Tough Philosophy. . ll! lloll
x
Click to expand

Comments(191):

[ 191 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #106 - Hawke (05/26/2014) [+] (16 replies)
stickied by Hawke
Thanks for getting this repost from last month to the front page. Remember to subscribe, goyim!
#7 - pebar ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
User avatar #60 to #7 - ragingdouchbag (05/25/2014) [-]
kill the one.
i have heard this moral situation before and don't understand why its a choice.
Let 5 people die due to inaction (which would still be illegal if you truly had the lever like that) or intentionally kill one.

net save of 4 lives plus an easy defens of others case in court.

also the best iteration of this is that you can push one man to his doom to stop the train and save the five. More effort has to be put in and you directly kll the one rather than this indirect means.
User avatar #62 to #60 - pebar ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
User avatar #61 to #60 - pebar ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
inaction is never a crime (in most places) unless you yourself first caused the situation
User avatar #63 to #61 - ragingdouchbag (05/25/2014) [-]
unless you were trespassing

i presumed you were the worker at the lever
#114 to #7 - armsdealer (05/26/2014) [-]
Couldn't you just switch the tracks back and forth while the train was passing over the switch? Derailing the train and possibly saving or killing all 6?
User avatar #168 to #114 - hottamaleez (05/26/2014) [-]
how many people are in the trolly?
User avatar #185 to #168 - armsdealer (05/26/2014) [-]
Unspecified information is irrelevant
#148 to #7 - tealcanaan ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
"Correct" answer is to do nothing. The reasoning being that you will be responsible for no death rather than purposefully killing one. It is tentative to say that I feel the same, but I agree with this philosophy in theory.
User avatar #187 to #170 - testaburger (05/26/2014) [-]
How did you get it right once and wrong once?
User avatar #188 to #187 - captainpickles (05/26/2014) [-]
Not mine
User avatar #77 to #7 - minidino (05/25/2014) [-]
I never really understood how this is a dilemma... It seems pretty obvious that you'd want to save 5 people over saving 1 person.
#84 to #77 - pebar ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
A lot of people think that way. But imagine a slightly different scenario.

You and a fat man are standing over a bridge on the track. If you push the fat man over the side, his mass would be enough to stop the trolley. In this case, you are deciding to sacrifice someone else against their will in order to save others. In this case, most people decide it would be wrong to push the fat man.

