An ethical question.

[XPViking]

This was done on the Twilight Zone, or a spin-off along the same genre. That is, an old man delivered a box to a poor family and told them that if they pushed the button, they would get a million bucks and someone that they didn't know would die. They pushed the button and so the next day the old man came back to collect the box and drop off the dough. The family asked what will happen next. He replied, "This box will be given to someone that you don't know."

XPViking

[Lord of the Farce]

There is also the matter of long term considerations. How do you know that the person that will die won't be someone who could turn out to be someone who could benefit you or the whole world years down the track? Something that seems insignifigant today might make all the difference in the future... Who knows, maybe me posting this means that the person who would otherwise press the button when I'm the target won't, because they read this and remembered my point?

[Lagmonster]

Of course, when you push the button, you discover the researcher's fiendish plan: the button is wired to high explosives. The person who will die is YOU.

Bloody hell, go to sleep for one night and I miss the opportunity to make a really clever point by about ten posts.

[Mr Bean]

People die, is pushing the button, by itself a random act any more diffrent than a bolt of lightning?

[Stormbringer]

People die, is pushing the button, by itself a random act any more diffrent than a bolt of lightning?

Yes, it was done with intent not mere the randomness of nature. Sure the person may be random but it was done knowing someone would die.

[Mr Bean]

Yes, it was done with intent not mere the randomness of nature. Sure the person may be random but it was done knowing someone would die.

To quote Bobba Fett
When a Rockslide crushs a village its a sad thing, However if a sentient being caused that rockslide then it is evil

just playing Devils Advocet here

[Daedalus]

People die, is pushing the button, by itself a random act any more diffrent than a bolt of lightning?

Yes, it was done with intent not mere the randomness of nature. Sure the person may be random but it was done knowing someone would die.

But determinists would argue that nothing that we do is the result of our having decided to do it. We - and all our actions - to them, are the sum result of the circumstances that surround us.

[Colonel Olrik]

People die, is pushing the button, by itself a random act any more diffrent than a bolt of lightning?

Yes, it was done with intent not mere the randomness of nature. Sure the person may be random but it was done knowing someone would die.

But determinists would argue that nothing that we do is the result of our having decided to do it. We - and all our actions - to them, are the sum result of the circumstances that surround us.

Then those determinists are just plain stupid. And the argument is moronic. If I choose to kill someone, it's on my free will.
Of course, then I could tell the judge it was fate, after all, not my own fault.

[Daedalus]

But do you feel that way because of your inherent 'you-ness'? Or because life, through its myriad circumstances, has indoctrinated you to feel that way?

This is the dilemma of determinism. You are the product of everything around you, for as long as you have been... around.

[Colonel Olrik]

But do you feel that way because of your inherent 'you-ness'? Or because life, through its myriad circumstances, has indoctrinated you to feel that way?

This is the dilemma of determinism. You are the product of everything around you, for as long as you have been... around.

To hell with solipsistic ideas

If I decide to kill you, It will be a conscious act and I'll have to answer for it. It is nobody's responsabilty but my own

[Darth Wong]

But do you feel that way because of your inherent 'you-ness'? Or because life, through its myriad circumstances, has indoctrinated you to feel that way?

This is the dilemma of determinism. You are the product of everything around you, for as long as you have been... around.

Determinism is irrelevant when discussing questions of morality. Such questions simply ask whether an action is good or bad; questioning the existence of "free will" is an irrelevant red-herring. Whether an action is caused by free will or determinism, we still must decide if it is moral or not.

As for this question, it is a bit of a complex question fallacy because as a self-declared "ethical question", it actually combines two questions into one:

1. Is it moral to push that button?
2. Would you push the button?

It is entirely possible for someone to conclude that it would be immoral to push that button, but do it anyway. In short, there is a third answer.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Wow, didn't notice this thread till now.

Yes, but only if I got to choose.

DorkStar, Arminiass, Chick, Kin'ai'di and a few others come to mind....

and I get freakin' paid for killing them too!

[Raxmei]

For those of you who will push the button, would it change anything if the person to be killed were in the room with you? Say he's there, sitting in front of you, but he doesn't know what's going on. You will receive the money if you push the button, causing him to die right before your eyes. Will that affect your actions? Why or why not?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Can I push the button multiple times? If I could pick who dies of course.

my list

1."Father"
2. Dubya
3. Rev. Phelps
4. Rev. Falwell
5. Chick
6. Robertson
7. Ascroft
8.Darkstar
9.The pope
10. another random person that I happen to want to smite at the time

I get 100 million dollars for doing the world 10 favors

[Colonel Olrik]

Hey!The Pope is actually a nice guy!

He has given signs of great personnal courage and opened many doors towards society and other religions.

Don't wish his death, there are many people much more deserving!

kill Aschcroft twice

[Mr Bean]

Hey!The Pope is actually a nice guy!

He has given signs of great personnal courage and opened many doors towards society and other religions.

Don't wish his death, there are many people much more deserving!

He also comdems millions to die each year because the Catholic church and its followers belive talking about sex and STD prevention is wrong, and forbid it in countrys where they hold sway


Which is why fourty two million people will die in the next ten years....

The Catholic churchs hands are as bloody as Hitlers... But in a diffrent way.

