# Would you choose to kill masses of innocent strangers, or your family?



## SuburbanLurker

Here's a scenario: 

You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads, 

_"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups. 

Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
_

You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.

Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


----------



## LexiFlame

Wow... this was a really hard one... But I chose to press the right button. I do really love some members of my family, but 1) killing off a whole continent would destroy the whole world economically therefore affecting my family in the end and 2) I can't be selfish and save my own family, but instead kill the families of millions. My first reason would be why I would press the button, the second would be to console myself in the loss of my family.


----------



## mew

The left, I didn't even think twice about it. My family is all I have. What would you pick?

I thought about the premise of the Box, not sure if anyone else is familiar with that movie. The movie itself is crap but it's kind of a similar idea. The ending is pretty eerie.


----------



## KittyKraz13

As much as it would pain me to do so I would have to press the left button. I'm close with only six family members but I'll always protect my younger brother.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr

ew. yuck. can't participate. too emotionally fragile. but it is an interesting exercise.


----------



## The Nth Doctor

I would have to kill my family, though I don't know how I would do it. I would probably have to kill myself afterwards. It's the only possible moral choice. I can't kill off a whole continent of innocent people to save (relatively) few.


----------



## Death Persuades

I'd save my family without even blinking an eye.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

The Nth Doctor said:


> I would have to kill my family, though I don't know how I would do it. I would probably have to kill myself afterwards. It's the only possible moral choice. I can't kill off a whole continent of innocent people to save (relatively) few.


Can't? You can, you just don't want to.

This scenario is essentially a method of abstractly comparing the value of different human lives; family members and strangers. Neighbours and foreigners. If all of Asia is too many, then at what point is it not too many? Just one country? A city? Your city? A neighbourhood in Brazil? A Zimbabwean soccer team? To me, as I can't figure out a way to put value on the lives of my family, I'd have to choose them over an infinite number of nameless, faceless strangers who in essence mean very little to me as individuals.


----------



## Joseph

The people choosing neither button are cruel, cruel folks.


----------



## Sollertis

Who the fuck chooses _neither _button?

EDIT: I'm going with the right button, China and India alone encompass roughly 2.5 billion people.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie

I refused to pick either button. The person(s) with the power to kill all of Asia/entire families will need someone else to feed their Oedipus complex. 

-ZDD


(p.s. before you ask... since I didn't get to ask any questions about the situation you presented, you don't get to ask any questions about the answer I gave)

:tongue:


----------



## The Nth Doctor

SuburbanLurker said:


> Can't? You can, you just don't want to.
> 
> This scenario is essentially a method of abstractly comparing the value of different human lives; family members and strangers. Neighbours and foreigners. If all of Asia is too many, then at what point is it not too many? Just one country? A city? Your city? A neighbourhood in Brazil? A Zimbabwean soccer team? To me, as I can't figure out a way to put value on the lives of my family, I'd have to choose them over an infinite number of nameless, faceless strangers who in essence mean very little to me as individuals.


Ok, can't wasn't a perfect word choice. It was what I thought as I was writing, and it reflects my reaction to the idea. Killing people is very, very bad, and killing a small number of people is better than a very large number. They all also have families, they're people with the same right to life as my family. Instead of killing one much-loved small child, I would be killing thousands upon thousands of them. Whatever it is I want, I know that would be worse. It would be better to be a self-made orphan than to commit genocide, however I was forced into the situation. 

A much more comparable number of people would be the cutoff, I think. A neighborhood, village or a soccer team sounds about right, actually. A million is a statistic, that's true, but I shouldn't mindlessly obey my limited primitive brain when it comes to that. Maybe I could live with killing Asia, but that doesn't mean that it's actually better, in terms of morality.


----------



## FacePalm

Any orphan here wanna give this a shot?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

Sollertis said:


> Who the fuck chooses _neither _button?
> 
> EDIT: I'm going with the right button, China and India alone encompass roughly 2.5 billion people.


I would choose the neither button, that way I won't feel responsible for what happened. I can't be sure that those button really mean what they say, what if someone put them there only to see what I would choose? Nope... it's not for me to make those sort of decisions...


----------



## KateMarie999

I would choose the right button. I can definitely live without my family. I don't have a close relationship with them. And if it means saving billions of lives, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.


----------



## Death Persuades

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I would choose the neither button, that way I won't feel responsible for what happened. I can't be sure that those button really mean what they say, what if someone put them there only to see what I would choose? Nope... it's not for me to make those sort of decisions...


If you choose neither you'd be responsible for both.


----------



## Coldspot

Chose the right only because millions would die otherwise. If the masses were only thousands i would choose neither. I'm a little in favor of killing off most of the population, we have too many people for the finite resources available on the planet. I can live with killing off thousands in the hypothetical scenario, but not millions.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

josue0098 said:


> If you choose neither you'd be responsible for both.


Says who? A piece of paper?


----------



## ElectricHead

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Says who? A piece of paper?


What happens when the piece of paper turns out to be true? You could have saved at least one of the groups but didn't. You gambled, failed, and now have double the guilt.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

rejectedreality said:


> What happens when the piece of paper turns out to be true? You could have saved at least one of the groups but didn't. You gambled, failed, and now have double the guilt.


I didn't choose to gamble, therefore I wouldn't feel guilty about it. No matter what choice I'd make someone would die, right? Although we're not sure because all I know is what a piece of paper says. So it might not even be true. But let's say it is. 
Whoever made it happen is responsible for these people's deaths. Why should I feel responsible? Did I cause the death? No. I don't feel like I should be made responsible for such thing.


----------



## ThatName

Neither, and not to feel guilty or like a horrible famliy member, I would kill myself within 24 hours. What is life, anyway. we come into this world, and we go out of it. Someone always there to take our place and progress life forward.


----------



## QrivaN

I would try to stop the train by jamming the controls somehow. You said that we only have as much information as on the note. You never said we didn't have anything on our person.

If none of my schemes worked, I'd eventually have to kill the people in Asia. Here me out! If you trace your family heritage back far enough, you'll find that everyone is related. Humanity had to start somewhere, right? So if I kill my entire family, that is essentially killing everyone in the world. I'm pretty sure that one continent is a rather small price to pay as opposed to the entire world.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

_The entire continent of Asia?_ This isn't that hard of a choice and I think my family would willingly sacrifice themselves to save billions of people. I assume I'm dying too right? I mean I'm on the train.

Let's put it this way: Push the right button to be a hero that goes down in history. Push the left button to go down in history as one of -- no, _the_ most selfish coward in the world. Your choice!

The amount of left button choosing is disturbing. I can only hope that if this were a real situation, people would take it more seriously.


----------



## LexiFlame

Fienigma said:


> I would press both buttons. Your move train.


Haha, nice solution!


----------



## Athesis

The world is over populated anyways....


----------



## Rinori

Call me evil but I can never hurt my family so sorry Asia. And I would devote the rest of my life finding the persons who set that up to avenge the lives that I was forced to take.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

SuburbanLurker said:


> What does that have to do with why you pushed the right button as well?


Because by making the choice to kill only one set of people I have thereby chosen to save another set. similar to your inaction creates reaction scenario in order to remain neutral in the decision and make no decisions on bias or favoritism while still effectively making a difficult choice it is only fair. How could I tell the world I eradicated Asia for the greater good while my family remained alive? 

Besides, there is always the chance it will cause the train to stop, as that much has been left out of narrative. All I really did was find a flaw in the problem construct and exploited it.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> _The entire continent of Asia?_ This isn't that hard of a choice and I think my family would willingly sacrifice themselves to save billions of people. I assume I'm dying too right? I mean I'm on the train.
> 
> Let's put it this way: Push the right button to be a hero that goes down in history. Push the left button to go down in history as one of -- no, _the_ most selfish coward in the world. Your choice!
> 
> The amount of left button choosing is disturbing. I can only hope that if this were a real situation, people would take it more seriously.


I think you need to study human behaviorism more closely. People are hardly rational beings during high states of emotional duress, and are quite selfish even outside of them.


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

Regardless of what my family would choose, I would choose to kill them instead. It's a difficult situation, because I love them, but fewer lives lost is almost always the better of the two choices.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> Because by making the choice to kill only one set of people I have thereby chosen to save another set. similar to your inaction creates reaction scenario in order to remain neutral in the decision and make no decisions on bias or favoritism while still effectively making a difficult choice it is only fair. How could I tell the world I eradicated Asia for the greater good while my family remained alive?
> 
> Besides, there is always the chance it will cause the train to stop, as that much has been left out of narrative. All I really did was find a flaw in the problem construct and exploited it.


You have a strange interpretation of the word 'fair'...it seems more like you're trying _really_ hard to be controversial for the sake of it, but your logic is supremely flawed.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

SuburbanLurker said:


> Can't? You can, you just don't want to.
> 
> This scenario is essentially a method of abstractly comparing the value of different human lives; family members and strangers. Neighbours and foreigners. If all of Asia is too many, then at what point is it not too many? Just one country? A city? Your city? A neighbourhood in Brazil? A Zimbabwean soccer team? To me, as I can't figure out a way to put value on the lives of my family, I'd have to choose them over an infinite number of nameless, faceless strangers who in essence mean very little to me as individuals.


You realize this line of thinking is bound to lead to the extinction of the human race? You pretty much stated given the right circumstances you would choose to leave only you and your family as sole survivors given I doubt you know the other 7.00018 or so billion inhabitants of this planet. I question if that amount of people can rebuild civilization. 

I am glad for this discussion, honestly as I encourage all people to try to imagine things not thought before as it helps develop essential skills in an uncertain and ever changing reality. Discovering ones own biases is essential for growth, and despite my best efforts I continually recognize bias and prejudice in myself that slows my own personal growth. Chances are anyone who doesn't refuses to try, as you mentioned.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> You realize this line of thinking is bound to lead to the extinction of the human race? You pretty much stated given the right circumstances you would choose to leave only you and your family as sole survivors given I doubt you know the other 7.00018 or so billion inhabitants of this planet. I question if that amount of people can rebuild civilization.


Theoretically, if given such a scenario then yes it would, but I'm speaking purely in abstract terms of personal value. I wouldn't say my line of thinking is 'bound' to lead to the extinction of the human race, as that scenario or any variation thereof doesn't seem very likely.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> I think you need to study human behaviorism more closely. People are hardly rational beings during high states of emotional duress, and are quite selfish even outside of them.


That doesn't excuse their decision. Also, people are making this decision knowing that this is a hypothetical situation.


----------



## intrasearching

Seriously? _Every _living soul in Asia?

That makes the choice absolutely easy. I'd kill my family.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

@*SuburbanLurker *

Yes, the scenario is highly unlikely, really the probability is so low I would say impossible. Even the initial scenario would be improbable, although given enough time and preparation possible. The reason I believe that line of thinking can lead to the extinction of mankind is because on a global perspective it is the way most people think. And while small numbers don't mean much by themselves when combined they have have devastating consequences. The reason wars are fought are because we refuse to acknowledge other unknown people as equals. We choose to save those in our community over strangers out of personal connections which can inversely lead to the deaths of others who had their own communities and felt the very same way about them. These small decisions result in global policy and direction.

When everyone wants to protect only those close to them peace and understanding will never be achieved, and the human race will never reach it's full potential. 
@*La Li Lu Le Lo *

I agree, almost all difficult choices are inexcusable. Regardless of decision it will upset somebody, whether a small amount or large amount of people is the only real variable. The probably with hypothetical scenarios is no one can really anticipate what action they will take. The people that say they want to save their families may very will be driven by their conscience by their emotional state to sacrifice them, someone like myself who is generally a quick rational thinker may become overwhelmed with the weight of sacrifice and unable to choose or do anything. Not everyone interprets a question in the same way. Many people have a false idea of who they even are or what they are capable of.

also there is the self defense mechanism where many people cannot even imagine killing off their families. 


The op states this is an analytical question to attempt to evaluate separate types of lives. When I read it I thought nothing of the value of life and proceeded to look for a hole in the construct. Still I stick by my decision regardless of the directional thinking that drove me to arrive at it.


----------



## QrivaN

xQrivaNx said:


> I would try to stop the train by jamming the controls somehow. You said that we only have as much information as on the note. You never said we didn't have anything on our person.
> 
> If none of my schemes worked, I'd eventually have to kill the people in Asia. Here me out! If you trace your family heritage back far enough, you'll find that everyone is related. Humanity had to start somewhere, right? So if I kill my entire family, that is essentially killing everyone in the world. I'm pretty sure that one continent is a rather small price to pay as opposed to the entire world.


I forgot to mention that we do not know how much time we have to make the decision. The more time I am given, the more likely I am to successfully stop the train.


----------



## ElectricHead

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> _The entire continent of Asia?_ This isn't that hard of a choice and I think my family would willingly sacrifice themselves to save billions of people. I assume I'm dying too right? I mean I'm on the train.
> 
> Let's put it this way: Push the right button to be a hero that goes down in history. Push the left button to go down in history as one of -- no, _the_ most selfish coward in the world. Your choice!
> 
> The amount of left button choosing is disturbing. I can only hope that if this were a real situation, people would take it more seriously.


Well, you shouldn't go down in history at all because no one is supposed to know of your involvement. 



xQrivaNx said:


> I forgot to mention that we do not know how much time we have to make the decision. The more time I am given, the more likely I am to successfully stop the train.


You have 6 minutes and 42 seconds minus the time it took to read the note.


----------



## QrivaN

rejectedreality said:


> Well, you shouldn't go down in history at all because no one is supposed to know of your involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> You have 6 minutes and 42 seconds minus the time it took to read the note.


That should be enough time. If not, well...sorry Asia... I explained why in my earlier post, so no one jump down my throat about it, okay?!


----------



## LQ9

Can I kill myself instead?


----------



## Zanimus

Left button. Sorry, Asia.


----------



## Sina

Refusal to "play the game" is a choice, and it comes with the responsibility of knowing that "choosing" not to press either button lead to the loss of millions of lives as well as your own family. Fwiw, I am not attaching value judgments to this scenario.
@_cades_
How are people not choosing to press either button more 'moral' than those who choose to press the button leading to the deaths of millions when the *consequences* of both actions are nearly identical, with the former being slightly worse? 

As for me, I'd pick the button that'd kill my family. I don't care for them, anyway. Even if I did, I would not let millions die to keep a few alive. For all I know, the family could have died in an accident. Life moves on. I'd rather let the millions in Asia survive. India and China are of use to the world economy, anyway lol.


----------



## Sollertis

Another thing that hasn't been brought up yet, is that in not choosing a button to press, one is actively _choosing _to do nothing, and as a direct result billions of people are dying.


----------



## muhahaha

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


Oh my goodness some Donnie Darko shit.


----------



## Vesper

cades said:


> Would you choose yourself over these billions of people? Or if someone else in your family had this choice would you rather them pick you?
> 
> Choosing the left is selfish first off. You are choosing to satisfy yourself by having YOUR family. And second I am showing "loyalty" to billions of people and humanity.
> But loyalty is idiotic. Would you love your family if they were horrible people that abused you just because you are loyal to them? I guess the gas chamber operators in concentration camps were morally right because they were loyal to their orders (ofc i hate to bring up nazis )? Loyalty is just being willfully ignorant most of the time. Like being loyal to a sport team for no reason at all and that means you must hate all the teams they don't like because you are loyal to them.
> 
> You should always choose to do the right thing over anything. Over love, family, happiness. If you made a list of the things you try to do in your life and any, including family, is over doing the right thing, then that means you are willfully choosing to do the wrong thing sometimes. Typically loving your family or whatever is not the wrong thing, but in some crazy circumstances like this you have to do the right thing. Like if there is some random street fight and your brother is in it, but he was the one in the wrong would you help him? I don't think you should even though you are brothers.
> 
> __________________
> edit:
> what is the argument for picking the left? Like if a third party group had to choose what would be your argument to them to save your family instead of millions of other families?


The argument for choosing the left? Because I'd want to, and, to immerse myself entirely into this hypothetical, really as I'm with the buttons in front of me, being asked to make the choice, my value judgement is the only one that matters. I'm not blindly loyal to my family, I can indeed think of a couple of them I wouldn't mind throwing over to Kuwait just before the train made impact, I choose to be loyal to my family because I love them, and I value them over strangers whom have nothing to do with me, no matter how many billions of them there are. So there you go, I don't hesitate in picking the left, no matter how heinous and selfish it may be/is. Anyway, it's one way of going about solving overpopulation >_>

My argument for saving my family in a third party scenario? I take it in this hypothetical my family is on the continent about to get well acquainted with a monorail? Well, I'd assume said person in control would be inclined to save their own family, so I'd expect my arguments to fall of deaf ears. I suppose my only hope would be be that they had a better sense of ethics than me.


----------



## DiamondDays

cades said:


> Would you choose yourself over these billions of people? Or if someone else in your family had this choice would you rather them pick you?
> 
> Choosing the left is selfish first off. You are choosing to satisfy yourself by having YOUR family. And second I am showing "loyalty" to billions of people and humanity.
> But loyalty is idiotic. Would you love your family if they were horrible people that abused you just because you are loyal to them? I guess the gas chamber operators in concentration camps were morally right because they were loyal to their orders (ofc i hate to bring up nazis )? Loyalty is just being willfully ignorant most of the time. Like being loyal to a sport team for no reason at all and that means you must hate all the teams they don't like because you are loyal to them.
> 
> You should always choose to do the right thing over anything. Over love, family, happiness. If you made a list of the things you try to do in your life and any, including family, is over doing the right thing, then that means you are willfully choosing to do the wrong thing sometimes. Typically loving your family or whatever is not the wrong thing, but in some crazy circumstances like this you have to do the right thing. Like if there is some random street fight and your brother is in it, but he was the one in the wrong would you help him? I don't think you should even though you are brothers.
> 
> __________________
> edit:
> what is the argument for picking the left? Like if a third party group had to choose what would be your argument to them to save your family instead of millions of other families?


You say that i always should choose to do the right thing and i agree. It's just that love, happiness and family dictates what is right. You quite obviously have a very utilitarian view on ethics but see, mine is much more solipsistic. 