A while back, I took a philosophy class inb4 neckbeard; it was required for my generals and they concluded that the two scenarios are exactly the same. This is a pure utilitarian issue; if you reduce people to just numbers like this, 1 vs 5, then you will run into problems.
User avatar #88 to #84 - becauseoprahsaidso (05/26/2014) [-]
Fatty counts as 2, but 2 is still less than 4. Plus I hate fat people so I would totally push him off. I wouldn't even think about it. Put me in a scenario like that and I will push the fat person off every time.
User avatar #116 to #88 - ribocoon (05/26/2014) [-]
But what if fatty was fat because she was pregnant?
User avatar #134 to #116 - niggastolemyname (05/26/2014) [-]
2<5
and thats 2 b/c we assume that she wanted her baby
User avatar #135 to #134 - ribocoon (05/26/2014) [-]
What if pregnant with quintuplets?
User avatar #140 to #135 - niggastolemyname (05/26/2014) [-]
Only if I knew the people tied up very well, then it would be unfair for me to have to live without those people. Otherwise I would not choose to act.
User avatar #128 to #84 - stripey ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
have you been drawing these? I like the effort
User avatar #163 to #128 - pebar ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
not mine; i found em in google images
User avatar #120 to #77 - tightybrighty (05/26/2014) [-]
Naw but the real scenario is that the one person is a little child while the rest are adults.
User avatar #117 to #7 - dongers (05/26/2014) [-]
there is another one i have heard about to be said right after that one, 5 people walk into a hospital and you are a doctor, each of them is in dire need of different organs (one a heart, another a liver, 2 each need a lung, etc) and there is also another guy who strolls into the hospital that is perfectly fine, he came in to check to see if a bump is cancerous but its not, hes fine.
The fun part is you get the idea of telling the man he has this terrible disease that he should just have an assisted suicide (assisted suicide being legal and he has no family to charge you with malpractice) and you could give all his healthy organs to the 5 sick people and trade 1 for 5, perfectly fine right?
#91 to #7 - levelninetynine (05/26/2014) [-]
You would be too late if the train was that close anyways and if it's going at a decent speed and it suddenly turned it would tip over thus saving everyone and probably slightly injure who ever is in the box car.
You would be too late if the train was that close anyways and if it's going at a decent speed and it suddenly turned it would tip over thus saving everyone and probably slightly injure who ever is in the box car.
User avatar #127 to #7 - niggastolemyname (05/26/2014) [-]
>pull the thingy
>the trolly derails
>save everyone
#97 to #8 - thedudestdudeofall ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
do you happen to know what that's from?
User avatar #186 to #97 - testaburger (05/26/2014) [-]
Nope, sorry
User avatar #107 to #97 - effort (05/26/2014) [-]
Battle Girls: Time Paradox
#64 to #34 - speednugget (05/25/2014) [-]
What if the one person was your mother or close friend?
Inb4 Anything batman related
#189 to #64 - colorbox (05/26/2014) [-]
Well we can keep going on with alternative versions, which interferer with our choice. The one person could be the new Bieber or Hitler, where the five persons could be versions of you from different times in your life, on the mission to make the new U-team. which only includes you
User avatar #19 to #7 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
To make the choice tougher, I think it's usually included that the 4-5 people are drunk and aren't supposed to be on the track, while the single person is a rail worker who knows that the train isn't supposed to turn.
#42 to #19 - ripgeckosncherios (05/25/2014) [-]
I think the point here is that it would kill the group if you do nothing.
So you have to make the choice that the group are worth more than the one.
It isn't really a tough decision, as long as you can have it on your conscience you killed a man. So it is: "Kill someone to save 4 people" or "nothing, I did nothing, the result wasn't my fault"

At least taht's what it looks like in the picture
User avatar #46 to #42 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, it's two different versions, I suppose. I never really found the one you just presented to be very hard, and makes it all out to be whether or not doing nothing counts as having taken action.
#47 to #46 - ripgeckosncherios (05/25/2014) [-]
I agree with you, I was jsut saying why I think the original commenter didn't include it
User avatar #48 to #47 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #25 to #19 - bananarchy (05/25/2014) [-]
The choice is still easy.
Do they deserve to die for being drunk? If your answer is yes, you may be a fascist
User avatar #27 to #25 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
Well, it's their own fault if they do die, so you are able to just ignore the lever and let it happen as an accident, or you can choose to save 5 drunken fools over a man who's just doing his job.
A lot of people will disagree with you.
User avatar #28 to #27 - bananarchy (05/25/2014) [-]
I'd pull the lever.
In a few hours they won't be drunk anymore, their current condition does not affect their humanity
User avatar #29 to #28 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
Well, then they just indirectly killed a man for their major lack of responsibility.
User avatar #30 to #29 - bananarchy (05/25/2014) [-]
That's something they'll have to live with, not me
User avatar #31 to #30 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
You saved 5 killers over an innocent man.
That's something I can imagine you'd have a hard time living with.
User avatar #65 to #31 - ragingdouchbag (05/25/2014) [-]
if you had the knowledge that they were killers then why did you not act before this incident?
User avatar #72 to #65 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
I'm not sure if you're trying to get at something or if you don't understand what I've been saying.
If the latter, I'm saying that they become killers because they forced you to kill another man just to save their lives.
User avatar #74 to #72 - ragingdouchbag (05/25/2014) [-]
they didnt force me to do anything

even if they yelled at me to save them they didnt force me.

i pulled the lever and did the math. What makes that one man worth 5?
User avatar #82 to #74 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
In order for them to keep their lives, they forced you to kill another man, making them the true indirect killers of him.

