• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

oops our more portly members are fecked

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    It's interesting this because actually the only answer you can give is to do absolutely nothing.

    If you push the fat man off the bridge and kill him that is murder - even though in doing so you save more people.

    If you do not push the fat man and the other 5 people get killed - not your fault.

    The law is an ass.
    In UK and US common law, you're not legally obliged to help anyone in danger or distress, even if there is negligable or zero risk to yourself.

    So legally, and arguably morally, you're perfectly entitled to let the five people be killed. It's just their hard luck and not your fault.

    But things may be more complicated if you had a part in getting them into their predicament in the first place, or if your job has an explicit life saving aspect such as a pool guard.

    edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
    Last edited by OwlHoot; 21 January 2020, 15:15.
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Si666 View Post
      "assgoo" what are you, like 6 year old or something?

      we try to talk up to this particular poster who I assume you are a sockie for.
      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by vetran View Post
        we try to talk up to this particular poster who I assume you are a sockie for.
        I've no idea what you're talking about but am pretty convinced you're a bit... odd.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Si666 View Post
          I've no idea what you're talking about but am pretty convinced you're a bit... odd.
          That's a true statement in itself but not for the reason you're surmising, I suspect

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
            In UK and US common law, you're not legally obliged to help anyone in danger or distress, even if there is negligable or zero risk to yourself.

            So legally, and arguably morally, you're perfectly entitled to let the five people be killed. It's just their hard luck and not your fault.

            But things may be more complicated if you had a part in getting them into their predicament in the first place, or if your job has an explicit life saving aspect such as a pool guard.

            edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
            Ooh it's all a bit 'I, Robot' where wotsisface dislikes robots cos of some accident and the wrong person was saved (in his opinion) due to programming giving cold evaluation of survivability or something.

            Comment


              #26
              There is no need to kill anyone. Anyone who had a train-set when they were a kid will know you can derail a train by switching tracks just after the first wheel cross.

              Runaway train or tram? That only happens in movies. See Westinghouse fail-safe braking systems fitted to all trains since 1869.
              "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                There is no need to kill anyone. Anyone who had a train-set when they were a kid will know you can derail a train by switching tracks just after the first wheel cross.

                Runaway train or tram? That only happens in movies. See Westinghouse fail-safe braking systems fitted to all trains since 1869.
                Paddy is a fount of knowledge - most of it tulipe.
                Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Did the repeat the experiment with a not fat man?

                  "Would you shoot a Jew if they were holding a knife to your wife's throat?"
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by original PM View Post
                    Interesting question but nope - do nothing and you are innocent.
                    But are you innocent? In the eyes of the law today, then yes, but you haven't really 'done nothing', you have made a conscious decision to allow 5 people to die.

                    So the choices you are given are :
                    - actively push a man off a bridge to kill him to save 5 or/
                    - actively decide to do nothing and to allow 5 people to die

                    These scenarios often move on to give us more information about the people. For example, you initially chose to not push the fat bloke off the bridge, but now you are told he is a convicted pedo on the run. Would you push him now? How does this change your moral compass?

                    Or maybe you had decided initially to push the fat bloke, you are then told he has a young wife with 2 young children. Would you still push him off?

                    This is an update to the balloon debate .... that is, there are 5 people in the balloon but it is sinking. 1 person needs to be thrown out to save 4 others. If no one goes overboard, they all die. The 5 people are given characters (e.g. an old priest, young mom, lawyer etc).

                    There is never a 'right' answer - it is just a test of morality.
                    I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
                      What about pushing the fat guy off the bridge then claiming he selflessly jumped?

                      That way he dies a hero, the five other people survive, and you don't get done for murder?

                      Win-win-win!!

                      Why don't you just selflessly jump then, rather than waiting to be pushed. Come on Spuddy, this is your time to be the hero you always wanted to be
                      I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter man

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X