[Colonel Olrik]

I know that. In those matters, he is hopelessly wrong and outdated. The church has to open its eyes toward sex issues.

But, in many other aspects, he deserves respect. He's not a fundie. He has contributed to the end of the Cold War. He has made an aproach of active tolerance towards other religions, respectfully visiting their sacred places and praying with their priests.

He, I believe, actually wants to make the world a better place for everybody, not only for the people of a certain race or creed

[Mr Bean]

But, in many other aspects, he deserves respect. He's not a fundie. He has contributed to the end of the Cold War. He has made an aproach of active tolerance towards other religions, respectfully visiting their sacred places and praying with their priests.

He, I believe, actually wants to make the world a better place for everybody, not only for the people of a certain race or creed

So by that reasoning if Hitler had been an OTHERWISE nice guy it would be ok with you

You know what your saying

*Sure he has the deaths of millions of people on his hands but once you get to know him and ignore the whole mass murder part, he's realy a nice guy!

[Colonel Olrik]

That's it, die!

Still, there's a difference between not condoning the use of preservative, because of morality issues, and ordering the mass termination of millions and starting a war which killed tens of million more.

He advocates abstinence until marriage and respect the votes afterwards, which, if followed, would also result in avoiding the propagation of aids. So, as moronic as this view is, if people followed what he says entirely aids would still be fought efficiently

[Mr Bean]

Still, there's a difference between not condoning the use of preservative, because of morality issues, and ordering the mass termination of millions and starting a war which killed tens of million more.

Yes one of the Previous Popes did that.. Remeber the Crusades?

He advocates abstinence until marriage and respect the votes afterwards, which, if followed, would also result in avoiding the propagation of aids. So, as moronic as this view is, if people followed what he says entirely aids would still be fought efficiently

No they would not, these people don't KNOW they have AIDS because the Church Forbids the testing and knowledge for the people to even KNOW they have AIDS, All Abstence means is that instead of each of the people dieing at the same time they have an extra month or two at life

IN NO WAY DOES ABSTIENCE UNTIL MARRAGE HELP FIGHT AIDS or HIV!
Thats STILL unprotected Sex, it can take YEARS for AIDS to manfeest and outside of the US few people know until YEARS later that they have HIV at all and typicaly don't know until it turns into AIDS

Seriously this is not rampet sex-vill here, the problem is the people don't know, The Church won't teach and they are all going to DIE because of the Church's refusal to spread info....

His *Method does NOTHING to prevent the spread of HIV, people are still infected, just a month or so latter, thier kids are all infected so they will be dieing later on in life as well, Its a Vicoious cycle and the CHURCH helps propgate it

I'm sorry but this happens to be one of my(And also a few other posters, inculding Wong's) greatest annoce with the Church
The blood of these people is on thier hands

[Colonel Olrik]

Yes one of the Previous Popes did that.. Remeber the Crusades?

I'm talking about this pope, the Man, not the Pope in general.


And there is certainly a way that abstinence (or maintaining very few partners) and being true after the wedding fight HIV. The major cause of its propagation is trough sex. The less random sexual partners you have in your life the less probability you have of getting it.

Of course, that's not the procedure I follow, I simple use a condom, but it remains true nonetheless

I agree with you on the rest. The Church has done a hateful job, and the situation in Africa is so dramatic that no kind Church speak can help. They are effectively helping killing the people, as not being cause of the solution

[Mr Bean]

And there is certainly a way that abstinence (or maintaining very few partners) and being true after the wedding fight HIV. The major cause of its propagation is trough sex. The less random sexual partners you have in your life the less probability you have of getting it.

Yes just as one can drop sixteen 200 Megaton Nukes over The African Contenet would fight HIV *in a way to

Its NOT helpful, admit it already

[Colonel Olrik]

I's definitely not helpful in Africa. I've already agreed on that

On western countries, with low numbers on HIV, specially disregarding the ones from drug consume, it is.

[Darth Wong]

I's definitely not helpful in Africa. I've already agreed on that

On western countries, with low numbers on HIV, specially disregarding the ones from drug consume, it is.

Teaching that abstinence will prevent AIDS is not harmful. However, so-called "abstinence-only" sex ed programs deliberately REFRAIN from teaching about any other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS. This deliberate silence is DEFINITELY harmful.

[Crown]

Okay everyone likes to claim that we are all guided by our morals, and we in the position of others (say soldiers who commit attrocities by following orders) would take a moral stand and say no! I myself once held this position. However once I raised this question with my sister (currently completing her Doctorite in Neural Psycoligy) she told me of a study back in the 60's that totally shook my view on this.

Basically the study was trying to determine whether or not people would 'draw the line' when they were aparty to un-ethical behaivour. How this study worked was the following;

Psycologist would ask for people to participate in the study for a certain fee. They were to be in a room by themselves and they would be sitting infront of a consol with one light and one button and one dial. The button, they were told was a switch that when depressed would send a jolt of electric current through another person in another room when they did something wrong. The people were also told that each time the light turned on they would depress the said button *and* turn the dial slightly so that more and more current would be applied each subsiquent push of the button.

Now each time the person pushed the button, they could *hear* a human scream issuing from an ajoining room. Each subsequent scream would get louder and louder, until finally the screams stopped. Do you want to know how many people stopped pushing the button before the screams stopped?

None. Not one. Zip.

This is scary.