I don't even have to imagine a hypothetical streetfight. I've been there. Now i don't have a brother, but i have close friends who've gotten into fights. Some times on the wrong side ( now i'd like to say that, realistically, there's no clear cut right and wrong side in 99% of streetfights.), some times just defending themselves. I'm not trying to tell you i'm some rough and tough street guy. I'm not. But i grew up punk in a bad town, so i do know about these things. And yes i would help him and i think that anybody that doesn't stand for his friends and family is a spineless coward.

You shouldn't have brought up the nazis, no, because they always make a crap argument. Those people were volunteers. That's right the people in the totenkopfverbände chose to be there. I didn't choose to be in that hypothetical train. I was put there by some sick sociopath.

And no, loyalty is not idiotic. Loyalty is earned. I know for a fact that my family would sacrifice their lives for me and i hope they do know that i would do the same in a heartbeat. I can't really tell whether or not they would choose me over a couple of billion asians and it doesn't matter, i love them anyway. I wouldn't tell them what to do either, they have to make the choice they feel they can live with. 

Now i'd love to live in the world you seem to think you live in. I'd love a world were i can depend on people being strictly logic about killing their own families. I'd love to be able to trust other people i don't know to always have my best interest at heart. But i can't. I undestand where you point of view is coming from, i really do because i think i shared it for a long time. But there is this thing called reality and it's something we're sooner or later forced to live in. I can't help to think that a point of view such as yours is likely based on a lot of theoretical introspection and very little practical experience in the real world.

Now my parents run a pretty successfull company in the construction equipment business. They're something like 30 or so employees. They're pretty much leaders in the ( very ) niche market that they supply. Now since the start of the economic downturn competitors have been folding right and left. Just this weekend we had the happy news that a german manufacturer was closing shop and firing all the employees on the spot. Now i know my parents do have a limited amount of emphaty for those poor people who'll be on wellfare but should they allow this to inform their company strategy? It's very likely that if they deliberately chose to undermine their own success those people would still have their jobs. Now if i apply your logic to this situation they should choose to do this if it meant that more people could keep their jobs, right? 

Now i guess your reply to that is going to be something like "but peoples jobs aren't comparable to peoples lives". And sure there's a big difference but if your logic isn't applicable to this case it's NOT universal. Actually the logic behind your decision is in no way less arbitrary than mine.


----------



## Laguna

JJ Yossarian said:


> The argument?
> 
> I owe the people of Asia nothing.
> 
> *millions/billion x 0 == ZERO (nothing owed)*
> 
> My family on the other hand, I feel certain attachments/debts/loyalties to.
> 
> *smaller sample size x something == >0 (something owed)*
> 
> Family wins.
> 
> *0 != >0*
> 
> It seems easy enough and while I would resent being put in that position, if it were unavoidable and I had to do it, I could live with that decision.


"Owing them nothing" sounds so cold.  I would never even start to think of it in terms of who I "owe" or don't "owe." Like an Us/Them mentality. I would think of it more as- given this horrific choice- I chose my family because I protect my own first. I wish I could save everyone but family first. I owe humanity my best foot forward and if I *could* save them all, I certainly would do everything in my power to do so.


----------



## Totalbrit

I'd save my family. I'd hate myself afterwards but If I killed my family the pain I would feel would be so much worst.

... Actually, Im doubting my choice. We as a human race will destroy ourselves as it is, blah, Internal conflict. I think I would take the wimps choice and pick nothing. I know I would NEVER pick right. I would pick left or neither. Lets just hope i'm not in that situation.


----------



## EternalNocturne

Alrighty, here's my take on this.
1.His choice of words, "Kill your family" "Kill every soul in Asia" (Or perhaps he could've said "every Seoul" ).
Anyway.. Specifically wording it in that way, he obviously intends to make you suffer the feeling of guilt. As if you really murdered either group.
Rationally, you could say that you have the option to save Asia, or safe your family. My, what a Peter Parker conundrum this is.
2.Choose right.
If the left would lead to the detonation of a WMD, that would be so magical and precise to kill everyone in Asia. It's entirely likely that although the initial murder of all of Asia would only be the surface of it all. Something so powerful would likely have such a massive nuclear fallout, that we'd probably experience issues globally. AND he didn't state that Asia would be the only victims. Your family, on the other hand.. Would be a very small, isolated killing. Small, but deadly threat = smaller target to fight.
3.Disability:
Alright, now that we've chosen right, it's time to take this down.
_OPTION 1_: Since you have the choice, all in an electronic button. It's quite likely that you are in extremely close proximity to the train in question.
Since having the train go to the left, would cause a WMD to explode in Asia.. You could surmise that everything is weighted on the train either A: crossing an area that would push a pressure trigger. B: Hit an object in 6:42 seconds, that would basically do everything that A had.
C: A laser "tripwire", only set off by something solid blocking the beam. Since most families are not in one spot, this means that the antagonist has A: Kidnapped them, and planted a smaller bomb.. Not all that threatening to the world, because he believes that you're a selfish jerk who'd save them .
B: Has guns (Electronically controlled, or "hired" guns) aimed at each family member, and when the alarm is hit at the end of the 6:42, they shoot.
So basically, if you stop the train (which is in the right track, just in case), you could potentially make your way to it (close proximity.. In fact, if this is just a train depot, you could quite easily hop onto it, just as you hit the right button.
From here you have quite an array of options on derailing the train, which would only really be a risk to your family if the antagonist actually hired human assassins, rather than electronics. But seeing as this person is moderately mechanically inclined, and completely impersonal, you could make an educated assumption that he followed option A or B.
And, as impersonal as this person is.. Likely an INTX*, they are quite likely to be extreme narcissists. And just like their firestarting brethren (I am a fayastahta wahwahwahwahwah) *coughs* anyway.. Egomaniacal freaks like to WATCH everything go through. Which mean he probably has video feeds of EVERYTHING, or binoculars.. So it's possible to hack the feed and trace it to the antagonist.
That brings me to takedown _OPTION 2*:*_ Try to hack the feed, and trace it to the man.. From there, make your way to him (because he's probably in close proximity, to be receiving feeds of everything.. Which means it's even more likely that he had the family members kidnapped and wired.. Oh yes, and if that's the case, he's egomaniacal enough to give THEM one nice video feed of everything. Because as stated before, he's intent one causing extreme guilt to all parties. With a video feed to the family, you have Sub-option A:Follow the feed to the family, but allow the antagonist to go free
Sub option B: Find the antagonist, and try to beat him into submission of detail. But, seeing as he's an arrogant genius.. He probably wouldn't divulge much.. Or any of the details, because he's getting a huge rise from all the panic that the protagonist is in.

So basically, the logical choice is: 
Hit the right button.
Maybe stop the train, if you convenient have a rocket launcher, or something nice.
Hack the feeds. trace them, and loop them. (So nobody knows what the heck you are doing). Follow one of the leads, because you probably wouldn't know which one leads to the antagonist, or the family.
If you meet the antagonist, show him the information that you have, right before killing him, as that would completely screw up his gleeful attitude.. And then proceed to the other feed, making it just in time to stop the family from being blown up.


For what information is given, we can assume that all of those details are true.. Because he left it open, and this is fiction. 
Well, that was fun! 
I saved the cheerleader, I saved the world!



(*Note: The inability to decide is because of a few missing variables. But, in all likelyhood, the INTP would watch because they are getting a HUGE rush out of it. And the INTJ may get a fair bit of an ego rush, but he'd also be watching because they are HUGE control freaks.. Especially when it comes to evil plans to kill half the world. hahaha. In other words: the INTP loves to watch us suffer. The INTJ loves to watch his brilliance in action, following perfectly to every detail of his design.)


----------



## EternalNocturne

SuburbanLurker said:


> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


I'm glad you added that.. I was almost worried that the cat would be both dead and alive at the same time. hahaha


----------



## cades

DiamondDays said:


> You say that i always should choose to do the right thing and i agree. It's just that love, happiness and family dictates what is right. You quite obviously have a very utilitarian view on ethics but see, mine is much more solipsistic.
> 
> I don't even have to imagine a hypothetical streetfight. I've been there. Now i don't have a brother, but i have close friends who've gotten into fights. Some times on the wrong side ( now i'd like to say that, realistically, there's no clear cut right and wrong side in 99% of streetfights.), some times just defending themselves. I'm not trying to tell you i'm some rough and tough street guy. I'm not. But i grew up punk in a bad town, so i do know about these things. And yes i would help him and i think that anybody that doesn't stand for his friends and family is a spineless coward.
> 
> You shouldn't have brought up the nazis, no, because they always make a crap argument. Those people were volunteers. That's right the people in the totenkopfverbände chose to be there. I didn't choose to be in that hypothetical train. I was put there by some sick sociopath.
> 
> And no, loyalty is not idiotic. Loyalty is earned. I know for a fact that my family would sacrifice their lives for me and i hope they do know that i would do the same in a heartbeat. I can't really tell whether or not they would choose me over a couple of billion asians and it doesn't matter, i love them anyway. I wouldn't tell them what to do either, they have to make the choice they feel they can live with.
> 
> Now i'd love to live in the world you seem to think you live in. I'd love a world were i can depend on people being strictly logic about killing their own families. I'd love to be able to trust other people i don't know to always have my best interest at heart. But i can't. I undestand where you point of view is coming from, i really do because i think i shared it for a long time. But there is this thing called reality and it's something we're sooner or later forced to live in. I can't help to think that a point of view such as yours is likely based on a lot of theoretical introspection and very little practical experience in the real world.
> 
> Now my parents run a pretty successfull company in the construction equipment business. They're something like 30 or so employees. They're pretty much leaders in the ( very ) niche market that they supply. Now since the start of the economic downturn competitors have been folding right and left. Just this weekend we had the happy news that a german manufacturer was closing shop and firing all the employees on the spot. Now i know my parents do have a limited amount of emphaty for those poor people who'll be on wellfare but should they allow this to inform their company strategy? It's very likely that if they deliberately chose to undermine their own success those people would still have their jobs. Now if i apply your logic to this situation they should choose to do this if it meant that more people could keep their jobs, right?
> 
> Now i guess your reply to that is going to be something like "but peoples jobs aren't comparable to peoples lives". And sure there's a big difference but if your logic isn't applicable to this case it's NOT universal. Actually the logic behind your decision is in no way less arbitrary than mine.


I understand what you are saying too, but how can love, happiness, and family dictate what is right. If I was happy killing people or something that obviously doesn't make it right.
And obviously me picking to save billions does make me "happier" than my family so in some what I am doing it out of my own self interest because every decision no matter how selfish or unselfish is in our own self interest. But I don't think that is the same thing, maybe it is tho and our self interests are just the opposite.

But I obviously also disagree with helping your friend in the fight. You have basically just as much a chance to be friends with the guy you are fighting. Who knows maybe you guys are really alike? Why are you attacking him? You could of been born on the other side of town and then you would of been influenced to agree with that guy. And then if you were on the other side you are now going to fight your "real" friend. I'd stand up for my friends if they were in the right. 
Its like some game I used to play where you built a civilization and then could form alliances with other people. And the basic rule was that you could attack anyone, yet if they retaliated you are on your own, not even your friends should help because you initiated the problem. Now anyone could defend you, but no one should assist you in defeating the other person.

And to answer your question no I don't think jobs are comparable to peoples lives because for the most part everyone is equal. However if for whatever reason you family is "better" than everyone else, like lets say only your family can reproduce. Now in this case obviously choosing your family is the right choice because otherwise everyone will die ( @Boss this is why choosing neither makes no sense still and I do agree with you). But in the economy we want the best products so the weak must get out of the way, however in the people case no one here is "weaker." 
So if we put this into some math equation lets say your family has 100 people in it and asia has 1 billion. X represents how much your family is "worth" and y is how much asia is worth. 
So which is greater 100x or 1,000,000,000y. So in this case either the people in asia must be really bad or your family must be saints. And this could apply to everything, just replace the numbers. So for your parents company they have 30 employes and lets say the other people have 30. So 30x or 30y. Well if your parents company is greater than the x value is greater than y so your parents company should succeed.


----------



## EternalNocturne

Ohhh hahaha I totally missed that bit about waking up in a prison sell.
To quote the Doctor "it got away from me, yeah"
Oh well.. Still, I'd hit the right button. And do everything possible to try to take out that threat against my family.


----------



## cades

JJ Yossarian said:


> The argument?
> 
> I owe the people of Asia nothing.
> 
> *millions/billion x 0 == ZERO (nothing owed)*
> 
> My family on the other hand, I feel certain attachments/debts/loyalties to.
> 
> *smaller sample size x something == >0 (something owed)*
> 
> Family wins.
> 
> *0 != >0*
> 
> It seems easy enough and while I would resent being put in that position, if it were unavoidable and I had to do it, I could live with that decision.


I said third party and you explained it from your own point of view. If there is some alien civilization that has to decide between a couple dozen people in your family or a couple billion in asia why would they pick your family? I doubt they would because the only reason they would is if they had a biased view to make them, and the only bias would be if they were in the family.
In order to make the right decisions we have to take out all biases otherwise we are just fox news


----------



## DiamondDays

cades said:


> I understand what you are saying too, but how can love, happiness, and family dictate what is right. If I was happy killing people or something that obviously doesn't make it right.
> And obviously me picking to save billions does make me "happier" than my family so in some what I am doing it out of my own self interest because every decision no matter how selfish or unselfish is in our own self interest. But I don't think that is the same thing, maybe it is tho and our self interests are just the opposite.


I agree that all decisions you make are fundamentally made out of self-interest. How could they not be?



cades said:


> But I obviously also disagree with helping your friend in the fight. You have basically just as much a chance to be friends with the guy you are fighting. Who knows maybe you guys are really alike? Why are you attacking him? You could of been born on the other side of town and then you would of been influenced to agree with that guy. And then if you were on the other side you are now going to fight your "real" friend. I'd stand up for my friends if they were in the right.
> Its like some game I used to play where you built a civilization and then could form alliances with other people. And the basic rule was that you could attack anyone, yet if they retaliated you are on your own, not even your friends should help because you initiated the problem. Now anyone could defend you, but no one should assist you in defeating the other person.


What does it matter if the other guy is a good guy if he's beating on my friend? Sure my choice of friends is arbitrary but if you don't stand up for a friend how can you ever trust anybody to stand up for you? The world isn't black and white and friendships certainly are not. I've seen friends do some pretty stupid shit, i've seen them hurt themselves and sure i've had friends who hurt me. On first glance it may not seem very logical but they're my friends and i need them. I'll be there for them because they are what matters in this world. Always doing the "right" thing, the "sensible" thing, doesn't matter. What matters is that i do what is right for the people i love. Now i don't disregard everybody else. If i had my way everybody would have the opportunity to lead happy and fullfilling lives. I know i can't have my way so i'll just try to make the world a better place for those around me, it's the most i can do.



cades said:


> And to answer your question no I don't think jobs are comparable to peoples lives because for the most part everyone is equal. However if for whatever reason you family is "better" than everyone else, like lets say only your family can reproduce. Now in this case obviously choosing your family is the right choice because otherwise everyone will die ( @_Boss_ this is why choosing neither makes no sense still and I do agree with you). But in the economy we want the best products so the weak must get out of the way, however in the people case no one here is "weaker."
> So if we put this into some math equation lets say your family has 100 people in it and asia has 1 billion. X represents how much your family is "worth" and y is how much asia is worth.
> So which is greater 100x or 1,000,000,000y. So in this case either the people in asia must be really bad or your family must be saints. And this could apply to everything, just replace the numbers. So for your parents company they have 30 employes and lets say the other people have 30. So 30x or 30y. Well if your parents company is greater than the x value is greater than y so your parents company should succeed.


This is what you would call a utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism is fine in some cases, but it fails take into consideration personal attachments and what those attachments actually imply. I simply do not have the attachment to the people in asia that i have to my family. But OH NO how can you be so selfish you say? I say, because it's the moral thing to do. 

Society is built on personal relationships. Society works because of personal relationships. The big motivator for the vast majority of people is not coldly logical considerations like your little math exhibit above. Not even, i believe, for most NTs. Rather it is the ambitions people in general have for themselves and their families. Humanity did not build this great world ( and yeah, it's pretty f'ing great, despite all the bad there is ) based on those kinds of decisions you'd like to see. We built this world out of love to the people around us, that's the reason why we're here. 

Now i get that this might not justify trading asia for my family in your eyes but what i want you to see is that i reject the notion that utilitarian thinking should ever be applied to my family. I think that if humanity was capable of such emotional detachment we wouldn't even be here today!


----------



## Mr Canis

cades said:


> I said third party and you explained it from your own point of view. If there is some alien civilization that has to decide between a couple dozen people in your family or a couple billion in asia why would they pick your family? I doubt they would because the only reason they would is if they had a biased view to make them, and the only bias would be if they were in the family.
> In order to make the right decisions we have to take out all biases otherwise we are just fox news


And the original question was from a personal perspective. By removing part of the original question and pretending we are still talking about the same thing, we are just NPR.


----------



## cades

DiamondDays said:


> This is what you would call a utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism is fine in some cases, but it fails take into consideration personal attachments and what those attachments actually imply. I simply do not have the attachment to the people in asia that i have to my family. But OH NO how can you be so selfish you say? I say, because it's the moral thing to do.
> 
> Society is built on personal relationships. Society works because of personal relationships. The big motivator for the vast majority of people is not coldly logical considerations like your little math exhibit above. Not even, i believe, for most NTs. Rather it is the ambitions people in general have for themselves and their families. Humanity did not build this great world ( and yeah, it's pretty f'ing great, despite all the bad there is ) based on those kinds of decisions you'd like to see. We built this world out of love to the people around us, that's the reason why we're here.
> 
> Now i get that this might not justify trading asia for my family in your eyes but what i want you to see is that i reject the notion that utilitarian thinking should ever be applied to my family. I think that if humanity was capable of such emotional detachment we wouldn't even be here today!


