What If You Had a Choice to Press a Button?

[JabbingJab]

If you press it, all your T-related issues will disappear. You will eliminate all sensory problems you may have or will have in the future. But the only drawback is that pressing the button means somewhere in the planet Earth someone dies.

Would you press it?

Another situation to think about is: what if the person who dies will be randomly selected from people who are already on death row?

 

[Chelles]

@JabbingJab what a wonderful thread thanks for posting...my answer is no I couldn't live with myself knowing because of my actions someone died.

 

[marqualler]

My answer is also no. Great question!

 

[marqualler]

Also I am personally anti-Death Penalty. So my answer would still be no.

 

[Danny Boy]

If you press it, all your T-related issues will disappear. You will eliminate all sensory problems you may have or will have in the future. But the only drawback is that pressing the button means somewhere in the planet Earth someone dies.

Would you press it?

Another situation to think about is: what if the person who dies will be randomly selected from people who are already on death row?

That's like the hardest question ever...I'd say yes, if it's a horrible person haha.

 

[Danny Boy]

Also I am personally anti-Death Penalty. So my answer would still be no.

What would've have done with hitler?

 

[marqualler]

What would've have done with hitler?

Well, I'm anti Death Penalty, soo... (Recognizing this is not a political forum but it would be something I can talk about more via PM!)

 

[Kathi]

If you press it, all your T-related issues will disappear. You will eliminate all sensory problems you may have or will have in the future. But the only drawback is that pressing the button means somewhere in the planet Earth someone dies.

Would you press it?

Another situation to think about is: what if the person who dies will be randomly selected from people who are already on death row?

Reminds me of the movie "The Box"--with Cameron Diaz. The premise was that a mysterious man (Frank Langella) brought a wooden box to a couple (Diaz and James Marsden) containing a button and if they pressed it they would get a million dollars but someone they didn't know would die. The consequences were dire.

I wouldn't push the button...even if the person who died was on death row.

 

[Danny Boy]

Well, I'm anti Death Penalty, soo... (Recognizing this is not a political forum but it would be something I can talk about more via PM!)

Fair-play to you! Well, I do believe in reform so I suppose that's a good way of thinking.

 

[JabbingJab]

@Kathi Yeah the idea was taken and altered from that movie

 

[Albert Savage]

That is a take on an actual experiment performed by the Nazis during WW II. In that experiment, a pair of subjects ( I remember reading of parent and child and then siblings be used) were seated at a table with a window separating them and each of them was strapped into a chair with electrodes attached. An electrical current was applied to one of the subjects and when that subject could no longer stand the shock they would hit a button. When they did this the voltage was increased and the next subject was subjected to the higher voltage. This was continued until the voltage was increased to a deadly level. It was done to see who would sacrifice a loved one to end the torment.

Pretty horrific, what the mind of man can come up with to inflict pain on his fellow man.

 

[Sailboardman]

On really bad T days, I'm glad that button is not in front me. Unless, I'm one who's gonna die!

 

[Valentina]

Would you press it?

No!

 

[RichL]

People are dying in the world at a rate of nearly 2 per second, would it really matter if one more died so it meant you had a T free life?

Think about this.

Is anyone sure that any of your actions all through your life so far, have not directly or indirectly been responsible or lead,(in like a chained event), to someone being seriously hurt, or even dying?
All because of the action that you took without thinking about it or that may have seemed innocent enough at the time.
I suppose knowing that you have caused a death is a little different than this scenario!

My answer is no, I wouldn't no matter who was going to die, although a murdering pedophile might make me think about it!

Good question and definitely food for thought!

 

[Vincent R]

Well, I wouldn't excactly PRESS the button, but what if I stumble on it? Or what if I have my cats food just in front of it, and the cat happends to nudge it? Can't blame a cat, can you?

 

[carlover]

Wow ,is that the most thought provoking q on any Forum??

id like a look at someones CV and if they loved being cruel to animals id hit the button with two fingers ,hard,

what a result a double whammy

 

[attheedgeofscience]

I recall being asked something similar by my English teacher (as part of a class conversation) way back in my high school days some 20 years ago now. I don't remember the exact context, but I believe it was something about "killing an old, old, man in the Amazon rain forest in return for eliminating one of the incurable diseases of modern medicine." He, my English teacher, probably felt he was asking an intellectual question that somehow 'should enhance our thought processes'. Well... to be perfectly honest, I did not consider my English teacher's question to be especially intellectual. Not then, not now. [Sorry, Mr. Melnick!]. Nor do I consider these questions to have much relevance (of any kind). We see these types of questions pop-up on the forum from time-to-time - here's another thread that specifically irritates me:

www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/would-you-trade-your-tinnitus-for.7202

Source of irritation? Mind-games have little practical value and the above thread potentially makes a mockery out of other people's misery (have a read, and you will understand).

The folks of the intellectual elite should consider using their powers of observation in relation to something useful. Something such as... science and medicine! Let's see how far they get with that when the 'real work' calls!

id like a look at someones CV and if they loved being cruel to animals id hit the button with two fingers ,hard,

Agreed. Animal cruelty is particularly distasteful. Here's a textbook example:



(The incident starts at 0:17).

 

[RichL]

id like a look at someones CV and if they loved being cruel to animals id hit the button with two fingers ,hard,

Agreed. Animal cruelty is particularly distasteful.

