A scenario that will stretch your moral boundaries. Watch

Poll: Who would you save?
Sally (53)
59.55%
Sukhdev (28)
31.46%
John (8)
8.99%
EricPiphany
Badges: 15
#41
Report 2 years ago
#41
(Original post by BhagwanNoBhool)
That's a difficult one. Probably wouldn't press any though, why should one person get to live over the others purely based on luck?
But without much effort you can save one of them? Surely you would have done a good thing?
quote
reply
missfats
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 years ago
#42
Sukdev

He has kids

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
Supersaps
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 years ago
#43
In the extremely unlikely event I'd stand around asking them about their drug habits, I wouldn't play God to create this into some moral scenario. Who can judge a whole life in all its failings and potential in 30 seconds?

I'd like to say, I'd just grab the first sorry lad and try to save the next one too. Hopefully, we'd both be too out of breath from working hard to have a discussion about Mrs Sukdev's depression.



SS
0
quote
reply
UTG8
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 years ago
#44
I agree that Sukhdev harms others and is probably the most in control of his actions, but he also has more dependents than any others. Two very young kids and a wife who's already on the edge - him dying has potential to destroy the whole family
0
quote
reply
lahorizon
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 years ago
#45
Id save sukhdev
0
quote
reply
BhagwanNoBhool
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 years ago
#46
(Original post by EricPiphany)
But without much effort you can save one of them? Surely you would have done a good thing?
The effort isn't the issue, I'd put all the effort I had into saving someones life.
The problem is favouring one life over another. Whether it's me chosing directly or it being a blind choice.
None of those people deserves to live more then the others. They're all human beings and it's unfair to allow one to live while the others die.
0
quote
reply
EricPiphany
Badges: 15
#47
Report 2 years ago
#47
(Original post by BhagwanNoBhool)
The effort isn't the issue, I'd put all the effort I had into saving someones life.
The problem is favouring one life over another. Whether it's me chosing directly or it being a blind choice.
None of those people deserves to live more then the others. They're all human beings and it's unfair to allow one to live while the others die.
But surely to do what is moral is to pick the better choice? In this case the two outcome scenarios are simply 2 dead or 3 dead?
quote
reply
Squishy•
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 years ago
#48
🖕F*ck sally

DAMN I THOUGHT WE WERE KILLING ONE, I VOTED FOR SALLY BUT WANTED HER TO DIE!!! Dang, whipe one off Sally and add it to John
0
quote
reply
BhagwanNoBhool
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 years ago
#49
(Original post by EricPiphany)
But surely to do what is moral is to pick the better choice? In this case the two outcome scenarios are simply 2 dead or 3 dead?
I think it's morally worse for me to influence who lives and who dies based off of factors like personal bias or chance.

The unfairness of one being saved over the others is worse then all 3 of them dying.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
0
quote
reply
kieran12321LFC
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 years ago
#50
(Original post by donutellme)
Rid the world of degenerates, whats so bad about that?
How do you decide whether one is a degenerate or not

(Original post by EricPiphany)
Will Sally kiss me if I save her?
Tbf, you could ask to watch if ygm
0
quote
reply
math42
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 years ago
#51
(Original post by BhagwanNoBhool)
I think it's morally worse for me to influence who lives and who dies based off of factors like personal bias or chance.

The unfairness of one being saved over the others is worse then all 3 of them dying.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
You could pick randomly though. There must be time to do a pseudo-random thing in your head given all the time we apparently have to be briefed on these people's lives..
0
quote
reply
EricPiphany
Badges: 15
#52
Report 2 years ago
#52
(Original post by BhagwanNoBhool)
I think it's morally worse for me to influence who lives and who dies based off of factors like personal bias or chance.

The unfairness of one being saved over the others is worse then all 3 of them dying.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Ok, I'll leave you be.


(Original post by kieran12321LFC)
Tbf, you could ask to watch if ygm
True.
quote
reply
EricPiphany
Badges: 15
#53
Report 2 years ago
#53
(Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
You could pick randomly though. There must be time to do a pseudo-random thing in your head given all the time we apparently have to be briefed on these people's lives..
Everyone's fate depends on chance, I can't see how it could be immoral to choose randomly.
quote
reply
Tarte Tatin
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 years ago
#54
I would have to choose at random because I don't honestly think anyone is in a position to justify who gets to die and who gets to live. Everyone is a victim of their circumstances and everyone is equal.
0
quote
reply
Blondie987
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 years ago
#55
I'd save Sukhdev first, as much as he doesn't seem like the perfect human being, he has the most people depending on him

Then Sally, she doesn't seem like a bad person and she can turn her life around

Those 2 are pretty close in terms of morality for me

John is a tool
0
quote
reply
thefatone
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 years ago
#56
(Original post by kieran12321LFC)
Are you not a bad person for letting them all die?
well i'd rather have 2 less bad people in the world than 3 bad people.
also someone has to let them die, no-one will have no blood on their hands >.>
0
quote
reply
datmofo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 years ago
#57
(Original post by thefatone)
in conclusion the person i'd save is john
Being abused as a child does not justify him beating up his pregnant girlfriend so bad she's hospitalized for long periods of time.
0
quote
reply
Tabstercat
Badges: 14
#58
Report 2 years ago
#58
(Original post by thefatone)
pretty much i wouldn't save any of them, they're all bad people, but some are less at fault than others.

so first is sally. so all in all she's got good enough grades to get to uni but not making use of it. she's been influenced by her partner so bad choice of partner then and things are going only downhill from there from increasingly worse drugs and she might fail her course.

next is sukhdev. so business man and has badly behaved children, successful company but fraudulent so bc of the fruad and children his wife has mental disorders. he's had an affair and left her for dead basically and is also considering divorce after being unfaithful

last is john. he's basically a criminal and he's trying to get some work but his personality won't allow for that. However this has all happened because of his upbringing. due to upbringing being a huge factor of learning how to interact and live you life later on when you get older.

in conclusion the person i'd save is john because all the other have had free choice to do what they want, they even had an advantage over john in life, they WERE previously successful but degraded and chose to live a life which is full of lies and deciet. john however it's less in his hands because it's not really his fault he commits crimes, yes he is held responsible but less at fault than the other because f his horrendous upbringing. on the surface he's bad but you have to look deeper for the true meaning of why these things are happening

basically this is the question of who's less wrong?
anyone who disagrees with me can fite me and i'll argue my case
if you think cannabis possession and heroin use make you a bad person you're an idiot
quote
reply
EricPiphany
Badges: 15
#59
Report 2 years ago
#59
(Original post by Tarte Tatin)
I would have to choose at random because I don't honestly think anyone is in a position to justify who gets to die and who gets to live. Everyone is a victim of their circumstances and everyone is equal.
But how would you truely choose at random? Throw a die?
quote
reply
kieran12321LFC
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 years ago
#60
(Original post by thefatone)
well i'd rather have 2 less bad people in the world than 3 bad people.
also someone has to let them die, no-one will have no blood on their hands >.>
What makes a person good and what makes a person bad
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.

Watched Threads

View All