Possibly I have a larger attachment to humanity in general than you or you have a larger attachment to your family, or most likely a combination. Maybe I actually do have some emotional attachment but to all humans and not so much to close relationships. Which is actually really true because I love helping, but not so much on a personal scale.

I mean in a 1:1 ratio I would most likely choose my family, and even if it was slightly skewed like 1:1.5 I may still pick my family. However I could not see picking them against such a large number like all of Asia.
@_JJ Yossarian_ lol yea but I'm saying if we remove all biases there would be no reason to choose the smaller number of people.

edit:
oh yea and I just searched solipsistic and I realized that point of view before you said it but I didn't know what it was called. But I just can't agree with it. Our difference is just based off our own self interests lol.


----------



## Kito

Chose the left button but immediately regretted it. I don't have the guts to say I'd kill over 2 billion people. Wait, I just did...

Can't you stop the train?


----------



## Mr Canis

cades said:


> I mean in a 1:1 ratio I would most likely choose my family, and even if it was slightly skewed like 1:1.5 I may still pick my family. However I could not see picking them against such a large number like all of Asia.
> @_JJ Yossarian_ lol yea but I'm saying if we remove all biases there would be no reason to choose the smaller number of people.


I understand your point, I just don't agree with it  You are saying that there is some tipping point at which the value of the mass of people on the other end of the scales outweigh the value of your family. I don't agree with where you are putting that point by a pretty large factor 

If you remove all bias, then it's a different question. Perhaps it is even one worthy of it's own poll. But in this case, the value judgement of small group of family versus faceless billions, is implicit in the dilemma and to remove it removes the point of the discussion. Neutering the dilemma of it's horns, renders the debate pointless.


----------



## Sollertis

Holy shit, the _NF right button_ is pulling ahead, did not see that coming.


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

JJ Yossarian said:


> I understand your point, I just don't agree with it  You are saying that there is some tipping point at which the value of the mass of people on the other end of the scales outweigh the value of your family. I don't agree with where you are putting that point by a pretty large factor
> 
> If you remove all bias, then it's a different question. Perhaps it is even one worthy of it's own poll. But in this case, the value judgement of small group of family versus faceless billions, is implicit in the dilemma and to remove it removes the point of the discussion. Neutering the dilemma of it's horns, renders the debate pointless.


Hehe..._horns...pointless..._I see what you did there. But the thing about the "faceless billions," is that THEY ARE NOT FACELESS. Each of them has family and friends, some of whom are obviously not in Asia. Who am I to say that my family is more valuable than theirs?



Sollertis said:


> Holy shit, the _NF right button_ is pulling ahead, did not see that coming.


Neither did I, and I also did not see that avatar coming. Is that from Archer?


----------



## Kim Ward

The thing was, if I knew for absolute certain that it could never be traced back to me... I'd pick left. The world needs a good culling anyway.
Oh gosh, that sounded really, really harsh. But my family... (Let's just say I'm not good with lasting friendships) my family mean an awful lot to me. I'd save them.


----------



## Shinji Mimura

The problem with this is that I hate my family, so I'm pretty much biased.

Although even if I didn't, I couldn't let a whole continent go blank.


----------



## Sollertis

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Neither did I, and I also did not see that avatar coming. Is that from Archer?


Yep.


----------



## HAL 9000

Definitely the right. When decisions like this that matter come up, I tune out emotions and go completely rational and based on the big picture. My family's lives, looking from the view of a third person, are less important than the countless people in Asia. Even though I'll be depressed, guilty, empty,and will probably commit suicide afterwards for killing my family, it's the right decision from a worldly view. 

When it's big matters like this, I have to go with the moral "greater good" no matter what- it's not even like I have a conscious will strong enough to go with what I want to do. It's just... there's no question in the matter- no room for debate in my mind. My personal wishes and views are like whining little whispers under a giant, all-powerful, subconscious command to do what's "right."


----------



## Anonynony

Am I the only one that thought of the world economy when making the decision?


----------



## Sollertis

FigureSkater said:


> Am I the only one that thought of the world economy when making the decision?



No you aren't, and although I decided it would still probably be better for the US in the long term if we were weened off cheaply produced products, I still went with right button.


----------



## Anonynony

Sollertis said:


> No you aren't, and although I decided it would still probably be better for the US in the long term if we were weened off cheaply produced products, I still went with right button.


 Yeah, me too. We can't just kill off everyone in Asia all at once. We would have to get them one-by-one in order to sustain the economy & not have a complete collapse of everything!


----------



## ghosthighway

I choose the left button, without a second thought. China is overcrowded anyway. Besides, I hear they kill their daughters once their child quota has been maximized. Seems like fair play to me.:crazy:


----------



## DiamondDays

cades said:


> Possibly I have a larger attachment to humanity in general than you or you have a larger attachment to your family, or most likely a combination. Maybe I actually do have some emotional attachment but to all humans and not so much to close relationships. Which is actually really true because I love helping, but not so much on a personal scale.
> 
> I mean in a 1:1 ratio I would most likely choose my family, and even if it was slightly skewed like 1:1.5 I may still pick my family. However I could not see picking them against such a large number like all of Asia.
> @_JJ Yossarian_ lol yea but I'm saying if we remove all biases there would be no reason to choose the smaller number of people.
> 
> edit:
> oh yea and I just searched solipsistic and I realized that point of view before you said it but I didn't know what it was called. But I just can't agree with it. Our difference is just based off our own self interests lol.


Look, your problem is lack of experience. Do you live with your parents? Do you live OFF your parents? Things change wildly when you start providing for yourself. Trust me.


----------



## Bear987

josue0098 said:


> If you choose neither you'd be responsible for both.


I agree: nonintervention doesn't mean that nothing will happen. It means that something else will happen. (Christopher Hitchens)

I can see how I am supposed to value my family over a big bunch of strangers, but I see no difference between them. My family happens to be my family, I did not choose to get overly familiar to the people I call mom, dad, brother and sister. I could become just as close to other people as far as my brothers and sisters go. No one can replace my mom though.

2.5 billion Asians are a lot of people however. I am indecisive and this post shows it.


----------



## Reicheru

the left.

selfish gene is selfish.


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

Why are there so many NT's choosing the left button? Aren't we supposed to be logical? Fewer lives lost is the best course of action.


----------



## Aeloria

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Why are there so many NT's choosing the left button? Aren't we supposed to be logical? Fewer lives lost is the best course of action.


I don't think this choice has much to do with temperament. Maybe if the question didn't weigh such extremes. The variable of each person's unique relationship with their family is a rather large monkey-wrench.

It could also very well be inadequate sample size hard at work.


----------



## themartyparade

I'd chose neither button. Would definitely be more interesting.


----------



## Animal

I'm very interested in Asia. Also, some of my close friends, who are like family to me, have relatives in Asia.

Nevertheless, I would choose my family. It's instinct.

Tigers eat up to three animals a week to survive, and more when feeding their cubs. You don't see them worrying about the 'larger picture.' Yet everyone whines and complains about tigers becoming extinct. If it's so bad to follow your instinct cruelly in favor of preserving yourself and your family, why does anyone care if hunters use Tiger fur for coats, thus saving the innocent herbivores they prey upon?


----------



## cades

OK???? I don't see how that had to do with anything. I never have and never will view my family over billions of families.
There was a poll once and it was something like would you live a horrible life to change the world and I voted yea. Losing my family is not worth half the world to me.

But I am 17 soon to be 18 and live with my parents if that somehow makes your point correct 

--------- @My Own Worst Judge
lol seriously


----------



## Julian Bocking

definitely right


----------



## DiamondDays

cades said:


> OK???? I don't see how that had to do with anything. I never have and never will view my family over billions of families.
> There was a poll once and it was something like would you live a horrible life to change the world and I voted yea. Losing my family is not worth half the world to me.


Yeah sorry 'bout that. It's just that i probably would have felt the same way about your age and well, my outlook changed. I think it does for most people.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Why are there so many NT's choosing the left button? Aren't we supposed to be logical? Fewer lives lost is the best course of action.


Implying that all lives are worth the same isn't logical at all. That's an idealist line of thought, not pragmatic. The only pragmatic argument I can think of for choosing the right button relates to the world economy and how losing a big chunk of it might affect our/our family members lives.


----------



## My Own Worst Judge

SuburbanLurker said:


> Implying that all lives are worth the same isn't logical at all. That's an idealist line of thought, not pragmatic. The only pragmatic argument I can think of for choosing the right button relates to the world economy and how losing a big chunk of it might affect our/our family members lives.


But why would my parents (a preacher and a stay-at-home mom) be of more objective worth than people found in even half the population of Asia? I love my family, and they are important to me, but I would be willing to bet that I am the only one on this thread (maybe one out of two) to whom my family means one bit. Which one would YOU rather me choose, if it were my family on the line vs. the entire Asian population?


----------



## SuburbanLurker

My Own Worst Judge said:


> But why would my parents (a preacher and a stay-at-home mom) be of more objective worth than people found in even half the population of Asia? I love my family, and they are important to me, but I would be willing to bet that I am the only one on this thread (maybe one out of two) to whom my family means one bit. Which one would YOU rather me choose, if it were my family on the line vs. the entire Asian population?


More _objective_ worth? No. But self-preservation is entirely subjective, and self-preservation is the most logical course of action for a person to take; martyrdom is an NF trait.


----------



## nottie

Right, and then I'd probably kill myself shortly afterwards.

Although to be honest I'd probably freak out and do nothing in the moment and believe it was all a bluff. (How, exactly, is one train killing all of Asia? I call BS.)


----------



## ecstasy

I'm sorry for the Asians, but I wouldn't even consider the right button. I didn't choose to be in this situation in the first place.


----------



## thimble

I'd kill millions of strangers to save even one the people I most love, absolutely 100% yes. And I wouldn't even get caught!


----------



## Psychopomp

I was deeply surprised to see how many people claim they would push left. I can't even conceive of that. When I finished the note there was no doubt in my mind what I must do or what my family would have me do. The other option was selfish beyond the point of madness.

I would immediately push right before I allowed myself to unnecessarily agonize over a question that has only one answer. 

But what about doing nothing? There is no good reason to do nothing. If it's a bluff, it's a bluff and so be it. If it's a trick, so be it. There is no alternative that is morally worse than doing nothing.

I honestly think that people who say they'd push left are simply not genuinely comprehending the scenario. Not at all.


----------



## SkyRunner

I chose the right button. I love my family so much, but in all of Asia, there are millions upon millions of lives. It would be a greater tragedy for the world if all of Asia died. And those people also have families whom they love. It kills me to do and the feeling inside me tells me otherwise, but I couldn't do it. I needed to chose the situation that is best for the world. After killing my family though, I would off myself. I could not live with the guilt or horror of it all.


----------



## Mammon

Left. 
Too bad for Asia, but so be it. I'm too loyal to my family and will always be. Almost makes my family sound like the mob -.-


----------



## Shrek

It's all a trick. The guy is a psycho who just wants to figure you out.

Don't play his game, leave a note that says "you're not alone", then kill yourself.


----------



## Alaya

I would make the train explode before it reaches either destination. I wouldn't want to live in a world with that kind of guilt, anyway.


----------



## Planisphere

I was going to say, I would try to find a way to blow up the train and me along with it. I'm not particularly attracted to the idea of death, but if I exhausted all my options (given the time limit), I'll take it. There are only four people I know out of all my friends and family that I would give my life for - I would be dying for them and nobody else. I wouldn't want people to think I was the type of person that loved indiscriminately. If those four people I honestly believe are worth saving weren't alive, then I'd just press neither button. Inevitably, some humans would survive and rebuild civilization, therefore giving us a chance to start over.

I'm curious though... just how in the world could a train kill everyone in Asia? And if not the train, how could enough explosives be set all over an entire continent to kill off every living soul (or nearly every living soul; as I said, too unrealistic to believe that nobody would survive)?


----------



## SuburbanLurker

The Booker Smith said:


> It's easy: Hold down both buttons to short out the timer, and then stop the train.


What happens if you hold down two buttons on an elevator? Does it short out?


----------



## Pripyat Dreamz

No, but I reasoned that the moral implications of the question imply two possible solutions, but do not necessarily exclude more. It would not make sense to design counters to all not-implied solutions, unless the goal is not to test moral reasoning, but to produce a Kobayashi Maru scenario, in which case I would cheat in a different way.


----------



## HonestAndTrue

Neither button. If you press a button you become a murderer. If you do not press a button you are innocent and more than that a leader worthy of being followed. You cannot control what others do, only what you do. The world is crying out for people to press neither button.


----------



## Redworah

Right Button. The loss fo those you hold dear, in the name of saving billions of innocent lives... I just believe that despite the loss of my family, they would wish me to do what is right for others... however to kill billions of people to defend those you truly love has a tint of nobility and love that may make it appealing... and perhaps more worthwhile since you know the people around you. To not press the button is to allow the world to take all that you love and all that you can hope to protect and let it bash your soul into a hundred thousand pieces and then need to rise and overcome the brutality that was heaped upon you, but be innocent of causing any pain.


----------



## mushr00m

My family. I don't actually have a big family anyway but I value innocent strangers lives as much if not more than my own family.


----------



## Lettusaurus

I chose neither because I have family in Asia and America, so your choice to swap out Asia for America was pointless. Now let me put in Africa, Australia, or Europe and I'll push that button in a heartbeat. My choice to get both simply spares the other side the pain of the loss. It was the thoughtful thing to do really.


----------



## entpIdeas

Since I believe all lives are equal in value, it doesn't matter who or how many you choose, any choice is equally bad or good despite numbers or groups or consequences. The only reasonable thing for me to do would be save my family because they have significance to "me" so the value becomes internal. Also, since everyone is mortal, and eventually going to die anyway it would only make sense to defend and preserve ourself. Preservation of family (to me) is preservation of an extension of the self. 

Being a veteran I was willing to serve my country to defend a higher more abstract yet objective value. I have earned the right to decide what I will fight for now. I'm not sure if even a few short months ago I would have made this same decision, but I have finally begun to understand that real value for me can not be measured objectively. These kinds of decisions became clearer as I got older than when faced with them in the idealism of youth. 

Has anyone seen the movie Sophie's choice? Now there was a dilemma, choosing between her children to save at least one of their lives. It ended up destroying her.


----------



## Blazy

Masses of innocent strangers. I have solved the problem of global overpopulation.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Id probably press the right button and then regret it and never feel happy about it ever again.


----------



## Thalassa

I don't know what the hell is wrong with people who would kill their family. Is this brainwashing by liberal media? REALLY? REALLY? YOU'D MURDER YOUR OWN FAMILY JUST BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO KEEP SHEER NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ALIVE?

I don't even have to think about this; of course, I also believe the world is overpopulated, and this conveniently takes care of that issue.


----------



## Thalassa

duKempriZ said:


> Masses of innocent strangers. I have solved the problem of global overpopulation.


Yes.


----------



## hailfire

raichu said:


> Right button. Can I keep my dog, though?


 It doesn't say anything about animals as far as family is concerned, soooo..... :wink:


----------



## Spades

I'd hope it's a bluff and try to kill the person making me do it.

I don't think I'd feel good after either choice. The Right button would hurt much more, but is technically more ethical.


----------



## Monkey King

Neither. No one forces me into a decision. I don't like being played, it angers me. 

I'd be more focused on the people who put me there to make such a gross decision. I'd most likely find a way to plot revenge against the organization that put me there than feel guilty for deaths. Ultimately, the moral responsibility is on them not me. So, if I get the organization, I prevent even MORE deaths. I can feel sad for both group's death later.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

It's funny when people say it's somebody else's fault when they have the power to prevent it...


----------



## FreeSpirit

I honestly believe that most people would choose the left button- the only people I'd
expect wouldn't are people who have serious relationship problems with every
single member of their family- thereby excluding the possibility of there being even
a single member that they have a decent relationship with. 

I believe that this is actually the most moral choice.

Explained:

In order for human life, in general, to maintain high enough quality to make it 
worth continuing in any way (procreation or otherwise), human beings should 
do everything in their power to prevent their own suffering and promote their 
own happiness. This is the surest way to guarantee that human life is worth 
anything to any human being themselves. 

For a human being to purposely make a choice that reduces the quality of their 
life more than an alternate choice, they have condoned destroying the quality 
of human life- and therefore have made human life itself a more repulsive thing 
than it was before their choice. 

If life is to have any worth at all (as I assumed is the point of this kind of question) 
then choosing to kill your family because you believe it is 'the right thing to do', even 
when you would truly rather kill all of Asia instead- is the true evil. 'Suffering for goodness' 
is evil. All it does is create suffering. The goodness part is an illusion. Why save all of Asia 
if they are only expected to live as you have lived? Totally willing to destroy their own happiness
for the sake of some stupid idea? What kind of life have you saved them for?

Then people will say, "But its not like all of them will be put on speeding trains and asked
to make such a choice." Ah, the age old 'human sacrifice' idea- train person is the only
person who has to 'suffer for goodness'- train person will destroy himself to save us
all, and we can just carry on without living like train person had to live (Jesus idea).

But if THAT is true, 'train person'- namely, YOU in this scenario, just killed your whole
family to save a mass of people who have high hopes for having a high quality of life
counting on that they will never have to make such terrible decisions. Why would you
kill your whole family for people LIKE THAT?

And yet, if they don't count on that- they, too must accept that they may have to
totally destroy their quality of life for the sake of 'goodness'- thereby creating a
cult of misery and destroying any reason for continuing human life.

Follow me? 

Save your family if you want to. Doing what you want to is the only 'right thing'.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

This is like a Te vs Ti argument. Te usually chooses the "right thing" which is to kill family, and Ti chooses to save their family or neither, because they justify it somehow. (Ti makes it's own logic)... makes sense to me. Interesting.


----------



## MissBlossom

This is a ridiculous situation with no real application. I refuse to even bother to think about it.
Sorry, I just had to write this.


