I agree with leaving things be. There are more unintended consequences down the line after you mess with what is. In any case, if someone is going to die, why should it be the guy who isn't in the wrong place? Mostly though, I wonder why, if you see all those people on the tracks, you didn't warn the train already?? Smoke break??
A Moral dilemma........
by Hope4Others 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Hope4Others
Well I am not choosing to kill the 3 they will die that is where the train is going.....to pull the leaver I choose now to kill someone on
purpose.....by my hand....
Well interesting thoughts/scenario you have John.....going to work now I'll respond when I get back....
-
Twitch
Pull the lever to save three/kill one.
Inaction will kill three and I'd be morally negligent by not acting IMO. Inaction is a choice and we are just as much responsible for it. The question just makes the numbers interesting,...
What if it was 100 people, not three, would that move you to action then? At what point would you act?
True my deliberate action would kill but the guilt over the one would be tempered by the two spared.
Affect the world, change, shape and create it. Accept the rewards and the failures.
And no, I don't believe in predestination,.....
-
parakeet
Not pulling the lever (inaction vs. action) still carries a moral imperative:
"All it takes for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing."