View Poll Results: Should one of the men be forsaken?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • forsake the last guy

    8 47.06%
  • do not forsake the last guy

    9 52.94%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Moral question

  1. #31
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,703

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

    This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

    The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

    Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

    EDIT

    There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
    Not that you've given this option, but I'd suggest that each of the men takes a turn, rotating, 10 minutes in the water and 20 minutes on the raft. The weight of the third man in the water, holding onto the raft, would not alter the buoyancy of the raft with two men on it. The 20 minutes on the raft, every half hour, should provide sufficient time for recovery prior to reentering the water. Depending on the time the men are stranded at sea, nature will take its course and one of the men will expire before the other two. At that point, the remaining two men can remain in the raft until rescued.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Skeptic Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    7,636

    Re: Moral question

    I don't think I would sacrifice the other guy. If I survived I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror. But in the moment, who knows what I would actually do?

  3. #33
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    10,055

    Re: Moral question

    This is basically the trolley problem.

    I'd sacrifice one to save two. In general, that's a fair trade. In general.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --First Amendment to the United States Constitution

  4. #34
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,198

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by Winchester
    you're going to die anyway and believe in the hereafter, why not volunteer and die with sacrificing for others on one's soul.
    Well, first, the OP asked us to consider the situation from a neutral view, outside that of any of the three people on the raft. So that would be like me volunteering someone else for suicide. My reply was meant to simply express what I see as the primary ethical concern within the situation.

    That said, the reason suicide is wrong in most instances is because it abdicates one's duties towards others. If death is both certain and immanent, then suicide is acceptable. However, from the point of view of one of the guys on the raft, I would not be certain that death is immanent, for me or either of the other two. From God's point of view, the OP instructs us to treat it as if there are no alternatives. But there's no way the men on the raft could know that there is no solution.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,999

    Re: Moral question

    I would seek any viable alternative first.


    If none were found, better one man die than all three.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

    This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

    The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

    Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

    EDIT

    There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
    That basically sums up the total human experience. The three should work together towards the survival of the group, not turn on eachother. Bail water, inflate the raft, sleep in shifts....

  7. #37
    Dungeon Master
    Sewer Rat

    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,324

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    There are three human beings on a raft out in the sea. They are all rather the same; each is your average Joe, a good guy who does his work and gets along well with those around him.

    This raft however is made of a material that doesn't have enough buoyancy to be able to keep all three men afloat, evident by its slow descent into the water the longer the three men stay on it. The water below is icy cold and the temperature combined with the moisture is enough to kill a man after hardly a dozen minutes of exposure (guy becomes unconscious and then drowns/dies of hypothermia).

    The raft does however, have the buoyancy to support two guys.

    Should one be forsaken? Simple moral question, there is no right or wrong. But this is mainly a test to see what you would do.

    EDIT

    There is no other option. You either forsake this man or have him hang on with the rest. You may give reasoning and you may debate other's reasoning.
    Leave the priest in the water and paddle away from him like mad.










    "When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf



  8. #38
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Moral question

    Find an iceberg. Cut a hole in it. Take the third guy and kick him in the ice hole.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  9. #39
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,352

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Not that you've given this option, but I'd suggest that each of the men takes a turn, rotating, 10 minutes in the water and 20 minutes on the raft. The weight of the third man in the water, holding onto the raft, would not alter the buoyancy of the raft with two men on it. The 20 minutes on the raft, every half hour, should provide sufficient time for recovery prior to reentering the water. Depending on the time the men are stranded at sea, nature will take its course and one of the men will expire before the other two. At that point, the remaining two men can remain in the raft until rescued.
    10 minutes is too long. Not to mention, the game is over once the clothes get wet since you can't dry off and warm up before your next dive in the water from the rotation. That option would effectively forsake all the men.

    There is however, the unknown in regards to what happens in the days succeeding the day on when the decision to let one go or not is made.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  10. #40
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,352

    Re: Moral question

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That basically sums up the total human experience. The three should work together towards the survival of the group, not turn on eachother. Bail water, inflate the raft, sleep in shifts....
    That would fall under the "don't forsake anyone."

    You're choosing to not forsake anyone and hope that something happens before you all perish. Could be a wise and moral choice. Who knows?

    There was a situation in my theology book in which a boat capsized and nearly all the food and water was lost. An old uncle with his nephew had been out in the ocean trying to beat a world record. The uncle surmised that if he stayed on board, what little food and water was left would be consumed too fast and they would both die. He committed suicide and jumped off the boat in order to better ensure the nephew's safety, only for the nephew to be rescued hardly two days later.

    This problem shares a vague resemblance to that situation. Do you take your chances with the risk of everyone dying, or do you not take too much of a risk and dispose of one of the members in the assumption that rescue won't come for a long time?
    Last edited by Luftwaffe; 04-24-15 at 07:27 PM.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •