CDZ Which do you choose and why?

[Wyatt earp]

I got laid so many times to this song

 

[The Professor]

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board. So I thought I'd just throw a philosophy question out there, since I, and I'm sure many others, have zero desire to participate in many of the other useless threads, just uttering nonsense.

2 part scenario question. 1st scenario: you're the conductor of a train, there are 5 people ahed of you on the tracks that you will hit unless you switch tracks, which will cause you to hit one person. What do you do and why.

2nd scenario:You are observing the conductor from a bridge over the tracks. You notice he isn't paying attention, and there are 5 people he's about to hit, unless you can get his attention in time to switch tracks, where no one is standing. The only way to do this is to push an innocent bystander off the bridge onto the engine, that will alert the conductor about the oncoming people...what do you do?

"Reverse engines, full thrust, warp three!"

OK --- who are the five people?

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board.

You got that right.

Jesus people, it's a game/exercise, play it. What they look like or who they are doesn't matter

OK, no one else will play so I will.

In the first scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.

In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than throw an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?

The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, I have no choice but to allow people to die. The only decision is whether to allow five people to die or only one. In the second, I do have a choice. I can allow the accident to happen; I can commit murder by pushing an innocent victim to his/her death or I can jump on the train myself. I have no right to kill an innocent person to prevent a fatal accident. If taking a life is worth saving five people then that life must be my own

Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:

“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia


NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway

 

[Wyatt earp]

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board. So I thought I'd just throw a philosophy question out there, since I, and I'm sure many others, have zero desire to participate in many of the other useless threads, just uttering nonsense.

2 part scenario question. 1st scenario: you're the conductor of a train, there are 5 people ahed of you on the tracks that you will hit unless you switch tracks, which will cause you to hit one person. What do you do and why.

2nd scenario:You are observing the conductor from a bridge over the tracks. You notice he isn't paying attention, and there are 5 people he's about to hit, unless you can get his attention in time to switch tracks, where no one is standing. The only way to do this is to push an innocent bystander off the bridge onto the engine, that will alert the conductor about the oncoming people...what do you do?

"Reverse engines, full thrust, warp three!"

OK --- who are the five people?

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board.

You got that right.

Jesus people, it's a game/exercise, play it. What they look like or who they are doesn't matter

OK, no one else will play so I will.

In the first scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.

In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than throw an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?

Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:

“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia




NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.


OK, no one else will play so I will.



In the firs scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.



In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than thrown an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?



Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:



“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia




NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.

OK, no one else will play so I will.



In the firs scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.



In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than thrown an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?

The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, I must allow people to die. My only choice is whether to allow five people to die or only one. In the second, I have three options: I can allow the accident to happen; I can throw an innocent victim to his/her death or I can jump on the train myself to save five people. I have no right to kill anyone to prevent a fatal accident. If it is worth an innocent life to save five people then the life must be my own.

Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:

“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia

NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.

Do what I would do launch on the brakes and throw it to the right

 

[Wyatt earp]

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board. So I thought I'd just throw a philosophy question out there, since I, and I'm sure many others, have zero desire to participate in many of the other useless threads, just uttering nonsense.

2 part scenario question. 1st scenario: you're the conductor of a train, there are 5 people ahed of you on the tracks that you will hit unless you switch tracks, which will cause you to hit one person. What do you do and why.

2nd scenario:You are observing the conductor from a bridge over the tracks. You notice he isn't paying attention, and there are 5 people he's about to hit, unless you can get his attention in time to switch tracks, where no one is standing. The only way to do this is to push an innocent bystander off the bridge onto the engine, that will alert the conductor about the oncoming people...what do you do?

"Reverse engines, full thrust, warp three!"

OK --- who are the five people?

There's a stark lacking of good discussion topics on this board.

You got that right.

Jesus people, it's a game/exercise, play it. What they look like or who they are doesn't matter

OK, no one else will play so I will.

In the first scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.

In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than throw an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?

Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:

“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia




NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.


OK, no one else will play so I will.



In the firs scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.



In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than thrown an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?



Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:



“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia




NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.

OK, no one else will play so I will.



In the firs scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.



In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than thrown an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?

The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, I must allow people to die. My only choice is whether to allow five people to die or only one. In the second, I have three options: I can allow the accident to happen; I can throw an innocent victim to his/her death or I can jump on the train myself to save five people. I have no right to kill anyone to prevent a fatal accident. If it is worth an innocent life to save five people then the life must be my own.

Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:

“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.

“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia

NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway.

Do what I would do launch on the brakes and throw it to the right

I will take my own life before others

It's not fair it's not right

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It depends is she hot?

It's a cold winter day and everyone's wearing multiple layers and you can't tell what they look like

But does she have Betty Davis eyes?

I miss the eighties.....

God i want to go back as much as you..we were on fire then

I hear ya!!! Music was was badass in those days!!!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's a cold winter day and everyone's wearing multiple layers and you can't tell what they look like

But does she have Betty Davis eyes?

I miss the eighties.....

God i want to go back as much as you..we were on fire then

I hear ya!!! Music was was badass in those days!!!!!

But I do admit pentanox can play

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

But does she have Betty Davis eyes?

I miss the eighties.....

God i want to go back as much as you..we were on fire then

I hear ya!!! Music was was badass in those days!!!!!

But I do admit pentanox can play

Love Radioactive !!!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Check her out in round table

Enjoy

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I miss the eighties.....

God i want to go back as much as you..we were on fire then

I hear ya!!! Music was was badass in those days!!!!!

But I do admit pentanox can play

Love Radioactive !!!!!