63 réponses à ce sujet

[Jock Cranley]

Is there a possibility of a bidding war?

[ME_Fan]

I don't see the point to questions like this. It's completely hypothetical, there is no right or wrong answer, just as there are no morals, because the question itself is inert. No one can see the future, so this would never happen, so it's not a moral dilemma.

 

Try the Heinz dilemma, for something realistic which can spark proper intellectual debate about morality.

[Seraphim24]

I still just see it as..

 

A. A bunch of people are involved in a particular situation that involves death and destruction, you go your own way, have some coffee and cake, have a happy life, whatever.

 

B: A bunch of people are involved in a particular situation that involves death and destruction, you wander over and literally murder someone.

 

So, A.

[felipejiraya]

Such Minority Report.

 

It's preventive justice and it's perversive, I can't punish somebody for something they have not done or even thinked about it.

[Vroom Vroom]

I wouldn't step in unless it was personal to me in some way. Without looking too deeply into the question and picking it apart, my reasoning is that I have no right to decide who lives or dies. That said, I would absolutely turn into a hypocrite and act if it was to affect someone that I cared about or me, I'm selfish Human like that. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Such Minority Report.

 

It's preventive justice and it's perversive, I can't punish somebody for something they have not done or even thinked about it.

 

It's destined that they will do murder. Will you change their destiny?

[Dermain]

Bad example.

That sounds like a problem with the train more than user input.

No one has to die here. Just find a way to stall the trains, and find the problem with the train or tracks.

 

Exactly. For an "ambiguous question" it really isn't that "ambiguous". 

 

It is intended to be ambiguous, the man is the driver at the time of the accident,. The accident might not happen with other drivers, it just happens that this man is the driver on this date and time. Kill him and it might be another driver instead. Train crashes happen all the time. Killing him isn't going to stop train crashes for ever.

Just picture something similar to a death note or the future diary filled with many similar examples to what I gave you. You just decide to bump him off or not

 

Why does he have to die to stop this?

 

What does his death solve exactly?

 

Are there other ways besides murder to handle this situation?

 

 

Id have a mental breakdown. I can't kill. Never. I can't even be rude or not use manners. I won't be able cope with not being able to prevent so many deaths while having the ability to prevent it.

Anyway I'm just. Curious. I enjoyed this discussion and I hope I didn't annoy anyone. And I'm sorry if I did.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

The mental breakdown is required in order for you to go out and murder people. Especially if you have no current intentions to do so.

 

As for the second part, if you can't live with murdering someone in order to save other people you would have to find another way. Unless you decide to murder yourself.

 

Actually, that's the perfect solution because you wouldn't have to deal with the inability to kill someone else and being upset that you didn't stop all of those future deaths from occurring.

[Fast Jimmy]

Instead of killing them, I would imprison them for three months and a day. If I see them continuing to kill in the future as my three month window of ominsicence expands, then in the pen they stay.


Problem solved.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Instead of killing them, I would imprison them for three months and a day. If I see them continuing to kill in the future as my three month window of ominsicence expands, then in the pen they stay.


Problem solved.

 

I think you need about 2000$ / 1500€ / 1200£ to "maintain" a few prisoners for three months!

[mousestalker]

The problem with this problem is that involves an impossibility. We can not know the future with certainty, especially as it applies to the actions of other people. All we can ever have is a probability of action.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think you need about 2000$ / 1500€ / 1200£ to "maintain" a few prisoners for three months!

Which could easily be paid for with investing in the stock market with my newly-acquired prescience. Then I could acquire vast sums of wealth to not only triage criminals from committing murder, but invest in areas that will benefit the entire human race. With a source of unlimited capital, this would allow complete freedom to fund science, medicine, technology, education and other wildly under-funded ventures.

[Fidite Nemini]

First of all, what you'd be doing is premeditated murder. So unless that future seeing capacity is quantifiable and accomodated to within the legislative as a form of preventive action, you'd be morally wrong in accordance with the social norm. That by large makes you a wrong one in any matter of the case.

 

 

Secondly, are those you'd kill (why not otherwise incapacitate, like arrest of distract somehow?) to save the other ones premeditated, or they affect killings? If the latter, it may be feasible to just defuse the situation that leads to the affect.

 

Thirdly, how perfect do you believe your future seeing capacity is? Even if one guy is planning to murder someone and you recognize him as a threat, what if his target had been doing something to earn that kind of response, like say a child molester/raper/killer who did, you know, his/her child and wasn't caught?

 

 

 

In the end, there's too many question to figure out how this could work, both right and wrong, that I think it's impossible to make a sensible system around it without breaking a couple laws/rules that we'd take for granted right now, foremostly being the concept of being innocent unless proven guilty as you can't prosecute someone for a crime he didn't commit yet. A system that would use such a system in legislative would seem dictatorial to me.

[Sigma Tauri]

First of all, what you'd be doing is premeditated murder. So unless that future seeing capacity is quantifiable and accomodated to within the legislative as a form of preventive action, you'd be morally wrong in accordance with the social norm. That by large makes you a wrong one in any matter of the case.

 

Good answer.