It's not as simple as 5>1 in a scenario like this. Or, what, if you had to kill two dirtbag rapists without families or one perfectly lovely lady who was loved by many, you'd kill the lady, because saving two lives is always better than saving one?

I believe that the five drunks should die because it's their fault entirely that they're about to be killed, and the railworker shouldn't have to die because of their complete lack of responsibility and stupidity.
User avatar #83 to #82 - ragingdouchbag (05/25/2014) [-]
if we are presuming that they are somehow forcing me to act then the worker would be somehow forcing me not to act. Both of these premises are stupid. They arent forcing me to act nor is their drunken belligerence a reason to belittle their lives. A rapist has already very willingly commited an act that in my opinion lowers the worth of their life considerably. The lady remains up for debate as she has nogt done anything to belittle herself. Thus the retarded scenario you set up would be about 1/2 to 1 and so i would save the lady.

In this scenario the worker is also at fault as the regulations say they need to move off the tracks in case of accidents like these and thus he made a foolish mistake the smae as these potentially good smaritans who may have simply wanted to blow off steam by getting drunk and went to far, or perhaps got laid off and tried to drown their sorrow, or got their drinks spiked, or any number of things that make them good people who made a simple mistake that your seem quite eager to label as murderers. Should either side die? No. But given the choice and after taking in ALL the factors, their individual worths are unchanged so it is just as simple as a 1 vs t5 scenario.

im just the kind of guy to give 5 stranger the benefit of the doubt.
User avatar #89 to #83 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
No, you're just the kind of guy that relieves people of responsibility when they're drunk. Basically, what you're saying could just as easily be reflected in a situation where it's a drunk driver who killed a person because of it. The drunk driver is also a "potentially good smaritan who may have simply wanted to blow off steam by getting drunk and went to far, or perhaps got laid off and tried to drown their sorrow" and then he ended up killing someone. It's not his fault that the person died, because he was drunk. He can be the nicest guy in the world, so him being drunk and simply making a mistake in his drunken haze doesn't mean that he should be punished, right? Well, no, that's not how it works, because consuming alcohol is your responsibility entirely, and it doesn't matter **** the reason you had to get drunk, because the only important factor is that you decided to get piss drunk, you in your drunken state decided to walk on the train rails with your equally drunk friends, and now you're either going to get run over by a train, or you will be indirectly responsibly for the death of someone who didn't have it coming whatsoever. They put themselves in the situation, and even though I'd save them if the other choice was to simply let the train go onto an empty rail, I'd rather have them die due to their own stupidity and lack of responsibility, than someone innocent.

You're right in that they're not forcing you to do anything, so you should just leave the situation be and let them get run over. Because no one is forcing you to pull the lever either.

And please, please don't try to quibble and ******** your way into thinking that the rail worker is at fault in any way. In the scenario, it's very much implied that the worker knew very well that the train wasn't going to turn on its own, so don't try to base any arguments off of him not being safe enough.
User avatar #101 to #89 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
also someone killing someone else and wandering onto tracks are in two very separate ball parks. i dont think its even the same sport.
User avatar #103 to #101 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
Oh, no, but it is. You're just not looking at the whole picture, because you're sympathizing with them too much. In both situations, the drunks are killing someone because of them being drunk and stupid. In one situation, it's because they lost control of the car, and in the other, it's because they made someone make a choice, and that person chose to save their drunk asses. Had they not been drunk and stupid enough to be walking on train rails, no one would've had to die, JUST like how if the driver hadn't been drunk and stupid enough to drive like they did, the person next to the road wouldn't have had to die.
User avatar #105 to #103 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
someone gets ********* and decides to drive somewhere and hits someone on the way, not aware of their action adn getting 2nd degree murder or manslaughter if they get a good deal

a group of people get drunk at a get together and somehow end up in the subway. Somehow so ********* they don't hear a train coming, a bystander puls a lever to save them and in the process that bystander sacrafices a worker on the tracks.