I really hope that would go for children as well.

 

[cullenbohannon]

I wouldn't lose any sleep if i was responsible for the death of someone truly evil.

 

[Dr. Nagler]

I wouldn't lose any sleep if i was responsible for the death of someone truly evil.

Many years ago - back in the mid 1980s - when I was on a trauma surgery rotation, I was called to the Emergency Room to evaluate and treat a man who had been shot in the lung and in the liver in a shootout with a policeman who was chasing him because he had been caught in the act of committing a burglary, having murdered a defenseless married couple and their young child in the process of committing that crime.

Talk about truly evil. This man was the dictionary definition of truly evil.

So I took this truly evil man to the operating room, repaired his liver and lung injuries, and saved his life. Why? Because that's what you do when you have the opportunity (and privilege) to be in a position to save the life of another human being. Who am I to judge? Any life that you can possibly save is a life worth saving. In my opinion, anyway.

And hence, speaking for myself, I would never under any circumstances press the button referred to in the initial post in this thread. But I agree that it is a very interesting question indeed.

 

[cullenbohannon]

@Dr. Nagler I appreciate you sharing that story, I think it shows your character. If I were a surgeon maybe I would have a different moral outlook.

 

[Sleaford Mod]

I recall being asked something similar by my English teacher (as part of a class conversation) way back in my high school days some 20 years ago now. I don't remember the exact context, but I believe it was something about "killing an old, old, man in the Amazon rain forest in return for eliminating one of the incurable diseases of modern medicine." He, my English teacher, probably felt he was asking an intellectual question that somehow 'should enhance our thought processes'. Well... to be perfectly honest, I did not consider my English teacher's question to be especially intellectual. Not then, not now. [Sorry, Mr. Melnick!]. Nor do I consider these questions to have much relevance (of any kind).

The folks of the intellectual elite should consider using their powers of observation in relation to something useful. Something such as... science and medicine! Let's see how far they get with that when the 'real work' calls!

attheedgeofscience, this is my first post here. I'm restricting myself to General Chat until I get the hang of things.

Your old English teacher was asking you what was essentially a moral question. To me it sounds a bit similar to a famous criticism of utilitarian morality. Google 'Bernard Williams' and 'Jim and the Indians' and you should find the details.

Given that science and medicine deal with testable hypotheses, I'm left wondering how morality might be explored in this manner. So I would be interested in how we might set about identifying moral facts.

For example, let's imagine that a scientist has invented a good/bad detector. The device looks a bit like a remote control for a TV. Then she heads to LA and discovers teen idol Justin Bieber in the process of angrily attacking a paparazzi (whilst dressed in a red romper suit). She points the good/bad detector at Justin.

Do you think this invention will work? If so, what is it going to detect in the behaviour of Justin?

 

[cullenbohannon]

Not that you asked me but like you said science deals with things that can be tested. Morality seems like such an abstract idea.

Also who decides what's moral. From this thread it's obvious that something I wouldnt consider immoral others would.

Also in the Bieber analogy whose to say the way he is reacting is immoral as paparazzi are known to say some awful things to get a reaction.

attheedgeofscience, this is my first post here. I'm restricting myself to General Chat until I get the hang of things.

Your old English teacher was asking you what was essentially a moral question. To me it sounds a bit similar to a famous criticism of utilitarian morality. Google 'Bernard Williams' and 'Jim and the Indians' and you should find the details.

Given that science and medicine deal with testable hypotheses, I'm left wondering how morality might be explored in this manner. So I would be interested in how we might set about identifying moral facts.

For example, let's imagine that a scientist has invented a good/bad detector. The device looks a bit like a remote control for a TV. Then she heads to LA and discovers teen idol Justin Bieber in the process of angrily attacking a paparazzi (whilst dressed in a red romper suit). She points the good/bad detector at Justin.

Do you think this invention will work? If so, what is it going to detect in the behaviour of Justin?

 

[Lara K]

Well, I don't know. Who knows who the next person on the button list would be? Ok, I know you said it was someone on death row, but it reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. Gotta watch that karma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)

Arthur and Norma Lewis are slowly descending into abject poverty. One day, they receive a mysterious locked box with a button on it and a note that says Mr. Steward will come visit. Then, just as the note says, a smartly dressed stranger who introduces himself as Steward comes to their door when Arthur is out. He gives Norma the key to the box and explains that, if they press the button, two things will happen: they will receive $200,000 and someone "whom [they] don't know" will die.

They open the box and discover no mechanism inside it—it is simply an empty box with a button on it. The next day, Arthur leaves for work and sees Norma sitting at the kitchen table, her gaze transfixed on the button. At the end of the day, he returns from work and it appears that nothing has changed; Norma is still sitting and concentrating only on the button. The day goes by. Norma and Arthur keep talking about the box, when suddenly Norma decides to push the button.

The next day Mr. Steward returns, takes back the box, and gives them a briefcase with the $200,000. The Lewises are in shock and ask what will happen next. Steward ominously replies that the button will be "reprogrammed" and offered to someone else with the same terms and conditions, adding as he focuses on Norma:

"I can assure you it will be offered to someone whom you don't know."

A horrified, knowing expression crosses Norma's face as she realizes the true nature of those chosen to die...the previous owner who pushed the button.