----------



## EddyHeady

Kill my own family without even thinking about it. I love my family and I have 8 siblings that I care a lot about. But I love humanity in itself more. It's just egoistic to think about your own family when hundreds of thousand families dies because you wanted to save yours. It's the worst crap in any person I could ever find and I would lose every piece of respect to those who pick left. There's nothing to think about. I'm an ENTJ and I carry not much empathy, but I have a clear sense of right and wrong and what's egoistic and not.

To even think you are worth more than one other person is bad enough, but to think that you and your closest family is worth more than the amount of whole Asia. That's just sick. This is the type of question that get answers that I get offended by, more than anything.

No wonder the world will fall in despair if most people would hit the left button. No wonder there's war. No wonder people are weak-minded and take bad decisions under stress if all they consider are themselves and the ones who's given them love. I might sound extreme, but it's sick you would even consider yourself and your family above a whole continent.


----------



## Barcelonic

I felt ashamed and disgusted when i saw the results. It's moments like these that testify to how terrible a species we are.

We are all different of course so I didn't expect to see 100% or anything but to see such variation and subsequent debate on a question as simple as 'kill your family or destroy Asia' is, quite frankly, sickening. 

Granted I'm new but if pushing the button to save the continent with nearly all the world's people on is exclusive somehow one or two certain personality types then we're all doomed. Even within any one type there seems to be massive polarity on this and it continues to blow my mind!

I guess all there is left to say is you people who didn't save Asia must have quite the families!! 

Sheesh


----------



## NChSh

I realize this is a hypothetical situation, but _really, _kill _all_ of Asia? That's beyond illogical. If I saw a note like that, I simply would not believe it. Where's the evidence? If I imagine that I am actually that gullible, or if there is any kind of proof that this would actually happen, then I would press the left button in a heartbeat. _Why_, you might ask, would I kill that many people, just to save a few? Well, first I'm not killing anyone. The fact is that some psychopath has already fired the bullet (so to speak) and my decision is not whom to kill, but whom do I save. If I actually had to kill one or the other group, I simply would not make the decision. If, for example, I was given a gun and ordered to fire at an explosive device that would either kill everyone in Asia or my family, I would toss the gun aside (regardless of the consequences). I would never kill anyone in cold blood, regardless of the situation. Some may not see the difference, but I certainly do. 

So why then would I choose to save my family over Asia? First, my family is awesome. I love and care for them deeply. While I have several friends _from_ Asia, I know exactly zero people living _in_ Asia, so they are all merely abstractions to me. From a purely emotional point of view, I would feel terrible if I didn't save my own family, but would have little emotional response to not saving a bunch of strangers. It's not that I wouldn't think the annihilation of an entire continent isn't tragic, it's just not _my_ tragedy. I have no need to own it or take responsibility. Refusing to save my family? That I would have to own. But, this is a larger issue, and really, the emotional impact should be the last consideration. So this needs to be decided logically. What are the costs and benefits of the death of my family, compared to the death of Asia?

The world, in my opinion, is way too overcrowded. It's not that we do not have the resources to sustain it, or even allow it to grow, but that all the resources are hoarded by a small minority of sociopaths that will not allow it to be shared with everyone who needs it. By culling a half the world's population, resources and land become much cheaper and more abundant, almost to the point of absurdity. Disaster also stimulates, well, everything. All production would need to go into high gear, there would be more jobs than people, workers would get paid ridiculous amounts just to keep them from finding better opportunity. Land would be available for anyone who needs it, food would be plentiful and government control would be greatly reduced, since the surviving governments would have far less enemies to terrify their populations with. In short, this kind of calamity would bring tremendous prosperity, opportunity, and freedom. And, frankly, nothing brings people together more than tragedy. People may just stop taking each other for granted so much. The cost of all this, of course, is the massive termination of life. While this would be beyond horrifying, it is inevitable. All of those people (and everybody else) will die regardless, it's just a matter of when and how. 

Would I ever want something like this to happen? Hell no, but nonetheless the net result would be positive. On the other hand, what I saved Asia at the expense of my own family? There would be no remarkable change. The world would more or less continue as it has. The result would be a slight loss (a massive loss for me, but just a bit for the rest of the world). So, quite logically, I would choose my family. I'll take the gain over the loss, even if the gain has a higher initial cost.


----------



## Barcelonic

NChSh said:


> I realize this is a hypothetical situation, but _really, _kill _all_ of Asia? That's beyond illogical. If I saw a note like that, I simply would not believe it. Where's the evidence? If I imagine that I am actually that gullible, or if there is any kind of proof that this would actually happen, then I would press the left button in a heartbeat. _Why_, you might ask, would I kill that many people, just to save a few? Well, first I'm not killing anyone. The fact is that some psychopath has already fired the bullet (so to speak) and my decision is not whom to kill, but whom do I save. If I actually had to kill one or the other group, I simply would not make the decision. If, for example, I was given a gun and ordered to fire at an explosive device that would either kill everyone in Asia or my family, I would toss the gun aside (regardless of the consequences). I would never kill anyone in cold blood, regardless of the situation. Some may not see the difference, but I certainly do.
> 
> So why then would I choose to save my family over Asia? First, my family is awesome. I love and care for them deeply. While I have several friends _from_ Asia, I know exactly zero people living _in_ Asia, so they are all merely abstractions to me. From a purely emotional point of view, I would feel terrible if I didn't save my own family, but would have little emotional response to not saving a bunch of strangers. It's not that I wouldn't think the annihilation of an entire continent isn't tragic, it's just not _my_ tragedy. I have no need to own it or take responsibility. Refusing to save my family? That I would have to own. But, this is a larger issue, and really, the emotional impact should be the last consideration. So this needs to be decided logically. What are the costs and benefits of the death of my family, compared to the death of Asia?
> 
> The world, in my opinion, is way too overcrowded. It's not that we do not have the resources to sustain it, or even allow it to grow, but that all the resources are hoarded by a small minority of sociopaths that will not allow it to be shared with everyone who needs it. By culling a half the world's population, resources and land become much cheaper and more abundant, almost to the point of absurdity. Disaster also stimulates, well, everything. All production would need to go into high gear, there would be more jobs than people, workers would get paid ridiculous amounts just to keep them from finding better opportunity. Land would be available for anyone who needs it, food would be plentiful and government control would be greatly reduced, since the surviving governments would have far less enemies to terrify their populations with. In short, this kind of calamity would bring tremendous prosperity, opportunity, and freedom. And, frankly, nothing brings people together more than tragedy. People may just stop taking each other for granted so much. The cost of all this, of course, is the massive termination of life. While this would be beyond horrifying, it is inevitable. All of those people (and everybody else) will die regardless, it's just a matter of when and how.
> 
> Would I ever want something like this to happen? Hell no, but nonetheless the net result would be positive. On the other hand, what I saved Asia at the expense of my own family? There would be no remarkable change. The world would more or less continue as it has. The result would be a slight loss (a massive loss for me, but just a bit for the rest of the world). So, quite logically, I would choose my family. I'll take the gain over the loss, even if the gain has a higher initial cost.


..... meanwhile, as @NChSh\\ philosophises over the situation, Asia goes BOOM!!! :tongue:


----------



## dreamermiki

hmmm... even if i know that i would feel guilty and ashamed all my life i would choose right. 'more' life is greater than 'less' life, even if it belongs to the people i love. if there'd be a chance of switching (killing me instead of my family), i'd do that without blinking an eye.
i love people in general, everyone (or at least) as much as possible should recieve the chance of living and i hope my family would somehow understand my reasons for this move... 
who knows, maybe some asian guy has a great idea, which changes the world/ makes it a better place (good for everyone), and if i'd choose asia, we'd miss some great minds.


----------



## dreamermiki

Barcelonic said:


> I felt ashamed and disgusted when i saw the results. It's moments like these that testify to how terrible a species we are.
> 
> We are all different of course so I didn't expect to see 100% or anything but to see such variation and subsequent debate on a question as simple as 'kill your family or destroy Asia' is, quite frankly, sickening.
> 
> Granted I'm new but if pushing the button to save the continent with nearly all the world's people on is exclusive somehow one or two certain personality types then we're all doomed. Even within any one type there seems to be massive polarity on this and it continues to blow my mind!
> 
> I guess all there is left to say is you people who didn't save Asia must have quite the families!!
> 
> Sheesh


i can understand what you mean, but i can understand all those people who choosed their familiy over asia too.
what should they do after loosing their whole family ? what about people whose familiy is their biggest part in life ? their only supporters ? if they'd choose asia, maybe they'd feel like they'd betray themselves and all those who they love. maybe they would be a 'hero' for some asians, but they would never ever think of themselves as it. 
let's assume a minority of them think about it like a 'love or life'-question. i guess if you'd ask this question there would be more people choosing 'love'. 

i choosed asia over my family but with this in my mind i feel okay with the choises of the others. i don't think we are terrible, maybe we are a bit selfish but mostly we're clueless.


----------



## Barcelonic

@*dreamermiki *\\ 

Personally I believe if i had to pick the single most fundamental reason the world is so messed up, it's because of people who think only of their local worlds.

I have a theory that different types of people have differently-scaled "worlds" which could range from incorporating just their immediate family, extended family etc... all the way to national and some then who are international.
I'm an "international" - i think globally; i always have. 

I am not saying this is the best way to be in general, but ask yourself this: if you had to choose someone to put in that train carriage who would you want in there?


----------



## goldentryst

Save my family, no questions about it.


----------



## Barcelonic

goldentryst said:


> Save my family, no questions about it.


Have you seen Judge Dredd lol?

Cus if Asia was wiped out you & your family would be living in a post-apocalyptic dark age like that.

Just food for thought


----------



## goldentryst

@*Barcelonic *Not keen on getting into the gritty details behind this question, just answering it instinctively.


----------



## Mr Canis

Barcelonic said:


> Have you seen Judge Dredd lol?
> 
> Cus if Asia was wiped out you & your family would be living in a post-apocalyptic dark age like that.
> 
> Just food for thought


Finally, something I can work with!  hahahha


----------



## Phil

I don't like that the poll actually made me read the post. Anyways, I think my views on this could be summed up with a quote from Spock himself: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."


----------



## EddyHeady

NChSh said:


> I realize this is a hypothetical situation, but _really, _kill _all_ of Asia? That's beyond illogical. If I saw a note like that, I simply would not believe it. Where's the evidence? If I imagine that I am actually that gullible, or if there is any kind of proof that this would actually happen, then I would press the left button in a heartbeat. _Why_, you might ask, would I kill that many people, just to save a few? Well, first I'm not killing anyone. The fact is that some psychopath has already fired the bullet (so to speak) and my decision is not whom to kill, but whom do I save. If I actually had to kill one or the other group, I simply would not make the decision. If, for example, I was given a gun and ordered to fire at an explosive device that would either kill everyone in Asia or my family, I would toss the gun aside (regardless of the consequences). I would never kill anyone in cold blood, regardless of the situation. Some may not see the difference, but I certainly do.
> 
> So why then would I choose to save my family over Asia? First, my family is awesome. I love and care for them deeply. While I have several friends _from_ Asia, I know exactly zero people living _in_ Asia, so they are all merely abstractions to me. From a purely emotional point of view, I would feel terrible if I didn't save my own family, but would have little emotional response to not saving a bunch of strangers. It's not that I wouldn't think the annihilation of an entire continent isn't tragic, it's just not _my_ tragedy. I have no need to own it or take responsibility. Refusing to save my family? That I would have to own. But, this is a larger issue, and really, the emotional impact should be the last consideration. So this needs to be decided logically. What are the costs and benefits of the death of my family, compared to the death of Asia?
> 
> The world, in my opinion, is way too overcrowded. It's not that we do not have the resources to sustain it, or even allow it to grow, but that all the resources are hoarded by a small minority of sociopaths that will not allow it to be shared with everyone who needs it. By culling a half the world's population, resources and land become much cheaper and more abundant, almost to the point of absurdity. Disaster also stimulates, well, everything. All production would need to go into high gear, there would be more jobs than people, workers would get paid ridiculous amounts just to keep them from finding better opportunity. Land would be available for anyone who needs it, food would be plentiful and government control would be greatly reduced, since the surviving governments would have far less enemies to terrify their populations with. In short, this kind of calamity would bring tremendous prosperity, opportunity, and freedom. And, frankly, nothing brings people together more than tragedy. People may just stop taking each other for granted so much. The cost of all this, of course, is the massive termination of life. While this would be beyond horrifying, it is inevitable. All of those people (and everybody else) will die regardless, it's just a matter of when and how.
> 
> Would I ever want something like this to happen? Hell no, but nonetheless the net result would be positive. On the other hand, what I saved Asia at the expense of my own family? There would be no remarkable change. The world would more or less continue as it has. The result would be a slight loss (a massive loss for me, but just a bit for the rest of the world). So, quite logically, I would choose my family. I'll take the gain over the loss, even if the gain has a higher initial cost.


Taking subjective matters used as arguments aside, like the world is too overcrowded and we're better off with a smaller number and so on. You started the post saying you realize this is a hypothetical question, and that's exactly what you're supposed to answer. If you're to remove the hyptothetical part of the question and add just your logic, then you've completely misunderstood. You haven't used your logic enough to know what would happen if Asia just...died. Still, the only thing you bring in is that the rest of us have more land and food as if people will start giving all of Asia away just like that.

I don't know anyone in the US. All I know is that there are millions of people trying to live their life, being happy or not. They're breathing and have all of their opportunities. That's not a reason for me that justifies killing all of US. The continent doesn't really matter in this question, does it? You said the world would get so much better, more land, food and opportunities without the amount of people gone from Asia. Are you aware that the people living in Asia have land that they've strived for their whole life, food that they've worked for to afford, and still have all the opportunities in life to make something of themselves? How can someone weigh the worth of that opportunity compared to another person's?

To the first paragraph of yours, saying it wouldn't be you who killed them. That's not really how it works. Because of your decision, a few human beings can stay alive, or a whole continent. Those you choose not to save when you have the chance to do so is indirectly killing them. Sure, you didn't do the actual killing, but the type of ignorance to say you didn't kill anyone and only saved those you wish to save is the same as murder, when you're aware the other group will die. Would it make it easier to look at the buttons as atomic bombs, one small and one big. You're pressing the red button that launches the nuke. Is this a situation where you can say: "But I didn't make the bomb. I didn't program them." ?

Still, the question has a good point to it, and is not just a stupid question. There's really only three choices that you have. It's a big dillemma and requires you to think quickly with an honest answer that you have to live with for the rest of your life. You meet many of them in a different manner throughout your life, which is why I believe questions like these are good to have a debate on. There's no "Do not play the game"-button in it. You have to choose, and know why you'd take that decision because in real life you might not have that chance. Are you able to put feelings and sentimental values aside and take a decision based on what you believe to be the greater good? If choosing to kill all of Asia is your definition of greater good based on your answer, then that's fine. It's your decision and that's what this question is all about. My point is not to try to make arguments that changes your answer even if I'm against it. I like a good debate and I'm sure you do too.

May I add something to the question that you'll answer to? If you chose to save Asia, your family would know your decision before they died. If you chose to save your family, Asia would know before they died. Both parts would know your answer no matter the decision you take. Meaning if you chose to kill Asia to save your family, you would have to live with your family knowing they survived at the cost of Asia. What would you do then? The same, or the opposite? Is it the "as long as nobody knows it was my decision"-answer, or what is it based upon?


I have a very similar question that I've asked quite a few of my friends to see how they think. The question went like this:
"Would you rather live as a beggar on the streets for the rest of your life, or let everyone in Africa die?"

Surprisingly, and shockingly, half of the people I've asked answered the latter without thinking long. They argumented it with "I don't know anyone in Africa so I don't care about them. They're all poor and most of them are already dying. They have no future. I don't want to live on the streets." The rest answered as I hoped they would. Without thinking they chose the first with an expression that said "what a stupid question but with an easy answer".


----------



## Mayura

Why can't I press both buttons? Maybe the train would stop. The statement only says:

_"Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups."_

It says nothing about what would happen if you press both. :laughing:


----------



## Barcelonic

@Mayura\\ you're assuming you can reach both :happy:


----------



## Barcelonic

EddyHeady said:


> I have a very similar question that I've asked quite a few of my friends to see how they think. The question went like this:
> "Would you rather live as a beggar on the streets for the rest of your life, or let everyone in Africa die?"
> 
> Surprisingly, and shockingly, half of the people I've asked answered the latter without thinking long. They argumented it with "I don't know anyone in Africa so I don't care about them. They're all poor and most of them are already dying. They have no future. I don't want to live on the streets." The rest answered as I hoped they would. Without thinking they chose the first with an expression that said "what a stupid question but with an easy answer".


What surprises me is that i'm not surprised. It still shocks me though. Those whose heritage isn't colonialism often share that attitude it seems.


----------



## platorepublic

My instincts tell me that I have to save my family.


----------



## dreamermiki

Barcelonic said:


> @*dreamermiki *\\
> 
> Personally I believe if i had to pick the single most fundamental reason the world is so messed up, it's because of people who think only of their local worlds.
> 
> I have a theory that different types of people have differently-scaled "worlds" which could range from incorporating just their immediate family, extended family etc... all the way to national and some then who are international.
> I'm an "international" - i think globally; i always have.
> 
> I am not saying this is the best way to be in general, but ask yourself this: if you had to choose someone to put in that train carriage who would you want in there?


yep. agree. reading more of this thread i realize some people even asume that this whole situation is just a trick.

'I guess all there is left to say is you people who didn't save Asia must have quite the families!!'
i think that kinda sad... no one has the perfect family. fact is that we love them anyway.


----------



## Barcelonic

dreamermiki said:


> yep. agree. reading more of this thread i realize some people even asume that this whole situation is just a trick.
> 
> 'I guess all there is left to say is you people who didn't save Asia must have quite the families!!'
> i think that kinda sad... no one has the perfect family. fact is that we love them anyway.


