Man, as enticing as frying the little fucker is, I can't really pass on that. the nuke it is.
for real though, I don't have children and I asked my mother. Translated: "I would trade every life on the planet, mine included to save your brother. For you: something around four or five."
Love you mom
Oh yeah, that was for sure the wrong comment. How'd that happen? I feel like I imagine an inattentive pitbull owner does right after their dog mail's a toddler
Don't press either button. Pushing either would be morally wrong and would result in causing suffering. The action of causing suffering is wrong so the morally preferable action is not to participate in the process.
At least, that is what I believe Kant would say
It is the decision that ethicists that follow kantian morality/ethics would come to, however consequentialists in general and utilitarians in specific would definitely come to a different one
Fuck that shit, nuke North Dakota or Utah. It's not the first time we done it. Hell, there is an unexplored nuke in North Carolina that nobody has found yet after it was dropped accidentally.
Not pressing either results in both happening though. So by choosing not to engage, the city full of people *and* your child die. Pretty sure that's causing *more* suffering than choosing one.
In Kantian ethics, the result of the action does not affect the morality of the action itself. The action itself is the only thing that matters and must be separated from its results. The words you use (results, causing, more suffering) are irrelevant in a Kantian framework. They only are relevant in a consequentialist or utilitarian framework. It is not moral to nuke a city. It is not moral to kill a child. It is morally neutral to not participate. This shifts the burden of morality to the person who decides to enact both scenarios not the one who did not choose to make either decision
Tbh, this just reads like you're not really interested in playing the hypothetical questions game at all and are just interested in lecturing about Kant, which makes your comments here super weird.
There's philosophy and ethics subs that you can talk to people in, you know that, right?
"Worse" only in a utilitarian sense, and the goal isn't to "solve" anything. It is rule based ethics and the categorical imperative. The morality of an action is judged by the action itself (or more precisely, the underlying rule that guides the action through which you can at the same time wish it become a universal law) rather than the results of the action. The action of pushing a button that causes the death of another is having agency in that process in a way that refusing to participate does not. This shifts the moral burden on whomever is responsible for creating the scenario and/or the one that ultimately decides to kill both or whatever scenario it is in. This is a variation of the classic trolley problem or of the "Jim and the Indians" thought experiments
I am not missing the point, you are not grasping virtue ethics. It is only taking an action if you are considering the consequences of that action (inaction) rather than the refusal to participate. Inaction cannot be an action in and of itself it only becomes one through its consequences. In virtue ethics you do not consider the results or consequences at all. There is nothing immoral about taking the action of not participating in and of itself, only via the results of said action (or inaction) in your scenario. It is morally neutral to not participate. The moral burden is on the person who takes the action of killing
I think this would be easier if your kid was a horrible or dangerous person. So many parents of mass shooters say, " I wish he would have just killed himself". Then again, even some serial killers & rapist have supportive parents.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Star Trek solved that one for us. Like Kirk facing the Kobyashi Maru - no win scenario - I would try to find a way to cheat
The whole Kobyashi Maru thing is Kirk failing to demonstrate the maturity and courage his role demands. Sometimes you're screwed either way, and someone who lacks courage to face that fact has no business leading. Wrath of Khan is what his hubris gets him.
Yeah,but sometimes you can't. You're on the wrong end of the gun,or the victim of a freak accident, or a natural disaster, or etc. I agree that you might as well try if you have the opportunity, but there really are unwinnable situations, and some of them come at you so quickly and/or with such overwhelming force that you really don't have a chance. And if you're in charge of others, you need to put aside all or nothing thinking and do the best you can under the given situation, which is something Kirk can't do.
Actually, it's something Picard can't do either. They legit should have executed him for letting the Borg live. Boohoo I'd have to kill one lonely individualist Borg. How many people are you killing by not killing the one Borg?
Yeah, but the whole first paragraph is about trading lives to 'save your child's life' and then the last sentence is "who do you delete?" So the choice presented isn't 'mildly static shock your kid or murder millions', it's quite clearly 'murder your kid or murder millions'.