criminal negligence tops. most likely heavy legal suits.

taking in the whole picture one is negligence while the other is a choice. one is directly responsible for the death of another while the other is an indirect cause of someone elses choice. one is strictly warned against by bars and every alchohol and police ad on tv, the other is so obscure it exists in moral quandries.

to put my feelings on the subject into perspective, in the pambam bridge incident ( which potentially never hapened in reality curiously enough) i chose the child. I take emotional weight and aftermath into account for these sorts of things as a human lif eis involved. There is just more weight in the loss of five drunk people than one bystander and very few people would fault the man that made that choice. Still this holds to the eye of the beholder i suppose.
User avatar #123 to #105 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
The legal consequences doesn't automatically decide what's more morally sound. If you give it enough thought, you'll realize just how similar the situations are, and how the two cases should be treated equally. It doesn't matter if your act of stupidity happened behind the wheel of a car or on foot. The outcome is still the same, and the reason why is still the same. If you disagree with that, then there is no point in continuing, because then you're just being unreasonable and quibbling with the law system.

It doesn't matter whether or not the outcome was direct or indirect. The main choice that was being made was the same in both situations; getting ********* irresponsibly. The second choice by the third party was forced because of the first choice, and wouldn't have existed if not for the drunken idiots. The second choice meant to either turn the 5 drunks into dead irresponsible idiots, or irresponsible, idiotic killers.

The difference between us isn't that you solely take into account the resulting grievance and impact of the choice, but that you don't take the responsibility of alcohol seriously enough, and that you disagree in that it makes you at fault when a situation like this occurs. You blame it on the state, and not on the person who got themself in the state.
User avatar #156 to #123 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
using "well if you think diffirently then your wrong" isnt an argument. You've used it twice now.

Direct and indirect methods of taking a life are both incredibly different. And i mention law because it is the nationwide compromise on what is right and wrong.

To say that direct and indirect methods are the same is to say pulling or not pulling the lever is the same. The starting point may be similar, but people get ********* all the time. To presume that is the crime, which you are doing by making that the deciding factor of the value of the persons life, is something that over simplifies the problem. saying that im not looking at the whole picture (which i am) and then proceeding to ignore most of the picture and oversimplify is a tad aggrivating to be honest.

I have to work tommorow so i need to sleep. Respond if you want and ill check it later
User avatar #95 to #89 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
what you do while drunk is your responsibility, however that does not diminish who you are. The ****** pope has gotten drunk before but that doesn't make him less of a man. I haven't relieved them of their responsibility for their action and you shouldn't relieve them of their worth because of that mistake. If someone ***** up does their life become forfeit in the moment? Does that stupidity continue to demean a man after he sobers up?

And i pull the lever not because i am being forced to act, but because i know how i would feel after either choice, and the death of five would mar the surviving man as much as me, but the five have each other for support. If i had proof that the men were not worth their lives or that they were assholes when they were sober, or even that they got drunk in the tunnels to begin with i would walk away, but the unknown doesnt damn a man in my eyes.

The damage is more severe given the knowledge we have for sure in this scenario when the five men die. I am more concerened at the wilingness to walk away and let multiple men die because of a temporary state and a presumption of their character.
A choice is made either way, but one results in four more deaths than the other in a scnario where the worth of each individual life is potentially the same.
User avatar #113 to #95 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
It does make you less worthy of saving, since you are the sole reason for why the choice even had to be made in the first place. No one had to die, you made it so that someone had to die, because you couldn't handle the responsibility of alcohol.

In order to save their lives, you are forced to take another. That's all I've been saying. You've quibbled and made it sound like I've been saying that they are literally forcing you. No, you are FORCED to make a choice, and you simply cannot deny that. By making the choice in their favor, they, because of their lack of responsibility, have FORCED you to take the life of someone else. Again, you can't deny that.

