Five or One?

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

I almost agree with Fall.

guy one is the child father, and the fact he'd give his own life for his childs makes no difference, he made a difference and i believe he'd probably have done the same for another child, being as he IS a father

Guy 2 is a douchebag who just wanted his 15 minutes

Guy 3 COULD have done something if he'd really wanted to, even if it ment giving his own life for the child, but he's no better or worse for not doing anything because he has physical limitations. I think he's along the same lines as the father in terms of who's the most pure, or moral.

[Alluveal]

In terms of intentions, #3 won. His intentions were the most pure, even though he was unable to act. The father risked losing a son. He had an ulterior motive. The dude with the news cam was at the bottom off the barrel. The guy who did not know the boy, but would have jumped in if he COULD won.

In terms of outcome, the first two are equal. The last guy is useless.

[Select]

Maybe #3 could never accept his disability and always felt inferior. He claims he would have saved the boy if he could in order to build up his image as self sacrificing (if he could) and make others see him as something more than his disability.

[Ddrak]

#4 - Tell the mother to stop holding the kid underwater.

Dd

[Rsak]

How is saving your child an ulterior motive? There is no deception that he is anything less then the child's father.

[Select]

I guess because of the assumption that if it's a parent, the parent automatically would save their kid and so doesn't need to choose between "good" or "bad".

[Rsak]

A vested interest is not ulterior.

And besides a vested interest of being the parent of the child does not dictate the action of the parent. Some family structures/cultures are such that they have lots of children because the child mortality rate is so high and other cultures have less children and the importance of each child is higher.

The best or purest individual would be one who knows they are not a good swimmer and decide to try to save the child and both end up dying. The adult knew the risks and had no vested interest in the child.

[Alluveal]

He will lose his son if he does not. A stranger will not lose a son. For motivation purposes alone, that's a boost that a stranger might not have.

[Arathena]

For fun: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... p#comments , http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/th ... arc-hauser

[Ereaon]

Original question:
i) I will not kill 1 innocent to save 1000, as no scenario has complete information. Additionally those 5 hikers have 5 sets of ears to hear the train coming - trains are not silent. What if delaying that train inadervantly causes death because there was a doctor on board that was prevented from reaching his patients? It is never a simple "kill 1 so many can live", those are merely the psychological games that people try to play to convince you to do what they want while assuring yourself that you made the moral choice.

ii) First do no harm. Ask the 5 people if they would be willing to become organ donors if they die, so that someone else in their situation will have a better chance to live.

Guy 2 is a douchebag who just wanted his 15 minutes

Guy #2 should never have been in that scenario in the first place. Calling someone a douchebag for taking an additional 3 seconds to save a child's life is pretty low. None of the reasons for him not jumping in were given. What if he had just read this or a similar news article? http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9568145 What if he was waiting until it looked like the child wouldn't survive without intervention? Untrained rescuers dealing with struggling drowning swimmers is very dangerous. The child would survive for a few minutes after falling unconscous if the rescuer knows CPR. Longer if the water is cold enough.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Guy 2 is a douchebag who just wanted his 15 minutes

Guy #2 should never have been in that scenario in the first place. Calling someone a douchebag for taking an additional 3 seconds to save a child's life is pretty low. None of the reasons for him not jumping in were given. What if he had just read this or a similar news article? http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9568145 What if he was waiting until it looked like the child wouldn't survive without intervention? Untrained rescuers dealing with struggling drowning swimmers is very dangerous. The child would survive for a few minutes after falling unconscous if the rescuer knows CPR. Longer if the water is cold enough.

Your opinion versus mine. I didn't nitpick anything, i stated my opinion. Quit being a douchebag.