<![CDATA[Interesting question]]>A scenario I heard on the radio recently, thought it was interesting.

You are somewhere around the water and a stranger and your pet are drowning.

You can probably only save one.

(a survey has been taken at once approximately 1/3 pet 1/3 stranger + 1/3 don't know)

But his question to ponder with this:

Without religion how do you choose?

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/39087/interesting-questionRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 10:45:16 GMTSun, 27 Dec 2015 02:54:56 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 05:27:09 GMT]]>

One Post From the Truth said:

What about the ambulance going to where ever it was needed? You can't pull over. You're in the way.

Tough break. Pretty sure most people would do the same - I think this falls under the prisoner's dilemma in game theory.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564455https://brownsboard.com/post/564455Sun, 03 Jan 2016 05:27:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:52:34 GMT]]>

@the-cysko-kid said:

I probably pull over, get out, walk to safety, videotape the collapse on my phone, and call my insurance agent to handle it.

What about the ambulance going to where ever it was needed? You can't pull over. You're in the way.]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564252https://brownsboard.com/post/564252Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:52:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:49:02 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

Haul ass.

The slower you go the more chance it will collapse if it's going to.

WSS

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20nmym/is_it_better_for_a_vehicle_to_move_slowly_over_a/]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564251https://brownsboard.com/post/564251Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:49:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:34:49 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

Haul ass.

The slower you go the more chance it will collapse if it's going to.

WSS

I probably pull over, get out, walk to safety, videotape the collapse on my phone, and call my insurance agent to handle it.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564225https://brownsboard.com/post/564225Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:34:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:02:07 GMT]]>

"One said:

Another interesting question I made up.

The scenario.

Your in a heavy moving truck just about to cross a rickety bridge. The truck may be too heavy. (If you have seen the Chevy Chase movie Funny Farm kinda like that)

The reverse is out of the transmission. You see flashing lights behind you in the rear view mirrors. Its an ambulance needing to cross. You can't get out of the way you must cross.

The question.

Do you haul ass over the bridge or go slowly?

Haul ass.

The slower you go the more chance it will collapse if it's going to.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564219https://brownsboard.com/post/564219Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:02:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:50:16 GMT]]>Another interesting question I made up.

The scenario.

Your in a heavy moving truck just about to cross a rickety bridge. The truck may be too heavy. (If you have seen the Chevy Chase movie Funny Farm kinda like that)

The reverse is out of the transmission. You see flashing lights behind you in the rear view mirrors. Its an ambulance needing to cross. You can't get out of the way you must cross.

The question.

Do you haul ass over the bridge or go slowly?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/564215https://brownsboard.com/post/564215Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:50:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:35:02 GMT]]>

@bbedward said:

These rhetorical situations are really hard to think about unless you'd be in that situation (wouldn't happen)

I don't think I know what I'd do unless I was actually in that type of situation.

Lol yes I'm the same way. In the early 90's I had to take a team building course at the local college for this job I had at the time. They would lay out situations for discussion and their goal was for all of us to interact and get to know each other. It worked.]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563908https://brownsboard.com/post/563908Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:35:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:05:50 GMT]]>

@bbedward said:

These rhetorical situations are really hard to think about unless you'd be in that situation (wouldn't happen)

I don't think I know what I'd do unless I was actually in that type of situation.

That might be but what is easy to think about is to save my child or my wife I'd sacrifice any number of other people. That's a no brainer to me.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563873https://brownsboard.com/post/563873Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:05:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 01:17:08 GMT]]>I think if we lowered the speed limit to 30 MPH, more people would die

People would be pissed and just run people off the road

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563860https://brownsboard.com/post/563860Fri, 01 Jan 2016 01:17:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 21:42:12 GMT]]>These rhetorical situations are really hard to think about unless you'd be in that situation (wouldn't happen)

I don't think I know what I'd do unless I was actually in that type of situation.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563841https://brownsboard.com/post/563841Thu, 31 Dec 2015 21:42:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:50:38 GMT]]>I can easily see how it escalates. To save your wife your best friend your son or daughter how many people would you sacrifice? 5? 20? The entire population of the city? I guess it has to stop somewhere but...