The only way that "presumption of their character" would be relevant is if they were literally forced to drink and then released to go as they wanted for some reason. That doesn't happen, though, and it's not even something you should consider in a situation like that. And the situation states that they are drunk, specifically, and not drugged.

No, do not keep belittling it like that. It's NOT just a "temporary state," the whole issue is the fact that they decided to get piss drunk when they ever so clearly couldn't handle the responsibility. Most of us either drink little enough to not be walking about on train rails, or we have someone sober that can keep us out of harm's way. No matter the reason, it's 100 % your fault if you get that drunk, and I sure as hell won't save you from your huge mistake if it means someone who didn't commit a mistake like that had to die because of it.
User avatar #118 to #113 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
i will agree that they are the reason the coice exists in the first place, but i will deny that they forced me to take the life of another as that is the oposite of a choice ( that thing that was forced upon me). If you do make a judgment call in the future, take the responsibility of the choice you made and put the blame on who gave you the choice on someone else. Those are two different things.

also a bunch of people get ********* when they party. Should they do that in public? no. in fact that is a misdemeanor literally called public intoxication. does someone being drunk somewhere they shouldnt be remove the value of thier life completly to the point that i would willingly let them die? no. I would visit the lone mans family and give them my condolonces. I would tell them that i'm sorry i had to make the choice. The five men would be charged with something, but their families still have them. five complete families vs one broken one.

It is tragic, but i take the responsibility for that choice with the knowledge that mistakes don't remove someones worth. It may diminish it in the heat of the moment, but it is never gone.

If it was one drunk man then i might make a different call, but 5 lives potentially diminished in value by their singular choice is of more value than one potentially honest mans life.


this is seperate from the argument, but i have discovered that false or biased axioms bug me.
User avatar #130 to #118 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
"By making the choice in their favor, they, because of their lack of responsibility, have FORCED you to take the life of someone else."
I'm saying that by making the choice IN THEIR FAVOR, they have FORCED you. Again, not saying that they LITERALLY are forcing you to make the choice by shouting at you or whatever. For one of two results to happen, you are FORCED to make a choice. So far we agree, right? Who forced you? Not a deity, not the railway worker who had nothing to do with the situation, and obviously not yourself. Someone else has forced you to make either choice, and the drunken buffoons are the ones responsible.

And no, I am by far not saying that people who get drunk in places they shouldn't, should die or have the values of their lives completely removed. But we are comparing who is more worthy to live, and I very much think it's the person or people who created the situation in the first place, that should be the one(s) dying. You can't just call it a mistake and say that mistakes don't change the value of your life. It's a mistake to get drunk and kill someone by driving over them, but you'd rather have the driver, or let's say five drivers (all of them driving towards the same person, all drunk) die than the person walking on the sidewalk, right? Again, if I could save them without killing someone else in the process, I would in a heartbeat. Your argument that it's all about how many families that stay complete, doesn't hold up. Bad people (murderers, etc.) have families who love them, too. Would you still rather have the families of five murderers be happy than the single family of an innocent man? I doubt it. That's why I think clearly and only involve the people at fault. It's not my fault that their beloved ones made a huge mistake that cost them their lives, so I'm not going to feel bad about having done it. I will feel bad that it had to happen, but not about my choice.
User avatar #159 to #130 - ragingdouchbag (05/26/2014) [-]
my morality is the driving force here. neither party is forcing a choice. Given your logic, the worker would force me to not pull the lever if i walked away. I chose to walk away for my own reasons that take into account both parties. neither forced me because if one did then they both did.