Indeed we do love them. But read my post here (http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/130231-intelligence-intps-2.html#post3292614) about logic vs emotion and perhaps we'll be able to also agree on _why it is_ we'd want such a person in that train carriage


----------



## NChSh

EddyHeady said:


> Taking subjective matters used as arguments aside, like the world is too overcrowded and we're better off with a smaller number and so on. You started the post saying you realize this is a hypothetical question, and that's exactly what you're supposed to answer. If you're to remove the hyptothetical part of the question and add just your logic, then you've completely misunderstood. You haven't used your logic enough to know what would happen if Asia just...died. Still, the only thing you bring in is that the rest of us have more land and food as if people will start giving all of Asia away just like that.
> 
> I don't know anyone in the US. All I know is that there are millions of people trying to live their life, being happy or not. They're breathing and have all of their opportunities. That's not a reason for me that justifies killing all of US. The continent doesn't really matter in this question, does it? You said the world would get so much better, more land, food and opportunities without the amount of people gone from Asia. Are you aware that the people living in Asia have land that they've strived for their whole life, food that they've worked for to afford, and still have all the opportunities in life to make something of themselves? How can someone weigh the worth of that opportunity compared to another person's?
> 
> To the first paragraph of yours, saying it wouldn't be you who killed them. That's not really how it works. Because of your decision, a few human beings can stay alive, or a whole continent. Those you choose not to save when you have the chance to do so is indirectly killing them. Sure, you didn't do the actual killing, but the type of ignorance to say you didn't kill anyone and only saved those you wish to save is the same as murder, when you're aware the other group will die. Would it make it easier to look at the buttons as atomic bombs, one small and one big. You're pressing the red button that launches the nuke. Is this a situation where you can say: "But I didn't make the bomb. I didn't program them." ?
> 
> Still, the question has a good point to it, and is not just a stupid question. There's really only three choices that you have. It's a big dillemma and requires you to think quickly with an honest answer that you have to live with for the rest of your life. You meet many of them in a different manner throughout your life, which is why I believe questions like these are good to have a debate on. There's no "Do not play the game"-button in it. You have to choose, and know why you'd take that decision because in real life you might not have that chance. Are you able to put feelings and sentimental values aside and take a decision based on what you believe to be the greater good? If choosing to kill all of Asia is your definition of greater good based on your answer, then that's fine. It's your decision and that's what this question is all about. My point is not to try to make arguments that changes your answer even if I'm against it. I like a good debate and I'm sure you do too.
> 
> May I add something to the question that you'll answer to? If you chose to save Asia, your family would know your decision before they died. If you chose to save your family, Asia would know before they died. Both parts would know your answer no matter the decision you take. Meaning if you chose to kill Asia to save your family, you would have to live with your family knowing they survived at the cost of Asia. What would you do then? The same, or the opposite? Is it the "as long as nobody knows it was my decision"-answer, or what is it based upon?
> 
> 
> I have a very similar question that I've asked quite a few of my friends to see how they think. The question went like this:
> "Would you rather live as a beggar on the streets for the rest of your life, or let everyone in Africa die?"
> 
> Surprisingly, and shockingly, half of the people I've asked answered the latter without thinking long. They argumented it with "I don't know anyone in Africa so I don't care about them. They're all poor and most of them are already dying. They have no future. I don't want to live on the streets." The rest answered as I hoped they would. Without thinking they chose the first with an expression that said "what a stupid question but with an easy answer".


Your little addendum actually changes the question completely. If the other party were to know my decision, then either: 

a) *I choose to save my family at the expense of all of Asia.* Some members may feel some measure of guilt over having their lives saved over all of Asia (or any other continent for that matter). But, I seriously doubt that any of them would choose to sacrifice themselves for a bunch of strangers (no one in my family is by any means cowardly, but it's unlikely any of them are the type to jump on a grenade to save someone else, except maybe an offspring). All in all, I don't think any of them would be terribly upset about being saved, and most would agree with my reasoning, at least to an extent. 

or 

b) *I choose to save all of Asia at the expense of my family*. Now my entire family is dead, which absolutely sucks for me. Their opinions have now been rendered irrelevant, so it now no longer matters how they would have felt. To all of Asia (or at least nearly all), however, I would be the greatest hero in the history of the entire continent. I would then spend the rest of my life like a god-king. Anything and everything I would ever want would be at my fingertips. I would have unlimited resources, women, houses, cars, boats, planes, etc. I would eat anywhere I wanted for free, stay anywhere I wanted for free, receive the best medical care, get the key to every Asian city. Nearly every Asian, even Kim Jong Un, would be endlessly kissing my ass. I would be unimaginably beyond celebrity. Obviously, I would be wracked with far greater guilt than if I had let them all die, but nearly all Asians, everywhere, would continually assure me that my actions were so honorable that I would probably eventually start to believe it, losing all doubt that I did anything other than the most awesomely right thing ever. 

So now, the question really becomes: Would I let my entire family die in exchange for near-godhood? I now, honestly, don't know. The end result is no longer a tough decision that results in a (hopefully) better world, but a completely selfish decision as to whether I would trade my loved-ones for anything and everything that I've ever wanted. I'm not sure if I could ever be quite _that_ selfish. So (I hope), I would still save my family. 

...Not the reply you were expecting, huh?:tongue:Hopefully this will give you something to chew on for a bit.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

my family, so long as I'd get all of their money


----------



## Mayura

Barcelonic said:


> @_Mayura_\\ you're assuming you can reach both :happy:


Haha, indeed I was assuming. Also, I can't guarantee if I was ever left in a train like that, I would not be curious enough to see what happens when I hit both buttons. LMAO~


----------



## myexplodingcat

Both. At once.

If that didn't work, I'd instead opt to kill myself, because the sicko who put me there is probably watching and might stop the train.


----------



## myexplodingcat

Barcelonic said:


> @Mayura\\ you're assuming you can reach both :happy:


You would be panicked. And furthermore, you would probably still have both your SHOES. Assuming you can hurl them with equal force from either hand...


----------



## hailfire

NChSh said:


> Your little addendum actually changes the question completely. If the other party were to know my decision, then either:
> 
> a) *I choose to save my family at the expense of all of Asia.* Some members may feel some measure of guilt over having their lives saved over all of Asia (or any other continent for that matter). But, I seriously doubt that any of them would choose to sacrifice themselves for a bunch of strangers (no one in my family is by any means cowardly, but it's unlikely any of them are the type to jump on a grenade to save someone else, except maybe an offspring). All in all, I don't think any of them would be terribly upset about being saved, and most would agree with my reasoning, at least to an extent.
> 
> or
> 
> b) *I choose to save all of Asia at the expense of my family*. Now my entire family is dead, which absolutely sucks for me. Their opinions have now been rendered irrelevant, so it now no longer matters how they would have felt. To all of Asia (or at least nearly all), however, I would be the greatest hero in the history of the entire continent. I would then spend the rest of my life like a god-king. Anything and everything I would ever want would be at my fingertips. I would have unlimited resources, women, houses, cars, boats, planes, etc. I would eat anywhere I wanted for free, stay anywhere I wanted for free, receive the best medical care, get the key to every Asian city. Nearly every Asian, even Kim Jong Un, would be endlessly kissing my ass. I would be unimaginably beyond celebrity. Obviously, I would be wracked with far greater guilt than if I had let them all die, but nearly all Asians, everywhere, would continually assure me that my actions were so honorable that I would probably eventually start to believe it, losing all doubt that I did anything other than the most awesomely right thing ever.
> 
> So now, the question really becomes: Would I let my entire family die in exchange for near-godhood? I now, honestly, don't know. The end result is no longer a tough decision that results in a (hopefully) better world, but a completely selfish decision as to whether I would trade my loved-ones for anything and everything that I've ever wanted. I'm not sure if I could ever be quite _that_ selfish. So (I hope), I would still save my family.
> 
> ...Not the reply you were expecting, huh?:tongue:Hopefully this will give you something to chew on for a bit.


Interesting. Good point, except you might have overlooked one minor detail:


> _Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity._


*^taken from OP*

Now how exactly would you be able to reach this "near-godhood?" If you can come up with a clever way as to how to prove to all of Asia that you saved all their lives (because what they will hear is some far-fetched story this one random guy made up about sacrificing his family to save them all from this one train that would have killed them otherwise), great, but otherwise that leaves your point null and void 

*Hint: trying to show them the train might not do you any good. If the secret people who secretly put you on the train to secretly make the choice to save an entire continent while keeping everything about you and themselves secret happen to secretly get rid of the train while you went on to tell the tales of your heroism managed to secretly get rid of the train somehow (and considering they want this to be all one big secret, chances are they might so they can maintain this secrecy), you won't have much to prove to all these people of the existence of this secret plot. So if this is the case, all of Asia will call bullshit on you, and you will get nothing out of it except that your conscience won't be shitting as hard on you, at least at first. Secretly. Writing this paragraph was fun.*


----------



## hailfire

Mayura said:


> Why can't I press both buttons? Maybe the train would stop. The statement only says:
> 
> _"Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups."_
> 
> It says nothing about what would happen if you press both. :laughing:


Clever, why didn't I think of that? :laughing:

But what if the train went into the direction corresponding to the button that you ended up pressing even nanoseconds before the other? Because chances are that you won't press each button at the EXACT same instant.


----------



## Barcelonic

@myexplodingcat\\ @Mayura\\

That's quite a _stretch_ :laughing:


----------



## NChSh

@hailfire\\ I was actually responding to @_EddyHeady_\\'s comment that: "Both parts would know your answer no matter the decision you take."


----------



## hailfire

NChSh said:


> @_hailfire_\\ I was actually responding to @_EddyHeady_\\'s comment that: "Both parts would know your answer no matter the decision you take."


When I woke up a few minutes ago it occurred to me that I was not thinking straight at all last night while I was reading through the posts and replying to yours :frustrating:
Sorry about that.


----------



## dreamermiki

hailfire said:


> Clever, why didn't I think of that? :laughing:
> 
> But what if the train went into the direction corresponding to the button that you ended up pressing even nanoseconds before the other? Because chances are that you won't press each button at the EXACT same instant.


yeah, i would worry about that too. and i guess i wouldn't think about this solution when i'm stuffed into a train having to make such a decision. i think it's totally human to panick. 

plus we should really cling to the limit. the note says we only have 6:42 (min) left.


----------



## NChSh

It's cool. Just find it interesting how one minor detail can completely change the dynamic of a situation.


----------



## spicytea

I'd choose to kill masses of innocent strangers.
I've asked some people irl this question before and they all answered the same as me.


----------



## dreamermiki

Barcelonic said:


> Indeed we do love them. But read my post here (http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/130231-intelligence-intps-2.html#post3292614) about logic vs emotion and perhaps we'll be able to also agree on _why it is_ we'd want such a person in that train carriage


i see, that's quite interesting.

all the asian people would approve!! :laughing: (well, if they would know...)


----------



## Mayura

hailfire said:


> Clever, why didn't I think of that? :laughing:
> 
> But what if the train went into the direction corresponding to the button that you ended up pressing even nanoseconds before the other? Because chances are that you won't press each button at the EXACT same instant.


Sometimes, things are just worth trying. The only real reason why I would push two buttons (an option not stated) is because I really hate the fact that I am being manipulated to choose. Neither option is logical to me since the entire continent of people did not do any injustice to me and I would certainly want to save my family. However, I would not be able to convince myself to choose one over the other and I know I can never lead the rest of my life guilt-free. As @myexplodingcat had said, I might kill myself after that or pretend to have a heart attack and collapse. :laughing:


----------



## hailfire

Mayura said:


> Sometimes, things are just worth trying. The only real reason why I would push two buttons (an option not stated) is because I really hate the fact that I am being manipulated to choose. Neither option is logical to me since the entire continent of people did not do any injustice to me and I would certainly want to save my family. However, I would not be able to convince myself to choose one over the other and I know I can never lead the rest of my life guilt-free. As @myexplodingcat had said, I might kill myself after that or pretend to have a heart attack and collapse. :laughing:


Considering that instead of consciously choosing one over the other or killing both parties, you chose to give both equal opportunity and one just happened to get the rotten end of the deal, do you think you could ever at least take solace in the fact that you did give both an equal chance without any bias to the best of your abilities? You may not be guilt-free, but I suppose it would be something. Although the ones who thought it through (or not) and chose could essentially take solace in similar things. You could really switch up the consequences to this question, but the choices given are that one party will suffer and the other will remain unscathed, or both suffer somehow. Would your choice (or the choices of other posters, including mine) change if death were not a consequence in this hypothetical scenario? Maybe.

Also, somehow I'm not inclined to believe that by collapsing or something, the people in control will control the train. They're probably not above continuing the train and the timer so then by default, both parties would die.


----------



## Barcelonic

Four words:

Eenie, meanie, miney, moe.... :laughing:


----------



## Mayura

hailfire said:


> Considering that instead of consciously choosing one over the other or killing both parties, you chose to give both equal opportunity and one just happened to get the rotten end of the deal, do you think you could ever at least take solace in the fact that you did give both an equal chance without any bias to the best of your abilities? You may not be guilt-free, but I suppose it would be something. Although the ones who thought it through (or not) and chose could essentially take solace in similar things. You could really switch up the consequences to this question, but the choices given are that one party will suffer and the other will remain unscathed, or both suffer somehow. Would your choice (or the choices of other posters, including mine) change if death were not a consequence in this hypothetical scenario? Maybe.
> 
> *Also, somehow I'm not inclined to believe that by collapsing or something, the people in control will control the train. They're probably not above continuing the train and the timer so then by default, both parties would die.*


Actually, I would bet even on the slightest possibility that they can control the train.


----------



## hailfire

Mayura said:


> Actually, I would bet even on the slightest possibility that they can control the train.


Can or will? Surely they can, but will they? I for sure would bet that they can, but I personally don't believe that they will. I'm not saying that there is no possibility that they will stop the train, because there is always that chance, but given the dilemma they just threw you in, I wouldn't bet on it. What if this all turned out to be some game to see if you'd actually kill anybody because a note told you to press a button and that no matter which of the given options you chose, people would die...

I get what you're saying, and it's a fair argument to trust in that possibility. Ya never know when those near-impossible chances will actually work in your favor


----------



## BPReed92

Neither. Why? I would try to find a way and stop the train. Though, I would probably fail. If I had to choose one button, my choice would be the right button.


----------



## Kaisikudo

Went with the button on the right. And I'd expect any other member of my family to do the same, if it were my life on the line.

I would be interested to see what decision people would come to, as you steadily lowered the amount of collateral damage it costs to save the lives of your family. What if it were just one country? One region? One city? One street? One innocent person for every member of your family? I'm not sure at what point I would make the call to save my family.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster

Barcelonic said:


> Have you seen Judge Dredd lol?
> 
> Cus if Asia was wiped out you & your family would be living in a post-apocalyptic dark age like that.
> 
> Just food for thought


Any particular reason you think that? Because I seriously doubt it, it would be serious hit to civilisation but it wouldn't be a post-apocalyptic dark age. In a way it might be a benefit.
Less people = Less resource use = Less climate change = More time for people to find a way past a fossil fuel based economy

Also I'm not entirely serious, mostly contrarian. But I would like to know.


----------



## HippoHunter94

If it's just immediate family, then sorry, but they're going. The needs of the many outweigh those of the few or the one. Spocken like a true Vulkan.


----------



## Bricolage

I read yesterday that Hong Kong is dealing with colossally high levels of pollution...maybe _I would_ choose family. :kitteh:


----------



## Barcelonic

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> Any particular reason you think that? Because I seriously doubt it, it would be serious hit to civilisation but it wouldn't be a post-apocalyptic dark age. In a way it might be a benefit.
> Less people = Less resource use = Less climate change = More time for people to find a way past a fossil fuel based economy
> Also I'm not entirely serious, mostly contrarian. But I would like to know.


I may have over-exaggerated a bit but the future qwould be quite dire for the next century or so while the world rebuilds. 

In the long term however it may be better simply because of the reduced population, but I ask if this is better why don't we do it anyway with a weaponised virus? So i think whether or not it would be 'better' is kind of an ethical thing. It would be 'better' for me if my family died and I inherited a house, but it wouldn't be ultimately better for me as I'd be devastated.

Just more food for thought


----------



## Cassieopeia

fourtines said:


> I don't know what the hell is wrong with people who would kill their family. Is this brainwashing by liberal media? REALLY? REALLY? YOU'D MURDER YOUR OWN FAMILY JUST BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO KEEP SHEER NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ALIVE?
> 
> I don't even have to think about this; of course, I also believe the world is overpopulated, and this conveniently takes care of that issue.


I'm liberal and chose family. -.-


----------



## JamesDowns

Despite not being close to them I would still save my family. They're close to me and families in Asia are not close to me. Their deaths to me would just be numbers on a screen. Joseph Stalin said it the best.

"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."


----------



## Thalassa

Cassieopeia said:


> I'm liberal and chose family. -.-


I'm liberal too. I was just trying to fathom what would create the compulsion to save random others from one's own flesh and blood.


----------



## Cassieopeia

fourtines said:


> I'm liberal too. I was just trying to fathom what would create the compulsion to save random others from one's own flesh and blood.


Oh, good  yeah, I posted this on facebook, and this one lady was legit' yelling at me because I said my family... lol


----------



## Cosmicsense

this one's easy, you choose not to play by the rules, and work your way one step at a time until you can find a workaround. 

possible solutions include: working yourway outside your "cell" until you can communicate with the outside world. inform them of the situation, and request an airstrike on the track before the 3 way fork. 

work your way towards an interface which can reprogram the train from it's current course, to simply shutting down. 

work your way out of the train and use an object to off-rail the train while leaping off. 

if all else fails, my family goes. 

it makes no sense to off all of asia, or both groups.


----------



## Cosmicsense

fourtines said:


> I'm liberal too. I was just trying to fathom what would create the compulsion to save random others from one's own flesh and blood.



Not a compulsion. A rational action. It's mere selfishness to value one's family over the species. There truly is no wiggle-room here. 

Do what's best for yourself, unless it's harming your family. 

Do what's best for your family, unless it's harming your community. 

Do what's best for your community, unless it's harming the species. 

If what is best for you harms your family, leave, else adapt. 

If what's best for your family is harming the community, leave else adapt. 

