EF social experiment.

[superqt4u2nv]

Leave it on the path its already on.. Who am I to choice life or death of another.

A reasonable opposing view thank you.

I hate all you people that are trying to change the situation it is what it is you only have those options.

First scenario a lot of people will say they would kill the one person but it seems hard to push the fat man no?

One death spares 5 what's the difference?

 

[bigbassturd]

Obviously most would take the path of least distruction and use the track that would save the most lives. There aren't that many sick fucks that would rather watch 5 people die..

Well, except for needto...

 

[superqt4u2nv]

Obviously most would take the path of least distruction and use the track that would save the most lives. There aren't that many sick fucks that would rather watch 5 people die..

Well, except for needto...

Ok your a dr you have five patients one needs a liver, one a heart, one a kidney, another bone marrow, last a gal bladder. With out these things they all die. You have another healthy patient happens to be a match to all of theses things. Do you kill him to save the others?

One dies but 5 live its the path of least destruction no?

 

[-SD-]

Ok your a dr you have five patients one needs a liver, one a heart, one a kidney, another bone marrow, last a gal bladder. With out these things they all die. You have another healthy patient happens to be a match to all of theses things. Do you kill him to save the others?

One dies but 5 live its the path of least destruction no?

If that was the case the government could take any healthy person against their will, kill them, then distribute all their organs so that multiple others may life. But we dont do that because of human rights or civil rights infringement and the hippocratic oath. It is not the responsibility of the healthy to be sacrificed for the terminally ill, as the healthy did not cause the problems of the ill so they bear no punishment for them.

 

[youpissmeoff]

Imagine yourself in a trolley car going down a track with 5 rail workers in front of you. The break on the trolley malfunctions you can't stop the trolley it going to crash into 5 people and kill them. But wait there is a second track with only one worked and you can pull the lever to jump to the track with the one worker on it which will kill just him.

What do you do it's a split second choice make it and provide reason for your answer.

Not enough info - any lawyers or politicians involved?

 

[bigbassturd]

If that was the case the government could take any healthy person against their will, kill them, then distribute all their organs so that multiple others may life. But we dont do that because of human rights or civil rights infringement and the hippocratic oath. It is not the responsibility of the healthy to be sacrificed for the terminally ill, as the healthy did not cause the problems of the ill so they bear no punishment for them.

sounds like obamacare

Sent from my SCH-I500 using EliteFitness

 

[-SD-]

sounds like obamacare

Sent from my SCH-I500 using EliteFitness

which part, what im arguing for or against?

 

[bigbassturd]

Against. making fkrs suffer 'for the greater good'

 

[-SD-]

Against. making fkrs suffer 'for the greater good'

Dont question. Dont you ever question. Obey.

 

[superqt4u2nv]

Whats the difference between all 3 deaths in the end one person is deciding the fate of another if you choose to kill the one guy what makes the Dr choice so much worse?