and again we are back to murder. These are not murderers lives. If they were this would have a different outcome. This is 5 drunk people vs one sober guy working the line. Action and inaction at the lever carry the same weight. Even if they caused the problem to begin with it doesnt diminish each of their lives to 1/5 or less of its original value. That's what im saying.
User avatar #33 to #31 - blanketboss (05/25/2014) [-]
Considering this, they'd only be killers if you'd pull the lever.
User avatar #36 to #33 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
Yeah, so they unintentionally made the choice of either being dead idiots or killers.
User avatar #41 to #36 - blanketboss (05/25/2014) [-]
And you have to make the choice if you'd either be a killer or a bad person.
User avatar #43 to #41 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
It doesn't necessarily at all make you a bad person, as it's all about opinion and perspective.
But yeah, the drunken idiots are to blame for it, whether or not you save them.
User avatar #44 to #43 - blanketboss (05/25/2014) [-]
No you can't blame them since they are not doing this intentionally.
Yes, it makes you a bad person if you'd let 5 people die if you could've prevented it.
User avatar #49 to #44 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
No, still a matter of subjectivity, and is exactly why it's such a popular hypothetical question.
You can very much blame them, just like how you can blame a drunk driver for killing a person.
User avatar #53 to #49 - blanketboss (05/25/2014) [-]
You can't and there is the problem, it's like blaming an insane person for being insane.
and I'd say it's more of an ethical question, because by law you are obligated to do nothing, but morally speaking you should save the 5 people.
User avatar #56 to #53 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
It was their decision to get drunk. Insane people don't choose to go insane. Huge difference.
Are you actually saying that drunk drivers shouldn't be punished?
User avatar #59 to #56 - blanketboss (05/25/2014) [-]
Well yes, but I actually meant that they aren't sane and therefore are not in that moment capable of being considered as a sane human.
No, I'm saying that they can't be charged with murder, because they didn't murder someone, they may be charged with drunk driving and such
User avatar #71 to #59 - mutzaki (05/25/2014) [-]
They are still just as responsible for their own behavior. No one told them to drink, they are not excused from punishment because of it, and it does very much make it their fault that you had to pull the lever to save them and in turn killed an innocent man, if you choose to do that.
I don't think I ever said that it made them murderers, all I said was that they're killers, because they have a killed a person. Indirectly, of course, but still on par with a piece of **** that kills a person from being drunk while driving.
User avatar #86 to #19 - Bion ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
The "one" is supposed to be someone important to you. A wife. Son. Something like that.

Would you kill your wife to save 4 people? Or would you let 4 people die to save your wife?
User avatar #90 to #86 - mutzaki (05/26/2014) [-]
That's another alternative, I suppose. Though there's purpose in not making the singular person someone you care about.
User avatar #55 to #7 - willindor (05/25/2014) [-]
I'd kill those five guys. The more people the bigger the chance that there's a murderer among them.
#14 to #7 - niklamacz (05/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#50 to #7 - ohayougozaimasu (05/25/2014) [-]
I don't see what the problem is here. The vehicle is stationary. All you need to do is untie those people.
#68 to #50 - onderdonk (05/25/2014) [-]
that's pretty smart.
#10 to #7 - megashot ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
two birds, one stone
#37 to #10 - mrbang (05/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #35 to #10 - hoboguyman (05/25/2014) [-]
ULTIMATE NON-STOP MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING (Deja Vu! and goats clipping point)
#78 to #10 - rakoom (05/25/2014) [-]
God ******* damn it I love this site
User avatar #67 to #10 - pootismang (05/25/2014) [-]
This has never been more relevant.
User avatar #73 to #10 - ultiomos (05/25/2014) [-]
actually it's six
User avatar #174 to #10 - givememoarpony (05/26/2014) [-]
You deserve the colored text. Keep at it, boys!
User avatar #2 - nerdrage ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
In my oppinion you should harm the pregnant one, because the child might die during birth so the survival rate is less on that side than the other two healthy ones
User avatar #40 to #2 - logiblack (05/25/2014) [-]
Also:

