Ok Time Magazine, you got me. I could not kill that baby.

hrm, I'm an asshole AND a hero. go me.

Ok, these questions are really dumb and don't make much sense. They assume that the only answers are yes or no. With all those questions there are other actions you could take where no one has to die. But these all basically boil down to the same question: do you kill one person to save a group? Your action will kill someone but your inaction will kill a bunch of people. It's one of the common arguments for going to war. If we go into this war some people will die but if we don't many more people will die. This argument is usually not valid because there are usually other solutions.

Amen sardonyx.

By letting the trolley kill 5 dumbasses, I'd be helping cull the herd of oblivious morons. It's So not fair to kill the dude who was actually standing in the right place to begin with.

Right on Sardonyx - for example with the boat - have 2 healthy people at a time take turns outside the boat (one on either side). And if the injured guy dies - at least they have food :-)

Seeing as how only 1 [a] responded and the rest are cheap fuck ho;es who sodimize black babies......


hrm, I'm an asshole too AND a hero. go me.

'edit' I would smother that fucker faster than LK on a twinkie

For me the kid and cripple are as good as ded. As far as the trolley, the number of people dying if I do nothing doesn't influence my decision at all. If they're dumb enough to get hit by a train, so be it. I'd rather do nothing.

Not only would I toss the injured person out of the raft, I'd kick them in the face if they tried to get back in.

Oh, and that baby would be DED.

easy! id kill anything i had to so i could live. if you said you wouldnt you must be dumber then a monkey! PLUS monkey would kill there oh so they could live so im not sure how dumb youd be!

This is the easiest test ever.

1) I could smother the child.--This is about the survival of ME.

2) I could throw the grievously injured person overboard.--And so is this.

3a) I could not throw the switch.--Somebody is going to have some bad fucking luck and I'm not going to be party to it; I ignore the concepts switch and innocent. I yell 'LOOK OUT!' and let Darwin sort them out.

3b) I could not push the man onto the track.--Somebody is going to have some bad fucking luck and I'm not going to be party to it; I ignore the concept innocent, and pay attention to the concept potentially contagious by contact. I yell 'LOOK OUT!' and let Darwin sort them out.

3c) I could not throw the switch.--Somebody is going to have some bad fucking luck and I'm not going to be party to it; I ignore the concepts switch and innocent. I yell 'LOOK OUT!' and let Darwin sort them out.

yep......smother, throw & push. I'm not sure if Darwin is right anymore

The idea behind all of these quizzes is human nature is a tug of war between our older, more monkey-ish brain, and the more recent, more logical, evolved brain.

Monkey brain says, 'Don't kill babies, don't push people to their deaths, don't throw people overboard.'

Logic brain says, 'Sacrificing one for many is a fair trade.'

Even if the outcome between pushing a button and pushing a human is the same, people are less likely to harm others if they have to actually touch them. Pushing a button or pulling a lever makes it easier because monkey brain doesn't understand levers and buttons.