I've mentioned this before but sometimes we have to take a long hard look at whether or not we really value human life. We all pretend to but for example think of how many lives we would say if if we lowered the speed limit on all highways to 30 miles per hour.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563820https://brownsboard.com/post/563820Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:50:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:35:05 GMT]]>No. Fuck em. Sorry.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563816https://brownsboard.com/post/563816Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:35:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:08:48 GMT]]>

@the-cysko-kid said:

If the one person in question is a loved one and the five are other people's loved ones sorry about their luck

Well, the original parameters of the thought experiment state that both the group of five and the single individual are complete strangers to you, and completely innocent of any crime, presumably to eliminate any potential bias.

The results from the original experiment showed that the majority of people questioned believed that it would be morally and ethically acceptable to throw the switch and sacrifice the single individual to save the group of five; "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

But, your statement has piqued my curiosity. Let us suppose, then, that in order to save the five innocent strangers, you would have to divert the train onto the sidetrack, where a single loved one, such as a spouse, child, or family member, would be killed instead. Would you still be morally and ethically obligated to save the many, at the expense of the single loved one?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563782https://brownsboard.com/post/563782Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:08:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:07:40 GMT]]>Totally rhetorical in every sense the questions come with no definite answer. It's the catch 22 situation built around feelings of keeping something cherished as opposed to numbers of human life or a pet? That's completely insane and I don't think I just speak for myself when I mention the rudeness and uncaring of most of you and I'm appalled by negative responses.

Let me put this into words you will understand.

Vodka and Xanex.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563754https://brownsboard.com/post/563754Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:07:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:55:07 GMT]]>If the one person in question is a loved one and the five are other people's loved ones sorry about their luck

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563748https://brownsboard.com/post/563748Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:55:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:29:11 GMT]]>

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563703https://brownsboard.com/post/563703Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:29:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:40:57 GMT]]>I'd guess you switch the lever and run like hell to try and pull the one person out of the way. Win or lose you've done better to save 5 people than one.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563671https://brownsboard.com/post/563671Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:40:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:39:40 GMT]]>]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563669https://brownsboard.com/post/563669Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:39:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:39:14 GMT]]>

@legacy-fan said:

Why are the 5 people tied up?

Snidely whiplash is up to his old tricks again, clearly.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563668https://brownsboard.com/post/563668Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:39:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:29:39 GMT]]>So in case this is not some sort of silly trick question I would probably sacrifice the one person to save the 5.

So what's the punchline?

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563663https://brownsboard.com/post/563663Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:29:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:20:58 GMT]]>Why are the 5 people tied up?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563657https://brownsboard.com/post/563657Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:20:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:07:58 GMT]]>b6dab99b598a461f544dbf124c40d1bbd40f14e5

😉

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563580https://brownsboard.com/post/563580Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:07:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:57:44 GMT]]>

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563540https://brownsboard.com/post/563540Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:57:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting question on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:58:48 GMT]]>Since we're on the topic of moral and ethical conundrums, I figured i'd throw these out there as well. These are a set of thought-experiments that I first learned about in Psychology class in college, and they have always stuck with me (i'll post the 2nd part after we get enough responses). The first one goes like so:

The Great Train Problem (PART I):

Imagine that you work in a train yard, and your job is to control the railroad lever which guides trains from one track to another. Now, suppose that you notice that there is a runaway train barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, further down the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The runaway train is headed straight for them, and you do not have enough time to signal for help or to somehow stop the train before it reaches the people tied to the track; your only option is to pull the railroad switch lever. If you pull this lever, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you also notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1) Do nothing: you do not pull the switch, thereby saving the one person on the side track; however, the trains continues on and kills the five people on the main track.

2) Pull the lever: you pull the switch, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person, but save the five people on the main track.

Which is the correct choice?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/563537https://brownsboard.com/post/563537Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:58:48 GMT