If one hurts the pregnant one it doesn't necessarely mean that the unborn child will suffer as well.
#70 to #2 - ohemgeezus ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
but what if those two "healthy" ones are hit by a passing boats and killed within a week. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will.
User avatar #3 to #2 - promor (05/25/2014) [-]
This is fair however, consider the fact that the two older manatees have less time to live and potentially reproduce than the unborn manatee. so it might be worth the risk in that respect.
User avatar #4 to #3 - nerdrage ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
You also have to consider the risk that it will die as a child because it is defenceless and can be eaten
User avatar #15 to #4 - promor (05/25/2014) [-]
to be fair manatees don't have that much in way of defense anyway.
User avatar #66 to #15 - thewulfman (05/25/2014) [-]
These are the questions that keep me up at night.
User avatar #1 - mrnpc (05/25/2014) [-]
Why do I hear him is Zapp Brannigan's voice?
#45 to #1 - scurvvy (05/25/2014) [-]
oh god i heard Zapp too

Mfw
#6 to #1 - anon (05/25/2014) [-]
that's funny I imagine alec baldwin's voice
User avatar #5 to #1 - CollinTB (05/25/2014) [-]
I hear Adam West.

****** weird.
#38 - shabadaka (05/25/2014) [-]
I felt like this needed to happen
#99 - davidavidson (05/26/2014) [-]
**davidavidson rolled image**

<This keeps me up at night
User avatar #109 to #99 - ttennebkcajj (05/26/2014) [-]
That actually made me laugh
0
#125 to #109 - davidavidson has deleted their comment [-]
#58 to #18 - Lilstow ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
User avatar #138 to #121 - thempc (05/26/2014) [-]
that's funny i'm watching the machinist right now
User avatar #146 to #121 - alphagex (05/26/2014) [-]
If he had insomnia he will know he got it and he would know he don't got amnesia, if he had amneisa he would not remeber about amnesia but depending how long is his memory span he can remeber if he had insomnia
#52 - ohayougozaimasu (05/25/2014) [-]
Utilitarianism is an awful ideology.
#112 to #52 - shown (05/26/2014) [-]
Not really...I mean if you're talking about a case which is completely objective. It's so simple. Save 2 people, and sacrifice 1, or let two die instead. You save the two and sacrifice one, if it's guaranteed. Doesn't matter if you're gonna say "Ohhh so heartless, you can't be like that, ooh such pride!" Who gives a **** . 2 lives > 1 life. Period. Utilitarianism, it's just a term for logical decisions regarding the suffering of human beings.
#145 to #112 - ohayougozaimasu (05/26/2014) [-]
Assuming he was innocent, the one you sacrifice had just as much as a right to live as the other two. He did nothing wrong for you to judge his fate like that.

Innocent human life is not a matter of calculation. The moment we say it is okay to directly cause the death of an innocent individual to save another is the moment we cheapen the value of life. You may think that you are striving toward the greater good by making that decision, but in reality you fail to realize that life is the greater good.

You can sacrifice time, money, or health to achieve even more of those things in the future, but no matter the reason, you can never sacrifice our guaranteed basic human rights, for then there would be no basis for morality.

In addition, as a commentor has pointed out, abiding by utilitarian philosophy in this situation would mean prioritizing one innocent life over the other, leaving bias to be the final arbiter of life and death. One could die because the fate decider "didn't like him enough." If we are speaking of objectivity here, then we would denounce all favoritism and take the truly objective route: letting both parties die -- an undoubtedly cold decision, but nonetheless necessary due to the unfortunate factors and implications inherent in the situation.
#151 to #145 - euroblend (05/26/2014) [-]
So would you kill all three to make it even?
#153 to #151 - ohayougozaimasu (05/26/2014) [-]
I would not kill anyone.
I would try to stop the thing that is trying to kill them.
If I fail, I would let the situation play out as it were.
#75 to #52 - anon (05/25/2014) [-]
No its simple The way i live it the course that results in the least suffering is the best.
User avatar #85 to #75 - slowshade ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
It's Hedonism with a calculator. The person calculating the suffering of the outcome is practically guaranteed to prioritize their own suffering or the suffering of those dear to them and rationalize it by ignoring or downplaying the suffering of others, or of those they dont hold in high esteem. It inevitable devolves into subjectivism at best and utility monsters at worst. philosophy rant over
#92 to #85 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
...and?
User avatar #93 to #92 - slowshade ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
and so its ******** .
User avatar #57 to #52 - Lilstow ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
better than kantianism.
#69 to #57 - SuperHyperCrazy (05/25/2014) [-]
ism ism ism
#54 to #52 - pebar ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #149 - PenguinsOfMars ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
hey guys you probably don't know me but i ship off to basic training tomorrow, i don't post much but i made #21 top commenter, i was trying to make top 10 but i'm not as funny as some of these ******* .

