, but rather I get the choice of keeping all life in the universe active or sentencing some random sod to death? Okay, if that's the case, then the OP wasn't very clear.

--I know it wasn't clear, but I hadn't thought to specify that particular loop hole. These things get past me. Perhaps next time I'll pm some other denizens and ask them to screen for loop holes.
-Any moderator reading this can feel free to close the loop hole in the OP.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-07-05 07:57pm

Fuck, I'd take the chair if need be - this is stupid, how can you seriously think that one person is more important than the entire universe?

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2005-07-05 09:21pm

The OP didn't say it had to be a man, just a sentient entity. Now although ants aren't considered sentient by most (read: all) standards, I do know that they don't feel pain. So is it so inconcievable that a sentient entity that doesn't feel pain exists somewhere in the universe? In fact, IIRC, there is a very rare condition that some people have where they don't feel any pain (Oprah show, long long time ago (don't ask)).

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-07-05 09:23pm

weemadando wrote:Fuck, I'd take the chair if need be - this is stupid, how can you seriously think that one person is more important than the entire universe?

Especially since he'd be dead anyway along with the rest of the universe.
As for Braedley's point, find a deeply corrupted Slaanesh worshipper. He'll not only not mind, he'll downright enjoy it.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-07-05 09:31pm

Man, if I could choose who it was, I can think of sooo many people to off'

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2005-07-05 09:34pm

there can only be one decision here- I wouldn't like to be the one to make it, but it's a simple greater than/ less than thing.

I'd even be the guy to take one for the team, if it came down to it.

An interesting question, I think, would be if the person to suffer would be your significant other, would you still do it?

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2005-07-05 10:32pm

I'd have to agree with everyone else and say that there really is no other choice but to have some poor sucker suffer for eternity, for the greater good.

Qwerty 42 wrote:An interesting question, I think, would be if the person to suffer would be your significant other, would you still do it?

I'd say yes for similar reasons: If I say no, the consequences are far graver. Though obviously it's easier to deal with hypotheticals then if I was actually confronted with this choice in real life, but I still think I'd choose to have them "take one for the team," besides, the joke will be on the universe.......I have no significant other

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2005-07-05 11:23pm

'Course I'd do it. I'd rather have they guy getting tortured on my conscious rather than nothing being here anymore.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2005-07-06 12:02am

I was given a similar hypothetical moral dilemma in my senior year. Here's the wiki on in.

The Ones who Walk Away From Omelas

Essentially, I was given that short story and asked what I would do in that situation. I responded that I would probably end up destroying their society by showing the child some kindness. However, that scenario didn't specify the instant death of everyone involved, just the end of their paradise.

So in this case, I'd probably end up condemning the poor fellow to an eternity of suffering.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-07-06 12:09am

Decision: Destroy everything ever, or be responsible for one single person being tortured eternally...right, where is the "dilemma" part of this meant to be?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-07-06 12:09am

Also, I'd be very interested to know...who voted no, and why exactly?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-07-06 12:19am

Hmm...

Option 1: Infinite loss of life.

Option 2: Loss of 1 life.

I wonder which one I'd choose (hint: I'm not a sociopathic mass murderer).

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-07-06 02:52am

Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

Lone_Prodigy · Post by **Lone_Prodigy** » 2005-07-06 04:13am

Darth Raptor wrote:Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

I voted yes because of Darkstar. On second thought, he isn't intelligent enough to fit the requirement of sentience. Dammit!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Moral dilemma on the 5th of July (hypothetical)...

Torture him and save all life?

Moral dilemma on the 5th of July (hypothetical)...