I was surprised to see you answer that. I would have imagined you, for some preconceived notion I may have of you, thinking along the lines of "what has the fat man got to do with it in the first place?" But that's actually my take on it. Why were those 5 men stuck there to begin with? Ah, I can never answer these! But I agree with the base reasoning of your argument - losing 1 is better than losing 5. I would just find it really upsetting to *be* that fat man, I guess. "Fuck, I had nothing to do with this! I was just waiting for the damn train, then some asshole pushed me!"
So it wouldn't really be a matter of "saving" him, but killing him to save the other five.
Yah, I think you've got to presume that the five men aren't really at fault for anything and they they just happen to tied to the tracks for reasons that are disconnected from the fact they are immigrants who don't contribute financially to society. My problem with the OP was that they were trying to measure the worth of someone's life by how much money they are contributing to society, which is just fraught with problems.
It's all tied up in the fact that people feel more responsible for the death of the fat man than the death of the five men, because the fat man would have died from their (the observer's) action whereas the five men would only have died from the observer's lack of action. People always seem to feel more guilty if something bad happens because they did something as opposed to something bad happening because they didn't do something.
Obviously you'd be pretty pissed if you were the fat man, but you be pissed if you were either of the five men as well, I guess :/ Hey, here's a thought... maybe it was the fat man who tied the 5 men to the tracks! :O
"My problem with the OP was that they were trying to measure the worth of someone's life by how much money they are contributing to society, which is just fraught with problems."
Exactly.
In the real world, people do not contribute "money" to society. People contribute "value" to society, and receive "payment/money" to themselves. Generally, executives do very little real work and get paid a lot, while the blue collar and no collar workers get paid in table scraps. (I say "generally" because maybe there are some good exec's out there, who knows...)
Let's redefine our terms to better understand this:
"Currency" = Paper/metal that represents "money".
"Money" = Something of tangible value. Precious metals is a good example.
"Value" = How much one form of money can trade for another form of money. For example, how much it costs to buy a loaf of bread with "currency" that represents "money".
(Unfortunately, we are currently under the "fiat" currency system. In this system the currency has been detached from the value of real money (aka gold/silver)... with detrimental consequences. But this is another story entirely...)
Who's life would you rather save?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I was surprised to see you answer that. I would have imagined you, for some preconceived notion I may have of you, thinking along the lines of "what has the fat man got to do with it in the first place?" But that's actually my take on it. Why were those 5 men stuck there to begin with? Ah, I can never answer these! But I agree with the base reasoning of your argument - losing 1 is better than losing 5. I would just find it really upsetting to *be* that fat man, I guess. "Fuck, I had nothing to do with this! I was just waiting for the damn train, then some asshole pushed me!"
So it wouldn't really be a matter of "saving" him, but killing him to save the other five.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Yah, I think you've got to presume that the five men aren't really at fault for anything and they they just happen to tied to the tracks for reasons that are disconnected from the fact they are immigrants who don't contribute financially to society. My problem with the OP was that they were trying to measure the worth of someone's life by how much money they are contributing to society, which is just fraught with problems.
It's all tied up in the fact that people feel more responsible for the death of the fat man than the death of the five men, because the fat man would have died from their (the observer's) action whereas the five men would only have died from the observer's lack of action. People always seem to feel more guilty if something bad happens because they did something as opposed to something bad happening because they didn't do something.
Obviously you'd be pretty pissed if you were the fat man, but you be pissed if you were either of the five men as well, I guess :/ Hey, here's a thought... maybe it was the fat man who tied the 5 men to the tracks! :O
--
MissyLeyneous
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"My problem with the OP was that they were trying to measure the worth of someone's life by how much money they are contributing to society, which is just fraught with problems."
Exactly.
In the real world, people do not contribute "money" to society. People contribute "value" to society, and receive "payment/money" to themselves. Generally, executives do very little real work and get paid a lot, while the blue collar and no collar workers get paid in table scraps. (I say "generally" because maybe there are some good exec's out there, who knows...)
Let's redefine our terms to better understand this:
"Currency" = Paper/metal that represents "money".
"Money" = Something of tangible value. Precious metals is a good example.
"Value" = How much one form of money can trade for another form of money. For example, how much it costs to buy a loaf of bread with "currency" that represents "money".
(Unfortunately, we are currently under the "fiat" currency system. In this system the currency has been detached from the value of real money (aka gold/silver)... with detrimental consequences. But this is another story entirely...)