Nobody gives a fuck anymore, Iceray0. Drop it already. He is out of office and pretty much neutered and harmless nowadays.

oh shutup iceray. There's no point to hating what him becuasue there is absolutely nothing you can do about the things he did. I don't like Obama, but after he was elected I shutup about it because we're stuck with him for 4 years and there's nothing *I* can do about it. When the next election comes around I'll start talking about how I don't like him again but until then it's stupid and usless to say that stuff.

Anyways, I feel like making up a new dilemma for us to solve.

There are 300 people in a North Korean prisoner camp. 125 of them are men, 125 of them are women, and 50 of them are children. The camp overseer makes this offer. "I will allow the men and women to go free if you allow us to torture the children. Or, we can kill everyone except half the children:the remaining kids go free. Or, finally, if you don't pick either of the above options by tomorrow we will torture and kill everyone but the men."

Obviously this isn't something that would actually happen and I apologize if it sounds sexist, but I don't mean it to. I jsut wanted to try and set up a complex problem.

I can talk about whatever I want to so get off my jock. I don't like anything Bush did and I live in a country where I can say that I disapprove of what he did so guess what, I'm saying it so quit your bitching and clean the sand out of your vagina.

you're projecting, iceray

A life is a life. Cya kids. The 250 men and women can make more of you.

I agree with Iceray. The guy made enough bad choices which still affect the world today. He is definitely fair game to still talk about.

See your doctor if your BDS does not clear up within nine years.

Hibiskiss, the kids aren't killed, they're just tortured and mutilated.

Dilemma, you invent something that can be used to make a dreadful weapon. But it will also make you famous. What do you do?

I love it when people like Iceray say things so stupid in response to my points that I don't even need to respond, because the utter stupidity of their statements has already been revealed.

LOL I hadn't read the whole conversation. Oh my gosh, wow rulumley, you're right. it is hilarious. haha

@lkruijsw - As to your invention question, that has already been answered. You're Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. Then you feel guilty and bequeath money to give awards (including the Peace Prize) to atone for it. ;-)

To religious believers:

Would you give up your spot in heaven to a non-believer.
Follow God if you knew you'd go to hell whatever?

Well what about the Wright Brothers. They invented something designed to help people, but it has been consistently used for war purposes ever since it was made.

When talking about these "ethical dilemmas" there's something that people always forget. They guy that makes up the rules is the one that's responsible for the atrocities that make it a dilemma. For example, jman777's one about the North Korean prisoner camp and the men, women and children, if the camp overseer decides to torture the children then he's responsible for it. Although he tries to make it appear like it's your fault that he "has" to torture the children, no matter what you do, he is still responsible for his actions and you are still responsible for yours.

This is a common tactic of the more "advanced" criminals to try to make you feel like you're responsible for their actions, since it just gives them more control over you.

A popular situation that is similar to this is hostage situations. Eg. the criminal says "You give me what I want or I'll have to kill these hostages" and they assume that you're going to feel responsible for them killing the hostages, since you had a choice, right? Wrong! No matter what you decided to do, they are still fully 100% responsible for killing the hostages. There is nothing that is forcing them to kill the hostages, they are choosing to do that all on their own.

But after I say all of that, doesn't mean I'm against playing the game with these criminals. If you keep your head on straight and realize who's responsible for what, you know what the options are and you think you can improve the situation by playing their game, then by all means, go ahead and do it, but don't feel responsible for what a criminal is doing.

That's harsh! Besides such a moral system (their fault!) can't possibly work. What if you are a Doctor and choose not to heal a patient? You couldn't say "I didn't kill them, the illness did" and society would rightly condemn you. Same with the hostage situation: If you are able to save the hostages and you don't you may as well have pulled the trigger yourself.

I suppose if their was only 1 hostage that response could be an effective way of calling the bluff, but with several the criminals simply kill one at a time until you give up.

Besides, what do you do if instead of choosing what the camp overseer does, he orders you to carry out the options and if you don't he will kill a million people. Presumably you would choose the last option and let 1 million people die since you didn't do it yourself, but if you would choose that you ought to be held responsible for those deaths.

Such a legalistic view to morality is good for lawyers, but not for anyone else.

Voluntarily-assumed duties? Uh, I think that moral system can deal with those.

You invent an energy-efficient, low-cost, non-polluting transportation device. Unfortunately, users have a 1% chance of being killed by it every time that they use it. There is no way to further increase the safety of the device. It has the potential to make you incredibly wealthy. Do you take it to market?

Re: the latter, that's a ridiculously high percentage - I'd be nearly certain to kill myself after commutting for three months. Forget that

@OMGNSO So you think that if you are a doctor, you are automatically required to provide service to anybody that needs or you will be condemned for killing them? You have no responsibility to provide service to anybody, no matter what you're profession is.

If you say that my "moral system" is different than your, what do you base your's on? Mine is based on simple survival, where you are ultimately responsible for your own survival and are entirely responsible for your own actions.

@stratagos - it's a hypothetical situation for exploring ethical/moral behavior. It's not real. Change it to 0.1%, or 0.01% if it makes you feel better.

I don't see that as an ethical choice, I see it as a cost/benefit choice - people aren't going to want to *drive* in something that kills them. You'd have to get the numbers down to something that dissipated into the noise of standard traffic deaths to make it feasable to market such a thing.

The ethical choice isn't whether or not people drive it. The choice is whether or not you choose to attempt to market it.

And as far as people not "driving" something that kills them - smoking in the US is tied to something like 440,000 deaths each year.

I wouldn't attempt to market it not because of the death issue, but because I think it's a flawed product with no market and serious liability issues. I also wouldn't market Stratagos's Instant Death Pills - just slip one in someone's coffee. There may be a market, but I don't want to go to jail

@ Strat: You actually are THE stratagos, of Stratagos' Instant Death Pills?

Whoah, that's so cool.

Ok, msmth82 and OMGNSO et. al. Here are TWO ethical dilemmas - very very similar but very very different.

1) A terrorist is in the middle of a field. He has explosives strapped to his body and 6 hostages tied to him. He has a button which will set off the explosives if he presses it. He is counting down from 10 and at zero he will press it. You have a scope sighted rifle and the skill to use it. You have a clear shot of his head. If you shoot him the 6 people will live - kill one, save 6. You now have a choice.

2) A healthy man is standing in the middle of a field. Around are 6 sick people. They all need transplants and the man is a perfect match to all of them. His organs would save their lives. In 10 seconds he will run away, board a plane and leave the country. He will not return in time to save any of them. You have a scope sighted rifle and the skill to use it. You have a clear shot of his head. If you shoot him the 6 people will live - kill one, save 6. You now have a choice.

What choice would you make in each case and why?

1) Kill him. Not a problem and no dilema. He is holding hostges so his life is forfeit.

2) He is an innocent person and free to choose whether he wants to sacrifice himself. I let him go.

This was an easy set.

Oh, and if I am such a great shot, I could blow the thumb or the whole hand with the detonator switch off the terrorist and keep all 7 alive.

Is this a WTA or PPSC game? If it's a WTA game, in situation one, I'd just let the terrorist blow the up the 6 people and then I'd automatically win the game. In situation two, I'd shoot the healthy man in and deny the sick people from getting the transplants, they'd eventually die, and I'd automatically win that game too.

If this were a PPSC game, I might want to keep one two other people alive to help make sure things went correctly and then split the points between us.

This is diplomacy we're talking about, right?