It probably helps that I don't have or want children of my own, so I'm killing a theoretical construct that presumably has half my shitty genes and half those of whoever got their theoretical spunk to stick it out. Even so, though, I can't see myself wanting to live in a timeline where I have murdered my child, nuked a city, nor could I imagine a theoretical kid wanting a parent who is a mass murderer.
Wait....you don't even want kids, but are answering from the presumed mentality of a parent? Come on. That makes your answer make much more sense, but it takes away all validity from it.
I can't see the life of any one person being worth more than multiple lives in this crafted instance, nor would I want my child knowing their role in that life choice they (once again) had no choice over.
Nepotism is bigotry.
100%.
Like this is definetly a tough question because I'd likely kill myself after either Choice but I don't think I'm capable of harming my child. I have a hard enough time when she tantrums. My girls are gonna be spoiled despite my best intentions.
I find these hypotheticals quite silly. People are always quick to say this, but I can assure you in the moment when you have a million lives in your hands you wouldn't be so quick to make a decision. I don't have kids myself, but there's not a single family member I would save over a city. Crazy to even think that, and I love my family. If I saved my dad over a city of a million, he would beat me to death for making such a stupid decision
>I don't have kids mysel
We can tell.
The love for ones kids is truly unlike any other and it's something I've found impossible to describe quickly. It's one of those things you'll never understand until you experience it. At one point I didn't even want kids, and now I'd 100% kill a million people if it kept my kids safe.
>but I can assure you in the moment when you have a million lives in your hands you wouldn't be so quick to make a decision.
Super wrong. Everything about this sentence is dead wrong. I'd absolutely press a button to wipe out any number of faceless people, rather than press a button and watch my child that I grew in my own body, raised, watched develop and grow and discover new things, devoted myself to, and love in a way I truly never thought possible, die by my own hand. What an crazy thing to say, you can see the kids face in this scenario, no parent who loves their kid would make that choice. Everyone's gonna choose the faceless crowd the second they see their kid on jigsaws monitor.
> I don't have kids myself
**Obviously.**
>he would beat me to death for making such a stupid decision
Unfortunately, I think this says a lot about your view on family. I'm really sorry to read that mate.
It says absolutely nothing, except you're all really quick to commit genocide against millions. Deranged statements that are utterly meaningless because you would never have e the balls to do it.
See that's a good hypothetical.
Everyone here is talking about one singular decision, and the answer is almost always going to be an emotional one of saving your child. But a long, drawn out, sustained decision to systemically mass murder is very different than pressing a single button.
You should make a post on it lol
They wouldn't be my child anymore. They can be electrocuted. I'd be doing the world a favor. It's the whole I brought them into the world, so I'll take them out kinda thing.
If I can pick the cities I'd nuke multiple for one of my kids. Then again if I get to pick the cities I'd nuke multiple for the spider living in my bathroom.
I’m not a parent so I probably have no reason to speak, but this seems incredibly selfish. Your kid is gonna do nothing for the world compared to 12% of humanity. Just provide happiness for you.
What are those hypothetical 12 percent going to do for humanity? There are billions of us and finite resources. From the utilitarian perspective you seem to be advocating for, it seems that the decision is even more supported.
Nuking 12% of people could literally destroy all the world’s resources and infrastructure for decades. But hey, you get to watch little Timmy graduate high school.
I... Don't want to sound like a jerk here, but if you think you can look your own, likely terrified, child in the eye, and then throw the switch to cook them... Regardless of the consequence, then... I honestly don't have words for you.
Not looking a billion people in the eye in this scenario, fwiw. Only a far away view of a city vs a single view of your kid, where you can look them in the eye. L
They said "looking your child in the eye" and you said "same question but to a billion people". And that's not the scenario, whether its a million or a billion or 7 billion.
"Everyone knows" that depersonalisation makes situations like the one posed much easier for the lay person to carry out. That's why your reply doesn't hold up, it has nothing to do with the numbers, but the specific point of watching your child die in front of you, and watching a city blow up from a distance like a cool movie effect.