just wanted to say bye fj, see you in a while.
#155 to #149 - zoopsoup (05/26/2014) [-]
Good luck man. I've never met you but I know you now and I'll miss you.
You're the big snail
#102 - settantaventi (05/26/2014) [-]
**settantaventi rolled image** simpsons
#21 - panvyhulenahlava (05/25/2014) [-]
what episode is this?
please don't thumb me down
User avatar #23 to #21 - tvfreakuk (05/25/2014) [-]
Season 17, Episode 1: The Bonfire of the Manatees
#26 to #23 - panvyhulenahlava (05/25/2014) [-]
thank you werry much

i didn't know that i was this blue!
#32 to #26 - panvyhulenahlava (05/25/2014) [-]
gosh, its called "The Firework of Dedication" in my language -_-
#160 - darkjustifier (05/26/2014) [-]
Kill them all large meal for the month
Kill them all large meal for the month
User avatar #80 - gayobliteratorhere (05/25/2014) [-]
stop believing in believing
#94 to #80 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
does your name mean that you're gay and like to obliterate or that you like to oblitarate gay people?
User avatar #191 to #94 - gayobliteratorhere (05/26/2014) [-]
you would question that minion
#76 - ohmygwad (05/25/2014) [-]
HELLO I AM THE OLD LADY TRRE FROM POKOHONTAS , PLS SPRED THE BUTTER AROUND TWON? IM SCRED~? OK SO LONG JHON BLONDE GUY IS TEKEN PANOKIOHONTAS CAPTIV N WE NEED TO SAVE HER OMG
#87 to #76 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
What are you doing...
#98 - hulgan (05/26/2014) [-]
**hulgan rolled image**
**hulgan rolled image**
User avatar #9 - brokentrucker ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
"The needs of the many out-weight the needs of the few."

That said, I'll murder the **** out of the entire population of a fifty mile wide swath of death and despair between me and my girlfriend if I had to.

30000 square miles
User avatar #11 to #9 - dumbassvtwo (05/25/2014) [-]
IIRC that's a quote from System shock 2 right? Either SHODAN or that hivemind thing. (Not completed it yet since i started it a good few months ago and I've forgotten to keep playing it)
User avatar #12 to #11 - brokentrucker ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
I'm not entirely sure myself. It's been re-used many a time.
User avatar #13 to #12 - dumbassvtwo (05/25/2014) [-]
Good point.
I'm sure I've heard it on System Shock 2. Mostly because the infected people refer to themselves as "The Many"
and maybe Bioshock.
#16 to #13 - zangetsublade (05/25/2014) [-]
It's Star Trek
User avatar #17 to #16 - dumbassvtwo (05/25/2014) [-]
It seems like a lot of things to be honest.
User avatar #20 to #17 - lyiat ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
It originally comes from Star Trek. Spock specifically. The full quote is "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one."
User avatar #22 to #20 - dumbassvtwo (05/25/2014) [-]
Right. Cheers for clearing that up.
User avatar #24 to #22 - lyiat ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Just before he dies.

And anyone calling spoilers on that... The movie is older than I am. Come on.
#182 - oceanstwelve (05/26/2014) [-]
i will save the boat with 100 people because You need to login to view this link
User avatar #177 - theexplodingcheez (05/26/2014) [-]
The Simpsons really should just stop.
#179 to #177 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
Never
#175 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
I farted!
#176 to #175 - anon (05/26/2014) [-]
do trolls even try anymore?
[ 191 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)