RE: Christians: Saving the Damned?
May 3, 2012 at 4:26 am
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2012 at 4:32 am by Welsh cake.)
I'd choose the lot that have the greatest probability of survival.
I can't save a whopping 100 atheists, a 100 Muslims or a 100 Christians from certain death at once. I'm just one man with two arms at the end of the day. I want to save all 104 endangered persons, but reality is a bitch so its not viable or realistically possible. I realise I can't save just one Christian from one group, or one atheist from the other, its all or nothing. I either save them or perish trying.
The smaller group have the greater chances to survive since I *may* be able to save all of the 4 in the atheist group.
You fail to understand yourself also, because you don't seem to know what you would do when confronted with this hypothetical scenario, what impulses you'd be feeling, or which party to ultimately save and why.
No one is going to call you a jackass if you justify why you chose the 100 or the 4. I won't criticise you if you can't answer it because the dilemma and the consequentiality of allowing either 4 or a 100 people to die is too much to bear for you.
HOWEVER, we ARE going to call you out though if you REFUSE to answer a simple question and draw the line at some point. It tells us you're either apathetic or have hidden prejudices toward either group.
I can't save a whopping 100 atheists, a 100 Muslims or a 100 Christians from certain death at once. I'm just one man with two arms at the end of the day. I want to save all 104 endangered persons, but reality is a bitch so its not viable or realistically possible. I realise I can't save just one Christian from one group, or one atheist from the other, its all or nothing. I either save them or perish trying.
The smaller group have the greater chances to survive since I *may* be able to save all of the 4 in the atheist group.
(May 2, 2012 at 12:06 am)Drich Wrote: What you all fail to see is the illusion of control you are exercising in this scenario.What you fail to understand is that this is a thought experiment in ethics.
You fail to understand yourself also, because you don't seem to know what you would do when confronted with this hypothetical scenario, what impulses you'd be feeling, or which party to ultimately save and why.
No one is going to call you a jackass if you justify why you chose the 100 or the 4. I won't criticise you if you can't answer it because the dilemma and the consequentiality of allowing either 4 or a 100 people to die is too much to bear for you.
HOWEVER, we ARE going to call you out though if you REFUSE to answer a simple question and draw the line at some point. It tells us you're either apathetic or have hidden prejudices toward either group.