If what's best for the community is harming the species, leave else adapt. 

I'm not sure another way is acceptable in my mind.


----------



## VioletTru

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.




-an Asian American enters-

Tricky, tricky, tricky. Provided that note is telling the truth, I would simply have to choose A button. I probably wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of a whole population of people in any of the two continents (Asia, and I assume North America. Both of which have my roots). Personally, that would be selfish. Even if the continent was South America, Europe, Africa, or Australia, I would still be selfish. There will be people who live fulfilling, happy lives, and others who will be going through the necessary changes, that they themselves have worked hard for, in order to achieve that quality of life.

I already know how my family is doing. My mother, even though she's gone through a lot of struggles in her life and his currently dissatisfied with her career, has found a rare love in a partner (who is now also part of my family) in ways she couldn't have imagined. My sister, despite being disabled and will never function independently as the average person, is purely happy staying in her own world. My father, on the other hand, will actually welcome the possibility of death to end his miserable state of mind.

It would still be complicated. My family is basically all I have. However, we're not so special. Our situation wouldn't be so different from the mass of people living in Asia and North America, who also have families of their own.

Crap. I think at that point, I'd start begging and pleading for 'them' to take me instead. If 'they' still don't budge, then I'd try to find a way to either stop the train mechanically or to break out of the train (highly unlikely) and stop the train using my body. If it still doesn't work in my favor.....then I'd close my eyes and press the right button. In my heart and through my thoughts, I'd tell my family that I was sorry, and that I hope they would understand why I made the choice to take their lives. At least they would all be together. Who knows, in a better place, my father might drop his hangups, change his character, and have a peaceful coexistence with my mother, her partner, and my sister (all of whom will be happier than ever before, since they pretty much believe in life after death).

I may have an even lonelier existence after that, and even experience terrible feelings of guilt and torment. But maybe I can deal with that. At the same time, I'd know that I just spared the precious lives of billions of people.


----------



## Roland Khan

Where's the option where I die as well....I feel left out.


----------



## Thalassa

Cosmicsense said:


> Not a compulsion. A rational action. It's mere selfishness to value one's family over the species. There truly is no wiggle-room here.
> 
> Do what's best for yourself, unless it's harming your family.
> 
> Do what's best for your family, unless it's harming your community.
> 
> Do what's best for your community, unless it's harming the species.
> 
> If what is best for you harms your family, leave, else adapt.
> 
> If what's best for your family is harming the community, leave else adapt.
> 
> If what's best for the community is harming the species, leave else adapt.
> 
> I'm not sure another way is acceptable in my mind.


Actually it's completely rational to protect one's own in-group and gene pool. Not sure what you don't comprehend about that.


----------



## Thalassa

Cassieopeia said:


> Oh, good  yeah, I posted this on facebook, and this one lady was legit' yelling at me because I said my family... lol



:shocked::shocked::shocked:

:frustrating:


----------



## Barcelonic

@*fourtines*\\

My eyes nearly fell out when i read your thoughts on this (i mean on the forum, not telepathically) - and let me just get this straight... were you referring to family as one's 'gene pool' or did i misinterpret that?

Seriously though i can _just about_ understand those who'd opt to save their family, but for someone to be soo vehemently opposed to and bewildered by the opposite i find, quite simply, astonishing! 

As someone else here commented, i cannot see how such an opinion can not be considered utterly selfish. 

I'm sure you're likely aware that you and your family are a minority, yes? May i ask which country you are from?


----------



## Nicko

Think I'd go for the right button then kill swiftly kill myself in the following moments.. That's what I chose now that I'm sitting here thinking clearly without the pressure of the coming moment of no return. I'd chose right because I think it's the right choice, had it been america or the middle east I would've gone with the left button "no offense american's but your government is fucking up the world" relatively the same reason with the middle east Asia has some fairly well developed countries I think will play big importance for mankind's future.


----------



## Barcelonic

Nicko said:


> Think I'd go for the right button then kill swiftly kill myself in the following moments.. That's what I chose now that I'm sitting here thinking clearly without the pressure of the coming moment of no return. I'd chose right because I think it's the right choice, had it been america or the middle east I would've gone with the left button "no offense american's but your government is fucking up the world" relatively the same reason with the middle east Asia has some fairly well developed countries I think will play big importance for mankind's future.


Not to mention that even today the vast majority of humankind _are_ Asian.
:happy:


----------



## Cosmicsense

fourtines said:


> Actually it's completely rational to protect one's own in-group and gene pool. Not sure what you don't comprehend about that.


Think what I wrote went over your head.

I included this reasoning while transcending it.


----------



## Thalassa

Cosmicsense said:


> Think what I wrote went over your head.
> 
> I included this reasoning while transcending it.


Get over yourself.

Just because you've built some moral system that you believe is correct, doesn't mean that protecting your family's own genes and your own in-group above all others isn't equally or more rational than what you're proposing.

Nothing went over my head. I just disagree with you.


----------



## Thalassa

Barcelonic said:


> @*fourtines*\\
> 
> My eyes nearly fell out when i read your thoughts on this (i mean on the forum, not telepathically) - and let me just get this straight... were you referring to family as one's 'gene pool' or did i misinterpret that?
> 
> Seriously though i can _just about_ understand those who'd opt to save their family, but for someone to be soo vehemently opposed to and bewildered by the opposite i find, quite simply, astonishing!
> 
> As someone else here commented, i cannot see how such an opinion can not be considered utterly selfish.
> 
> I'm sure you're likely aware that you and your family are a minority, yes? May i ask which country you are from?


Yes, it's completely rational to protect one's own gene pool and in-group. It's pure human instinct, it's the most normal and rational thing in the world.

Just because it doesn't fit your moral world view doesn't mean its irrational. Of course it's selfish, but it's rational selfishness.

Being interdependent with others is smart, being self-sacrificial, though, it just ridiculous, there's nothing rational about it, as far as I'm concerned. Me and/or my children and/or my nieces and nephews are all dead, and that might be the last of my family's line...no, I'm not going to take that lightly, and I don't think whatever you can rationalize even matters if you're dead.

This is a moral disagreement, and both sides could be explained rationally, and they are rational for different reasons.

But morally, yes, I'm just as shocked and disgusted by your opinion as you are by mine. C'est la vie.


----------



## Thalassa

Cosmicsense said:


> Not a compulsion. A rational action. It's mere selfishness to value one's family over the species. There truly is no wiggle-room here.
> 
> Do what's best for yourself, unless it's harming your family.
> 
> Do what's best for your family, unless it's harming your community.
> 
> Do what's best for your community, unless it's harming the species.
> 
> If what is best for you harms your family, leave, else adapt.
> 
> If what's best for your family is harming the community, leave else adapt.
> 
> If what's best for the community is harming the species, leave else adapt.
> 
> I'm not sure another way is acceptable in my mind.


Let me break this down for you, since you're so smugly sure this went over my head. First of all, let's start with you saying you're not sure another way is acceptable in your mind. I feel the same about the family choices. THESE ARE MORAL PREFERENCES. That doesn't mean your position is "more rational" or "more logical."

Do I honestly think killing all of Asia is harmful to the human species? No. I don't. I don't want to kill all of Asia, but frankly, the world is overpopulated, and much of that overpopulation is actually concentrated in Asia. It might even be beneficial to the species to have less people.

It's just that some people are uncomfortable admitting that for moral, not rational, reasons.

Sacrificing self for the community is the thoughts that peasants have. It's why the poor go to war, and peasants fight for kings. But the king and the rest of the aristocracy protect their own blood line, and it's pretty common in many human societies to be shocked by a person who will murder their own brother or son, but accept it more if it is a stranger.

Why would that be true if my position isn't just as equally or even more rational than your own?

I am a liberal, and I don't think that people should hoard money or resources at the expense of others, and I don't think anyone should have to work in terrible conditions...but if it actually comes down to the life of my family, the actual life or death scenario...I'm not THAT liberal, that's just ...absurd.

To me it seems the height of idealistic stupidity to say that people on the other side of the world are more important than your family. 

That may be true if your family already has what they need and are hurting those strangers out of greed, but life and death are an entirely different matter.


----------



## Peripheral

I almost chose my family, but the I thought of my niece,nephew and younger brother.


----------



## Cosmicsense

fourtines said:


> Get over yourself.
> 
> Just because you've built some moral system that you believe is correct, doesn't mean that protecting your family's own genes and your own in-group above all others isn't equally or more rational than what you're proposing.
> 
> Nothing went over my head. I just disagree with you.


Sure it did!

You argued from a "completely rational" and I replied with something which showed it's obviously a lower level of reasoning. Basically the fact that you "just disagree" means this isn't about what's most rational (which obviously your choice isn't), it's about what you value. 

Blowing up "asia" would reduce the genetic variation within the species quite a bit. Blowing up my family.... wouldn't. 

My focus isn't after "me and my own" kinda idiocy. It's on the species. 

*looks in mirror*

hahaha!


----------



## Cosmicsense

fourtines said:


> Let me break this down for you, since you're so smugly sure this went over my head. First of all, let's start with you saying you're not sure another way is acceptable in your mind. I feel the same about the family choices. THESE ARE MORAL PREFERENCES. That doesn't mean your position is "more rational" or "more logical."
> 
> Do I honestly think killing all of Asia is harmful to the human species? No. I don't. I don't want to kill all of Asia, but frankly, the world is overpopulated, and much of that overpopulation is actually concentrated in Asia. It might even be beneficial to the species to have less people.


There is no "overpopulation" there is greed and a problem with resource management. Please don't drink the cool-aid. 



> It's just that some people are uncomfortable admitting that for moral, not rational, reasons.


Or perhaps they actually look at the evidence from both sides, and conclude what is most rational. 



> Sacrificing self for the community is the thoughts that peasants have. It's why the poor go to war, and peasants fight for kings. But the king and the rest of the aristocracy protect their own blood line, and it's pretty common in many human societies to be shocked by a person who will murder their own brother or son, but accept it more if it is a stranger.


You seem not to know your history well. The best warriors are often crowned and given the responsibilities of the throne. 



> Why would that be true if my position isn't just as equally or even more rational than your own?


Please see above.



> I am a liberal, and I don't think that people should hoard money or resources at the expense of others, and I don't think anyone should have to work in terrible conditions...but if it actually comes down to the life of my family, the actual life or death scenario...I'm not THAT liberal, that's just ...absurd.


Where did this scenario come from? Has little to nothing to do with the OP. You're adding in layers of nonsense. There is NO overpopulation. There is no lack of food, water, or basic resources. There is greed and improper resource management by the ruling class. Please try again.



> To me it seems the height of idealistic stupidity to say that people on the other side of the world are more important than your family.


Yea, how many factors are you not considering? Let's get fair for a second. If it was my family, vs a family on the other side of the world, which one do you think I'd choose? hahaha! illogical comparison, you present. 



> That may be true if your family already has what they need and are hurting those strangers out of greed, but life and death are an entirely different matter.


k


----------



## Thalassa

Cosmicsense said:


> There is no "overpopulation" there is greed and a problem with resource management. Please don't drink the cool-aid.


There is greed and resource management problems. There are ALSO too many people inhabiting this planet.




> Or perhaps they actually look at the evidence from both sides, and conclude what is most rational.


No I'm pretty sure I'm just as rational as you are, just approaching this from a different angle, in which the highest fundamental value is preserve one's own tribe...the fundamental value that has pushed mankind forward since time immemorial. 





> You seem not to know your history well. The best warriors are often crowned and given the responsibilities of the throne.


They're knighted, or made captains. They have minor power. While you may live in King Arthur's Court la la la land, the truth is that most people sent to war are poor people, and they die. 





> Please see above.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did this scenario come from? Has little to nothing to do with the OP. You're adding in layers of nonsense. There is NO overpopulation. There is no lack of food, water, or basic resources. There is greed and improper resource management by the ruling class. Please try again.


There is overpopulation, and if you won't accept that fact, then there's no point in carrying on this discussion. 

There is no layers of non-sense, it's me explaining to you that while I think community or even world wide interdependence is healthy, when it comes down to my family actually DYING, I'm not going to kill my family for some strangers. I will share, but I won't kill myself or my family for other people.

I'm not sure what you don't understand.





> Yea, how many factors are you not considering? Let's get fair for a second. If it was my family, vs a family on the other side of the world, which one do you think I'd choose? hahaha! illogical comparison, you present.


It's exactly what you're doing. You're choosing strangers, strangers who may not even share your moral values, strangers who may be greedy, hoard resources, sell their children into prostitution, and believe in caste systems over your own family.

Quantity isn't necessarily more valuable. While many people living in Asia might agree with your world view, many will not, so you just murdered your entire family to save some people who will carry on, business as usual, hording money and living in class-based societies. 

I don't think you're really thinking this through, but you seem to think there's something inherently valuable about saving a large number of people versus particular people, even when those particular people are your own family.


----------



## Cosmicsense

huge facepalm, mang. 

you drank the cool-aid long ago


----------



## Thalassa

Cosmicsense said:


> Sure it did!
> 
> You argued from a "completely rational" and I replied with something which showed it's obviously a lower level of reasoning. Basically the fact that you "just disagree" means this isn't about what's most rational (which obviously your choice isn't), it's about what you value.
> 
> Blowing up "asia" would reduce the genetic variation within the species quite a bit. Blowing up my family.... wouldn't.
> 
> My focus isn't after "me and my own" kinda idiocy. It's on the species.
> 
> *looks in mirror*
> 
> hahaha!


Okay maybe I should just report you? You're not even trying to have an argument with me, you want to have an insult war, and I'm not getting into any more of those this week.


----------



## Cosmicsense

Your accusations are unfounded, and your profanity to me in PM isn't necessary, or wanted. 

I tried to reason with you. 

Going to just ignore you from here on out.

Take care.


----------



## INFantP

Small family, and I'm sure everyone in it would rather die themselves than have millions of peoples lives on their hearts
why would anyone choose neither lol pretty evil


----------



## Barcelonic

fourtines said:


> Actually it's completely rational to protect one's own in-group and gene pool. Not sure what you don't comprehend about that.





Barcelonic said:


> @*fourtines*\\
> ...and let me just get this straight... were you referring to family as one's 'gene pool' or did i misinterpret that?





fourtines said:


> Yes, it's completely rational to protect one's own gene pool and in-group. It's pure human instinct, it's the most normal and rational thing in the world.



Say no more Fourtines -- if you are prone to 'keeping it in the family' as you seem to be saying, then I'm quite sure the world would miss Asia more than one single inbred family who, in fact, _worsen_ the gene _pool_ (which by the way is shared by us all and requires diversity - a.k.a. ethnicity/genetic variation)


----------



## Pawn

_OH MY GOD - WHY!?
_
How do you expect me to choose either!?
My family and I have a lot of conflicts, and bash heads all the time, but I would never want to actually _kill_ any single one of them!
And there's no way in _hell_ I'd ever want to bring harm to anyone, even if I don't know them; I would never be able to live with the guilt that I've killed countless of innocent people...
I would never want to take the gift of life away from _anyone_.

And if I choose neither, _everyone_ dies...

Can I just kill myself instead!?


----------



## Raingembow

If I chose not to kill my family they would probably develop surviors guilt which they would probably never get over. Choosing to kill them would be merciful in this situation instead of them living a life of misery. Besides I could never cope with the guilt of killing my family, let alone millons of innocent strangers.


----------



## Sinthemoon

I choose neither. I'm not going to make a decision like that without more information. That one's on the murderer, if he even tells the truth. I don't trust him enough to make that decision. What if I decide to save my family, then what happens is the opposite of what he told me? I push neither button without a lawyer.

If he tells the truth, he better make sure I die in the process, though. I'd kill the fucker. This might also be one of the very rare scenarios where I see myself torturing someone.


----------



## bakanunu

I did not see the neither button!! I want to choose that sadly I voted already.....:crying:


----------



## legallyblonde502

I would be so depressed killing my family I would just ultimately end up killing myself.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

The Madman said:


> That doesn't change the fact that pressing both buttons at the same time is the choice with the least guilt.


Perhaps (though I'd disagree). Nonetheless, why should level of guilt be the determining factor? Guilt isn't tangible.


----------



## Lackjester

The results of this poll horrify me...


----------



## glaba

Why would anyone ever choose to kill off all of Asia? Either they're idiots, or they value themselves too highly...


----------



## glaba

Interesting...
The Sensors prefer their families, and the iNtuitives prefer Asia, though both are close.


----------



## TyDavis

Ehhhhhh I'm gonna do both.


----------



## Persephone

Well I'm in Asia so I'm not sure about the left button... But then I won't be in Asia tomorrow. Can I have an extension.


----------



## KilljoyKoala

I'm not losing my people for any given group no matter how large.


----------



## glaba

Even if you don't care about millions (scratch that, BILLIONS) of people dying, you should be intelligent enough to realize what a HORRIBLE economic impact that would have on "your people". Your lives would be HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY impacted by the economic, and political fallout.


----------



## glaba

Oh you ISTPs. So smart, but preferring not to look at the big picture...

(this being a gross, but generally true generalization)
edit: I just realized I said generally true generalization


----------



## Antipode

How can you logically equate one life for another. The question has no answer, because no answer is the answer. Simply put, you chose to do what you believe you should do; in the end, that's all that really matters.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

glaba said:


> Even if you don't care about millions (scratch that, BILLIONS) of people dying, you should be intelligent enough to realize what a HORRIBLE economic impact that would have on "your people". Your lives would be HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY impacted by the economic, and political fallout.


How is that relevant? Are you to presume that your family won't value their lives as much without high living standards?


----------



## elixare

Left button.


----------



## glaba

Though there is a slight chance that billions of people have no potential to do anything "good" for the world, as compared to the few in your immediate family, based on the collective ideas of morality, I find that a highly unlikely prospect. Basically, what you're saying is that you would pick a minute, virtually impossible chance that something "good" would come to the world by saving your family, instead of an extremely high chance that something "good" would come of the billions who would be killed by you. 

As I made clear earlier, I define the value of a life to be the potential it has to contribute to the global "good" of the world. So, obviously, people aren't all equal. But, the sum of the values of the lives of all native Asians is greater than the sum of the values of the lives of any single family (assuming that this is immediate family, and not 1000th cousins or anything)


----------



## glaba

Well, it ultimately boils down to a matter of relativism: there is no real right and wrong and we are wasting our pathetic, short lives arguing about it.


----------



## INFJAnimal

Why do I get the feeling that this is an ISTJ who created this thread? 






"Mr. President, after I destroy Washington D.C... I will destroy another major city every hour on the hour. That is, unless, of course, you pay me..." BWA HA HA HA HA...

Me: I don't do the "destroying worlds" thing. Too messy. Sorry.


----------



## SuburbanLurker

INFJAnimal said:


> Why do I get the feeling that this is an ISTJ who created this thread?
> View attachment 66583
> "Mr. President, after I destroy Washington D.C... I will destroy another major city every hour on the hour. That is, unless, of course, you pay me..." BWA HA HA HA HA...
> 
> Me: I don't do the "destroying worlds" thing. Too messy. Sorry.


Is that intended as insult? I didn't realize ISTJ's were particularly interested in moral philosophy. Maybe Kant was also an ISTJ.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster

glaba said:


> Even if you don't care about millions (scratch that, BILLIONS) of people dying, you should be intelligent enough to realize what a HORRIBLE economic impact that would have on "your people". Your lives would be HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY impacted by the economic, and political fallout.


Pfft, no it won't. I live in Australia
Australia = Pretty much self sufficient


----------



## Aqua Vitae

Considering I hate most of my family, this was easy. Right, definitely. However, I was surprised that the percentage of NF's (I'm an ENFP) clicked the right button. That's disturbing..in some morally twisted way


----------



## Aqua Vitae

glaba said:


> Well, it ultimately boils down to a matter of relativism: there is no real right and wrong and we are wasting our pathetic, short lives arguing about it.



We are not arguing. That makes us sound petty. We are just participating in a mental exercise and comparing what personality types clicked what


----------



## Devrim

No choice about it for me,
My family comes first,
So I could rather live with the people in Asia dying,
Than with my Family dying.


Luckily though none of this could happen,
And I am not saying I'd be very happy doing it,
I'd actually be devastated


----------



## Jane the Ripper

Hmm, I think I voted incorrectly, lol.

I would be fine killing people I know nothing of, after all, they're strangers to me.


----------



## littleblackdress

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


 Honestly, I would try and confirm that this is true - and try and figure out another way to stop the train. Honestly, the situation is so surreal that I wouldn't believe the note...


----------



## katja

Right button. Mostly because of how my family is. If it consisted of more open minded pleasant individuals I'd probably have to actually think about it. But in the current circumstances - no contest. I'm going to read some of the replies now, very curious as to why someone would chose to kill billions of people they never met..?


----------



## glaba

funbrett said:


> *We are not arguing. That makes us sound petty.* We are just participating in a mental exercise and comparing what personality types clicked what


Don't pretend we're not. We're all petty. We're so petty that we focus our energies into seeing what certain words make us seem like.


----------



## Ruru

This is interesting, I have chosen my family. Though If this were a real situation, I will probably be really devastated resulting to killing myself first, thus also killing both parties.


----------



## Elveni

Fuck the greater good, I'm saving my family. Besides, wiping out North Korea... Not a bad prospect.


----------



## Entr0py

I'd save my family. I'm not utilitarian, only the government should be.


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

suburbanlurker said:


> _"press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in asia."_


Lol!


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

katja said:


> very curious as to why someone would chose to kill billions of people* they never met*..?


I think your question holds the answer.


----------



## katja

Ollyx2OxenFree said:


> I think your question holds the answer.


See that's the puzzling part for me?? How can you judge if they "deserve" to die more than the people you already know? I would be too terrified that I'm killing off amazing artists, scientists, visionaries etc.


----------



## Random User

Well, decimating Asia's population would make room for more people. Overpopulation will cease to be a problem for a while, and economies could improve with other countries just taking control of the now-personless lands.

Though, I would question why every person in Asia is on a train track.


----------



## nottie

Random User said:


> Though, I would question why every person in Asia is on a train track.


Must be an impressive track.


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

katja said:


> See that's the puzzling part for me?? How can you judge if they "deserve" to die more than the people you already know? I would be too terrified that I'm killing off amazing artists, scientists, visionaries etc.



It's not about judging whether they deserve to die. I believe it's just easier for some to decide to let people they don't know die than their own family. For some that's all they got. For some the lives of billions is far more important than their own family. For some the connection with their family isn't a close one so it's easier to choose the billions of lives. I see what you mean though.


----------



## katja

Yeah, if family was an important part of my life I'm sure I'd come up with plenty of reasons to kill billions of innocent people. Wow, that came out sarcastic, I wasn't trying to be so blunt. But in essence that's what it is. For me there's no sentiment towards "my own", but it also isn't just a matter of numbers. If members of my family were for example conducting breaktrhough research into cancer treatment/prevention, or were super duper activists for world peace, getting all the awards, things of that sort, then it gets even trickier. I'd probably save them - people I know are making a difference - over people who _may_ be making a difference.

(By the way, I just realized that my family must be really crap, if I as a classic ISFJ can't really be bothered with them :/)


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

I agree and see your point @katja. For the record, I never chose my side and was just explaining why I could see why others would do so. I'm not sure if I could live with myself after choosing either button.


----------



## Danah

If with family it means family of origins, I think I'd kill them. Most of them are stranger and two of the ones I had close abused me, so... not even a tough choice. I'd only be sorry for my mother.

If family included my hypothetical personal family (boyfriend/husband and kids) I'd destroy the continent. No doubt at all. 
I'd rather kill every other human being on earth than the one(s) I love and have committed to.


Considering that I only have a family of origins right now, I'd save the continent.


----------



## noteworthy

I'd choose the right. Killing billions of people over a handful just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm sure they wouldn't want me to. If I found out someone slaughtered an entire continent for me I wouldn't want anything to do with them, it actually sounds a bit creepy now that I type it.
I'm really surprised so many SPs picked the left option. It's different from the rest of the groups but the results may be skewed because of the small sample, same with the SJs.


----------



## Hexagon

I'd have to kill my family. Its the obvious ethical choice. Even if I liked my family, which I don't, I would kill them. I would consider myself to be unbelievably selfish if I were to choose to kill Asia. But I do have one question... what happens if your family is in Asia?


----------



## Loupgaroux

Also, if everyone in Asia dies, it will affect the entire world. We live in a globalised economy & it would collapse. It would be the biggest human disaster in history. It would not just be the dead affected, we'd all suffer.

And what would your family think? Of the person who saved them but murdered billions of people & left the world never to be same again? 
If it were someone in my family that were to be choosing which button, I'd want them to choose the right, hands down (so to speak).


----------



## Pyromaniac

TheLaughingMan said:


> NTs are the rarest among the general population but not on this forum. They're actually the most prominent in representation by a large margin.
> 
> How would the stereotypical ability for NTs to employ cold-blooded reasoning have an impact on their decision? Choosing either button could be regarded as cold-blooded. You could argue that killing your family would be the more rational decision to make but it is also the more emotional decision.


I guess so, but it's still interesting that both options level each other.

It's quite widely regarded that saving the masses would be the most rational option, but I would agree that it would be quite inhumane to save hundreds in the face of billions. By cold-blooded, I mean to imply that it would not be for the faint heart to side with the masses. It is a decision dichotomous with subjective passion, so it would take a stronger stomach perhaps to sacrifice family for strangers.


----------



## Peter

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


Since this is not a realistic thing, it has no meaning to me. Therefore any choice is justifiable. You can change this choice into: "Would you choose to solve the overpopulation of the earth or kill your whole family?"

Asking it like that (but in a nice story like you did) and you get totally different replies.


----------



## Psychopomp

Odyssey said:


> INTJ/INFJ
> 
> I would of course save my family, i would look down on any one who would do differently.


Not a big fan of people who aren't willing to allow genocide to accommodate their personal interest? That is an interesting thing to disdain.



Loupgaroux said:


> Also, if everyone in Asia dies, it will affect the entire world. We live in a globalised economy & it would collapse. It would be the biggest human disaster in history. It would not just be the dead affected, we'd all suffer.
> 
> And what would your family think? Of the person who saved them but murdered billions of people & left the world never to be same again?
> If it were someone in my family that were to be choosing which button, I'd want them to choose the right, hands down (so to speak).


Following the logic. Excellent.



Peter said:


> Since this is not a realistic thing, it has no meaning to me. Therefore any choice is justifiable. You can change this choice into: "Would you choose to solve the overpopulation of the earth or kill your whole family?"
> 
> Asking it like that (but in a nice story like you did) and you get totally different replies.


Let's further simplify it then. In front of you, at this very moment, between Esc and F1 on your keyboard, appears a new key, red, that says 'Asia' on it and has an X. Pushing it murders everyone in Asia. Considering global overpopulation, would you push the key? 

Forget the dichotomy and tell me... will you or won't you obliterate billions of lives? You know, to stop overpopulation.†



Pyromaniac said:


> I guess so, but it's still interesting that both options level each other.
> 
> It's quite widely regarded that saving the masses would be the most rational option, but I would agree that it would be quite inhumane to save hundreds in the face of billions. By cold-blooded, I mean to imply that it would not be for the faint heart to side with the masses. It is a decision dichotomous with subjective passion, so it would take a stronger stomach perhaps to sacrifice family for strangers.


Cold-blooded might be the right word. There would be a great deal of pathos in my decision. In fact, my hand would move by the force of moral passion. However, I would appear as a machine and would feel like a machine in pushing the button. The morality is calculated and the realities would be cold. Some might mistake that for 'cold-blooded' but I think that the opposite is true. Choosing my family and being all warm and sweet and spouting my feeling about it, to me, is truly cold... despite it's trappings.




† Now, having decided: Could you, right now, write a ten page essay on the actual realities and implications of overpopulation? Is it even a genuine consideration? Do you know? Can you?


----------



## snail

chessio said:


> I can see how choosing not to act would vilify you in the public eye and distract them from the actual murderer, instead of picking a button, which would be called a tragedy (but there'd still be controversy on whether you made the right choice, still distracting).
> 
> But for some reason I'm able to see potential for societal change by choosing not to act. But at the same time, what would that mean for defending a friend or stranger from attack?
> 
> Would you use violence to save a friend's life, if the attacker wouldn't die, just be hurt? Or to save your life? If someone was attacking you or your friend, would you allow him/her to kill you and your friend because of your commitment to pacifism? Or would you kill to save someone?


I would not use violence. I have been in plenty of situations where violent self-defense would have made sense from a practical standpoint, but I do not believe it is ever ethical to intentionally, actively harm someone against his/her will. I would attempt to defend my friend nonviolently if necessary. I would not kill to save someone.


----------



## chessio

snail said:


> I would not use violence. I have been in plenty of situations where violent self-defense would have made sense from a practical standpoint, but I do not believe it is ever ethical to intentionally, actively harm someone against his/her will. I would attempt to defend my friend nonviolently if necessary. I would not kill to save someone.


How would you defend your friend nonviolently? Do you mean like Aikedo or something, or would you consider using that a form of violence? I'm trying to see how this would practically, to see if it's possible or ridiculous.


----------



## Loupgaroux

snail said:


> I would not use violence. I have been in plenty of situations where violent self-defense would have made sense from a practical standpoint, but I do not believe it is ever ethical to intentionally, actively harm someone against his/her will. I would attempt to defend my friend nonviolently if necessary. I would not kill to save someone.


Say a person is about to kill your friend (and yourself because you have seen too much), who is gagged, tied to a chair & has a gun pointed to their head. You are also holding a gun pointed at the person. You can either:

*(a: *Shoot the perpetrator dead before they can kill your friend & yourself.

*(b:* Shoot them in the arm or leg or somewhere that would injure them, but not kill them, & thus give you a chance to untie your friend & run. But since the person is injured & not incapacitated, they could easily still point & shoot you & your friend. That way, you & friend still die. 

or

*(c:* Take no action & let the perpetrator kill your friend & yourself. 

Which one do you choose?


----------



## snail

chessio said:


> How would you defend your friend nonviolently? Do you mean like Aikedo or something, or would you consider using that a form of violence? I'm trying to see how this would practically, to see if it's possible or ridiculous.


I don't know much about defensive martial arts. My position is probably something you would consider ridiculous, assuming you are wanting me to be practical instead of maintaining ethical consistency.



Loupgaroux said:


> Say a person is about to kill your friend (and yourself because you have seen too much), who is gagged, tied to a chair & has a gun pointed to their head. You are also holding a gun pointed at the person. You can either:
> 
> *(a: *Shoot the perpetrator dead before they can kill your friend & yourself.
> 
> *(b:* Shoot them in the arm or leg or somewhere that would injure them, but not kill them, & thus give you a chance to untie your friend & run. But since the person is injured & not incapacitated, they could easily still point & shoot you & your friend. That way, you & friend still die.
> 
> or
> 
> *(c:* Take no action & let the perpetrator kill your friend & yourself.
> 
> Which one do you choose?


I would start by trying to talk the attacker out of it, but if I couldn't, I might attempt to nonviolently restrain the attacker, knock the gun out of his/her hand in a way that would not inflict pain, or stand between the attacker and his/her intended victim. I might attempt to distract the attacker and free the victim if I thought I would be able. I would look for other ways out of the situation. I would not shoot the attacker at all, even in the arm or leg. 

Realistically, it would be improbable for me to be in such a situation, so I am not terribly concerned.


----------



## chessio

snail said:


> I don't know much about defensive martial arts. My position is probably something you would consider ridiculous, assuming you are wanting me to be practical instead of maintaining ethical consistency.
> 
> I would start by trying to talk the attacker out of it, but if I couldn't, I might attempt to nonviolently restrain the attacker, knock the gun out of his/her hand in a way that would not inflict pain, or stand between the attacker and his/her intended victim. I might attempt to distract the attacker and free the victim if I thought I would be able. I would look for other ways out of the situation. I would not shoot the attacker at all, even in the arm or leg.
> 
> Realistically, it would be improbable for me to be in such a situation, so I am not terribly concerned.


I wanted to see if it was possible to do both. And what you described yourself doing sounds a lot like Aikido. It's basically a form of self-defense that also tries to minimize the pain inflicted on your attacker. You'd be able to protect yourself and your friend, but still basically be committed to non-violence. It's a practical form of pacifism, I think. I understand the idea of being willing to die for your beliefs, but this way nobody has to die. It's like ultra-pacifism because instead of allowing violence to happen to you or others, you flip the guy over and he goes the jail and everyone carries on living. Bwahahah! Smart, effective pacifism.

Actually I'm looking into taking any martial art (idc if it's aikido, I want to be able to defend myself so that I can do things like go jogging at 10:30am without worrying that a man is going to attack me  I'll kick him in the teeth, idc! Obviously not a pacifist. I assume they ween that attitude out of you though, especially if you take aikido).


----------



## Peter

arkigos said:


> Let's further simplify it then. In front of you, at this very moment, between Esc and F1 on your keyboard, appears a new key, red, that says 'Asia' on it and has an X. Pushing it murders everyone in Asia. Considering global overpopulation, would you push the key?
> 
> Forget the dichotomy and tell me... will you or won't you obliterate billions of lives? You know, to stop overpopulation.†


Again, this has no meaning to me because it's not real. I just made the comment about the over population to show it has no meaning.

Remember the tsunami in Asia some years ago? Like 300.000 people died. Do I feel anything for those people and the survivors? No,... nothing at all.

Would I feel empathy if they would make a program on tv about one single family and all their losses,..... Yeah, some.

Why? If it's personalized it becomes more realistic and thus some feelings will manifest.


How dificult was it for those Americans that had to throw that bomb on Hiroshima? Pretty easy I think because they were defending them selves, their families and their country. Indirectly, not throwing that bomb would be like killing their own families. The difference with the fictional story in here is that they were actually defending themselves from those they were about to kill. In the fictional story, it's killing people that aren't threatening you. It's unrealistic and therefore has no meaning.


----------



## Cosmic Hobo

Obvious: press the right button. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Yes, I'd kill thirty or so people (extended family) - but thirty against 4.3 billion (60% of the world's population)?

It's not a question of emotion, it's a simple question of what makes rational sense.


----------



## NT the DC

I'd call bullshit.
Like noah's ark there is no train that is big enough to hold an entire country.
If the trains were carrying some sort of explosive then I'd still wonder why they were being delivered by plane and conclude bullshit.
Thus I'd press the button to save my family.


----------



## Loupgaroux

Peter said:


> Again, this has no meaning to me because it's not real. I just made the comment about the over population to show it has no meaning.
> 
> Remember the tsunami in Asia some years ago? Like 300.000 people died. Do I feel anything for those people and the survivors? No,... nothing at all.
> 
> Would I feel empathy if they would make a program on tv about one single family and all their losses,..... Yeah, some.
> 
> Why? If it's personalized it becomes more realistic and thus some feelings will manifest.
> 
> 
> How dificult was it for those Americans that had to throw that bomb on Hiroshima? Pretty easy I think because they were defending them selves, their families and their country. Indirectly, not throwing that bomb would be like killing their own families. The difference with the fictional story in here is that they were actually defending themselves from those they were about to kill. In the fictional story, it's killing people that aren't threatening you. It's unrealistic and therefore has no meaning.


Those of us in this forum are making the decisions of which fictional button to press with clear heads, safe in our homes or wherever we're assessing the internet & with no chance of this situation ever coming to fruition. Therefore, it has little real world meaning. You can say you'd sacrifice your family & maybe feel a twinge of sadness about the imagined prospect of losing them, but they are of course still alive & well, so no harm no foul. Hmmm, makes me wish OP has created a more realistic situation.


----------



## sisnerozt

that is sick


----------



## chessio

Loupgaroux said:


> Hmmm, makes me wish OP has created a more realistic situation.


Probably wouldn't have gotten so many responses. Maybe more discussion though.


----------



## Quernus

Okay. The right button is the only rational decision here. No matter how you look at it.

*If it's an ethical question on the value of human lives, *you have two options for perspective.
Option 1. No life/human is inherently more valuable than any other life/human- in which case it only makes sense to save as many lives/humans as possible. It's a matter of net gain and loss at that point.

Option 2. Some lives/humans *are *more inherently valuable than others. I don't know how you would make that determination. But unless you are being purely subjective (in which case you cannot claim to be measuring *inherent* worth), then statistically, you are going to find a higher number of "more valuable people" out of a pool of billions than you will find in your own family. 

*If it's a matter of practicality, *then you have no business allowing/committing a mass genocide. It will result in total chaos and incalculable devastation... politically, socially, economically, culturally, etc. You and your precious family will be living in the dark ages, not to mention everyone else on the planet. For those arguing that it would "solve" our overpopulation problem - really? And you figure this how? By sheer numbers, yes, but this is far from the best solution. In fact it's a terrible one. Aside from that all the culture and history you are destroying, even. If your concern with overpopulation is sustainability - KILLING ALL OF ASIA IS NOT GOING TO CREATE A STABLE WORLD. 

You are also wiping out so many resources and the opportunity for humans to get our acts together and find more creative, advanced, evolved ways to solve our problems. Granted this may never happen, the way things are going, but why go headstrong into *certain* loss over *potential *loss?

There IS the small possibility that it WOULD somehow resolve our planet's problems, but you don't know that it would (do you?). It is not sane or reasonable to make that big of a gamble. 

*If it's a matter of simple self-interest (whether that means a desire to avoid the pain of losing your family, or to preserve a subjectively devised personal value system ("pacifism at all costs"), or to abdicate responsibility; OR if you are simply fascinated by gambling and train-wrecks for your own amusement), *then it would seem that rationality went out the window awhile ago. This shows a lack of foresight (and overall credibility to your capacity for abstraction). In fact I would compare this to the pre-operational stage of human development, with regards to a toddler or small child's severe ego-centrism/inability to grasp that alternative experiences, worldviews, and events exist beyond contingency to their own perceptions. Of course, there's a scale here, so I'm more referring to reasons that are more primal in their selfish manifestations, but still.




In short, this is horrifying.


----------



## Quernus

sisnerozt said:


> that is sick


Have y'all seriously never thought about this kinda thing before? Haha. I find that odd. Well, it's just a thought experiment, and except for those intentionally missing the point, I think it creates opportunity for great discussion.


----------



## Aqua Vitae

glaba said:


> Don't pretend we're not. We're all petty. We're so petty that we focus our energies into seeing what certain words make us seem like.


Well maybe you are arguing and _you _are petty, but I'm just enjoying myself looking at peoples answering and debating about it.


----------



## Nira

Well at first I would try to find a way to break out and maybe make the train explode. If I couldn't do that I'd press both the buttons simultaneously.


----------



## jessnic

I chose neither, because I couldn't live with myself knowing that I purposely killed my entire family. But I couldn't kill asia either. I just wouldn't want to be the one playing God, idk. it feels wrong. I know they'd both die anyways but I couldn't bear to press one cuz then I'd always think, "what if..?" and I'd feel like it was my fault.


----------



## idoh

i would pick the left button. i would not be able to cope without my family at all. knowing i killed all of them, especially after all they've done for me vs. what those two million strangers have done for me, it would drive me nuts! guilt would happen, but the strangers hold no emotional value to me since i don't know them

on the other hand, i could also pick the kill my family button and then kill myself, but i don't think so because i know my family personally and they don't deserve to die like that


----------



## ToplessOrange

Oh, right button, definitely. Given this situation, I'd be thankful that I was blessed with an abusive bunch.

To actually make this a challenge, however, I'm going to throw my closest friends in there. Hm. I don't understand how this wouldn't be traced back to me. All the people who've died have me in common and me only. Is there a signal down here? Can I get a last word in? "Hey, I've loved you for the last 7 years and I'm gonna kill you know, be sure to call me when you get this message."

Hm. I'd probably kill all of Asia. I could probably convince myself to do the less selfish option, to kill all my closest friends and leave Asia alone, but in such a limited time? I'd be working on no superego, all id, and id says friends are fun.


----------



## Kittynip

Well, hah. Uh. 
I don't know. I don't know. 

Regardless of what I chose, I know I'd always regret it.

It'd be a tough reassessment of my priorities and values. But whatever, they'd be fickle in the face of a decision like that.

I have a feeling I'd choose what to press towards the very end of the time limit. 
& that I'd have been struggling trying to decide - alternating buttons, the pros and cons, everything, etc for the entire time. 

Silly, yeah. But whichever button had managed to trump the other for that _last_ moment in that mental back and forth, would be the one I'd end up picking out of desperation. Not 'cause of any steadfast value. Just a selection based on alternating my options and the finality of my decision being chosen by the clock.

Maybe it'd end up alleviating my guilt. Leaving it to chance, under the illusion of a moral struggle. ;p
Haha, we just love to justify.


----------



## GoosePeelings

There are way too many people here. I go with left. It's better for environment.
And I'm a horrid mess, something between N and S.


----------



## Hyphero

Both choices are irredeemably bad.

The left button is what I consider a gross violation of basic rights and would create a serious drop in world population (Asia has like billions of people!), the right is just abhorrent and disloyal.

Considering me, I would not press the button at all! (unless I HAD to choose, and neither wasn't an option, then right)


----------



## Lemxn

Left.


----------



## LemurianOfMu

Sorry family but I love Asian women way too much. lol.

If it was a different continent such as Africa or Australia then it would be a much harder choice to make with me probably not pushing either but with Asia, I have no second guesses. 

Also North America and Europe would be incredibly difficult choices as well but I'd still probably push the right button.


----------



## Nightchill

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track. In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.



You may have overlooked the fact that some people's families suck.


----------



## Tauke

I'm not very fond of my family. However, the biggest part of the human population on earth lives in Asia, and since earth is overpopulated I chose NT-left.


----------



## DustOfShard

My family are careless slaughterers themselves mentally and emotionally. If it wasn't for the law and masses I might be wearing their blood by _hand_. Like steel is tempered so I have been sword forged, and yet I must be the one to sheath myself.

Go NT's and NF's for repressed rage and/or the greater good, FTW! >,<;

Family only in word; ritualistic sadistic assholes by deed.

Also, I'd say fuck you to whoever set up that room, and say aloud this is a no brainer so get me out. I bet it is my family behind that note anyways, and they will just use my choice to taunt me at the next thanksgiving. >_>


----------



## Riptide

It really depends on the reason behind. I would go for neither though. I am non-discriminative like this.14


----------



## eilonwe

I have family in North America, Asia, and Europe. Whoops.


----------



## Who_Am_eYe

I'd press the left, I'm too selfish to kill my family.. people I love.


----------



## Lucky Luciano

I would make a bomb from bubblegum like MacGyver and magically save the day.


----------



## Nyctophilia

I would press the right one, a few deaths is nothing compared to millions.


----------



## shakti

Down with the innocent strangers!!!! :-D

Seriously, though, even if this totally far-fetched scenario somehow managed to actually happen, who the hell is able to predict how they would react to something in the future? :-D


----------



## SoulRefugee

Right button duh... Then I get my inheritance faster (joking). I'm sure my family would want me to kill them anyway if it meant sparing masses of innocent people.


----------



## QueenOfCats

my family


----------



## Laybunny

It may seem selfish, but I would save my family. I'm just too close to them and I can't really imagine living without them


----------



## Bahburah

Neither.

I don't know why...

It's stupid I know.


----------



## joshman108

SuburbanLurker said:


> you can swap Asia for the Americas.


Ya because fuck America.

I said that I wouldn't press anything because the whole thing is probably some hoax and I feel I have the most control by pressing nothing. But in retrospect it would probably be better to kill my family because it would send the world into serious turmoil if I killed more than half of the worlds population as well as getting rid of most of the worlds manufacturing.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Anyone who has children and still chooses the right button is beyond deluded and utterly repulsive.


----------



## sinaasappel

SuburbanLurker said:


> Here's a scenario:
> 
> You've awoken alone on a speeding train with no recollection of how you got there. You look around and notice that the interior resembles a prison cell in how secure it seems, and there are no train controls to be found except for two ominous looking red buttons on the wall. On the floor beside you lies a timer counting down from 6:42, and beside it a note. The note reads,
> 
> _"When the timer reaches zero *the train will reach a 3-way fork in the track.*In front of you are two big red buttons. Press the button to your left and the train will turn left, thus killing every living soul in Asia. Press the button to your right and the train will turn right, thus killing everyone in your family. Fail to press either button and the train will continue on its current route, killing both groups.
> 
> Regardless of your choice, you will not be harmed, no one will ever be informed of your involvement, nor will we ever reveal our identity".
> _
> 
> You have only as much information as the note contains and cannot request clarification on anything. The clock is ticking. Make your choice.
> 
> Also, if you or your family happen to live in Asia, you can swap Asia for the Americas.


Theyre at the end of the fork because it says there's a 3 way fork and if you press neither they will both get hit (most likely die)?

So I think they would all get hit (most likely die) anyways its just a matter of whether or not you would choose a button I thought of this because they have to intersect at some point to hit both groups 
if you press neither (or it could go around the track 3 times but...)

I had another hypothesis that maybe pressing both buttons would give you the option of killing neither because if neither=both
Then both=neither
I don't think that would work but id try it anyways


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya

Ziwosa said:


> Kill family. Every. Single. Time. I wouldn't even blink. Easy choice. Because it's the only moral thing to do.
> To everyone pressing the left button, your selfish immoral choices is part of what's wrong with the world.
> Imagine if others followed the same route, everyone would be dead soon by similar choices being made.
> And it looks like plenty of people would indeed go this route ...
> Sad.
> 
> Choosing neither button, is even worse. Inaction. Trying to avoid responsibility.
> Ever heard of the holocaust?
> Yeah ... a lot of inaction and avoidance of responsibility is what made that possible.
> 
> This thread is a perfect demonstration of how humanity sucks. We'll probably end up killing ourselves as a species because of the selfishness and immoral behavior of all the individuals. Will the others be able to change this? Time will tell.


This is a brilliant post. 'Family first' is the worst thing in this world, and is solely responsible for the majority of its ills.

Besides, I couldn't 'morally' kill strangers. What have they ever done to me? My family on the other hand have pissed me off on any number of occasions.

Almost all my family except for my parents and the odd cousin live in Asia anyway.


----------



## Ziwosa

@NomadLeviathan 



Spitta Andretti said:


> This is a brilliant post. 'Family first' is the worst thing in this world, and is solely responsible for the majority of its ills.


Glad someone agrees. We're not alone. 
But we've got a long way to go.
Everyone absolutely needs to grow beyond their own self interests if humanity is to survive.



Dante Scioli said:


> Anyone who has children and still chooses the right button is beyond deluded and utterly repulsive.


On the contrary. Why are YOUR kids their lives worth more than millions of other lives? Just how much more egoistic can you get?

The left and non pressers are the repulsive ones. Especially the non pressers.
And it's not just an opinion. It's the most moral choice. Moral defined as Kant did so beautifully:



> Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason behind the action, not by its consequences. We can determine the worth of the motive behind any given moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive into a universally applicable maxim. Reason is the same at all times and for all people, so morality too should be universal. Therefore, an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya

Ziwosa said:


> On the contrary. Why are YOUR kids their lives worth more than millions of other lives? Just how much more egoistic can you get?
> The left and non pressers are the repulsive ones.


Nailed it again!


----------



## Dante Scioli

Ziwosa said:


> On the contrary. Why are YOUR kids their lives worth more than millions of other lives? Just how much more egoistic can you get?
> 
> The left and non pressers are the repulsive ones. Especially the non pressers.
> And it's not just an opinion. It's the most moral choice. Moral defined as Kant did so beautifully:


First of all, Kant was wrong: morality does not reduce to rationality. Philosophers suspected it might for millennia before him, and he made the most Herculean effort to try to prove it. What is so profound about Kant is that he failed. This is why we have had centuries of philosophy after Kant, the overwhelmingly dominant trend of which has been a rejection of his ethics.

Specifically regarding his categorical imperative, it clearly falls short when he says that all moral actions are universalizable. No, they are not: we live in a world of individuals, and sometimes it works best when individuals specialize and do different things. He needed morality to be universal because his quest was to reduce it to reason and logic, which are universal.

I just want to make it clear that I do greatly admire Kant. He was the culmination of two thousand years of Western philosophy, and he did succeed, in a way, in his quest to reach the bedrock where morality and reason meet. He uncovered great truths for us. Unfortunately, what he revealed down there was not what he, or those who came before him, had hoped. But it was a great truth nonetheless.


That said, since morality is not universal but subjective, you must consider the subject when considering moral decisions. The subject in this train example is you. Your children ought to mean more to you than half the planet. This is not "egotistical," it doesn't mean you believe your children are _objectively_ more valuable. It means that objective morality does not exist, so you must appeal to the subject to find it.



Also, to come at this from an evolutionary angle, to place a higher priority on the future of other lineages at the expense of your own is unfit. If this action were performed out of altruism, it would demonstrate a level of altruism that is unfit for survival and your genes would be rightfully selected to retire from the gene pool.

However, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of right-pressing parents here are _not_ motivated by feelings of altruism. They are instead motivated by a deluded sense of value, and think they see objective good, rather than altruistic sacrifice, in their choice.


----------



## Ziwosa

Dante Scioli said:


> That said, since morality is not universal but subjective, you must consider the subject when considering moral decisions. The subject in this train example is you. Your children ought to mean more to you than half the planet. This is not "egotistical," it doesn't mean you believe your children are _objectively_ more valuable. It means that objective morality does not exist, so you must appeal to the subject to find it.


Not here to discuss mortality itself, merely was referring to Kant his definition because his reasoning is how I chose what button to press. Something is moral when everyone is better off being moral. And immoral when everyone is worse off if everyone were to be immoral.

I'm a nihilist at the core, and believe everything is subjective, no objective good nor bad. I just chose to be moral according to Kant his definition because that's just my own personal subjective vision on life. The vision that seems the most reasonable and effective in getting humanity to grow as much as possible. To spread across the universe and to create more knowledge.



Dante Scioli said:


> Also, to come at this from an evolutionary angle, to place a higher priority on the future of other lineages at the expense of your own is unfit. If this action were performed out of altruism, it would demonstrate a level of altruism that is unfit for survival and your genes would be rightfully selected to retire from the gene pool.


This is ironic, because you fail to see that sooner or later we will most likely eradicate our own entire species because left button pressers. So again, on the contrary. People who press the right button are doing the survival of our species an enormous boost. Unlike the left pressers who kill of millions of their own species, and therefor reduce the chances of our species survival. Right pressers are intelligent enough to go against their own natural biological instinct to reproduce their specific genes in realizing that our species is fucked entirely if everyone presses the left button.


----------



## Dante Scioli

Ziwosa said:


> This is ironic, because you fail to see that sooner or later we will most likely eradicate our own entire species because left button pressers. So again, on the contrary. People who press the right button are doing the survival of our species an enormous boost. Unlike the left pressers who kill of millions of their own species, and therefor reduce the chances of our species survival. Right pressers are intelligent enough to go against their own natural biological instinct to reproduce their specific genes in realizing that our species is fucked entirely if everyone presses the left button.


...No. We are better served if everyone cares about their own lineage enough to try to guarantee it continues. You know why? Precisely because we don't often wake up in trains forced to decide the fate of billions. Just because placing a high priority on your family spells global catastrophe in _this_ hypothetical example, that doesn't mean it always does.

In fact, it leads unequivocally to a better world in nature, in our primal state, in our premodern societies, and I see no reason why the industrial revolution should have changed that. Still seems just as true as it always has been.


----------



## Ziwosa

Dante Scioli said:


> ...No. We are better served if everyone cares about their own lineage enough to try to guarantee it continues. You know why? Precisely because we don't often wake up in trains forced to decide the fate of billions. Just because placing a high priority on your family spells global catastrophe in _this_ hypothetical example, that doesn't mean it always does.


But in _this thread_, it's exactly about _just that_.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia

I'd press the right button.
The only family member I care about is my mom, and she'd murder me if I didn't choose the right button. Seriously.
All those left-button pressers are descendants of Cersei, I suppose?


----------



## Dante Scioli

Ziwosa said:


> But in _this thread_, it's exactly about _just that_.


Worth.

It's an exceptional, singular event. If we lived in a world where this shit happened often, maybe we might change our principles.


----------



## Ziwosa

hypoglycemia said:


> I'd press the right button.
> The only family member I care about is my mom, and she'd murder me if I didn't choose the right button. Seriously.
> All those left-button pressers are descendants of Cersei, I suppose?


Can you hook me up with your mom? I'd like to create more people like you.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia

Ziwosa said:


> Can you hook me up with your mom? I'd like to create more people like you.


-deleted post because irrelevant-


----------



## WaffleSingSong

Id press right, feel almost obliged here.

As Spock said: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."


----------



## Ziwosa

hypoglycemia said:


> She used to do modelling in college and she resembles Rihanna (only way shorter & huge boobs) so I assume that you'd like to hook up with her. I'll leave you alone with the "managing to get an asexual INFJ pregnant" part.


I'm all in it for the beautiful mind you silly! 
Couldn't care less for the body that goes with it.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia

Ziwosa said:


> I'm all in it for the beautiful mind you silly!
> Couldn't care less for the body that goes with it.


I know but...are you going to use in vitro fertilization or something?


----------



## Ziwosa

hypoglycemia said:


> I know but...are you going to use in vitro fertilization or something?


Well how did your father do it


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia

Ziwosa said:


> Well how did your father do it


Well , to not discuss my parents' sex lives in a forum
Why the fuck do people choose neither button?


----------



## Ziwosa

hypoglycemia said:


> Well , to not discuss my parents' sex lives in a forum
> Why the fuck do people choose neither button?


Because avoiding responsibility is the easiest way out of anything.


----------