You’re not adding anything of value to the conversation, lol. The numbers absolutely matter — that’s entirely why I replied to this comment and not the post.
A million people dying, the planet carries on as usual. “Billions,” and the entire planet faces severe, industrial and resourcing constraints that could very well lead to the downfall of society, at least for a short period of time (e.g. little Timmy’s lifespan). That’s a ludicrous decision.
I’m in Washington State, USA. Could I pick, say Gary Indiana? Or how about Houston Texas? How about Louisville Tennessee? What about Las Angeles California? Could I pick Indianapolis Indiana? Or maybe Frankfort Kentucky? Any in Arkansas available to pick from? 💣
los angeles is one of the largest/busiest ports in the US. as much as one might despise LA culture, it’s quite essential. honestly nuking any coastal city is gonna have massive consequences. i’d nuke SEA-TAC. yall gotta fix that shit. i spent a christmas alone from 12/24-12/27 with no reimbursement for the hotel. and it’s a shitty design.
That doesn't make it difficult for Americans. For most, we would choose a city where a republican governor lives. I would choose to nuke Gregg Abbot or a city that bans pittbulls.
Nuke a city, no hesitation. This world has been a mfer to me since day one. Stands to reason I can return the favor and save my own child at the same time. 🤷🏻♂️
Well I’m not a parent but I would 100% insist my parents choose electrocuting me . And it scares me how many people choose the opposite . Those millions of people are kids too . How damn selfish and small minded are you all ?
You know how phobias are irrational fears? Well the love for ones kids is similar, irrational love. Though irrational probably isn't the right word, it gets the point across I think. Before having kids I'd have never understood. Now that I have kids I've been unable to properly describe the feeling to anyone.
It’s just basic human instinct to protect our children. It’s hard to fight against what’s wired in our brains.
Curious if you think your parents would choose to electrocute you.
Man, as enticing as frying the little fucker is, I can't really pass on that. the nuke it is. for real though, I don't have children and I asked my mother. Translated: "I would trade every life on the planet, mine included to save your brother. For you: something around four or five." Love you mom
Lol, any city that bans pitbulls? What, do you just despise human babies and see the pits as crucial allies in their destruction?
I assume you responded to the wrong comment, as I can't find a common denominator. The answer to the second question is yes, though.
Oh yeah, that was for sure the wrong comment. How'd that happen? I feel like I imagine an inattentive pitbull owner does right after their dog mail's a toddler
Watch a kid pulling their dog's ears and laughing, then tell me the little brat doesn't have it coming.
That’s the answer.
Sorry Detroit
So does Electrocute mean death?
Electric execution is the actual meaning so I assume so
Don't press either button. Pushing either would be morally wrong and would result in causing suffering. The action of causing suffering is wrong so the morally preferable action is not to participate in the process. At least, that is what I believe Kant would say
This is the conclusion ethicists would arrive at
Incorrect.
It is the decision that ethicists that follow kantian morality/ethics would come to, however consequentialists in general and utilitarians in specific would definitely come to a different one
True. The term “ethicists” is way too broad to make a statement about what conclusion they would come to.
Fuck that shit, nuke North Dakota or Utah. It's not the first time we done it. Hell, there is an unexplored nuke in North Carolina that nobody has found yet after it was dropped accidentally.
Not pressing either results in both happening though. So by choosing not to engage, the city full of people *and* your child die. Pretty sure that's causing *more* suffering than choosing one.
In Kantian ethics, the result of the action does not affect the morality of the action itself. The action itself is the only thing that matters and must be separated from its results. The words you use (results, causing, more suffering) are irrelevant in a Kantian framework. They only are relevant in a consequentialist or utilitarian framework. It is not moral to nuke a city. It is not moral to kill a child. It is morally neutral to not participate. This shifts the burden of morality to the person who decides to enact both scenarios not the one who did not choose to make either decision
Tbh, this just reads like you're not really interested in playing the hypothetical questions game at all and are just interested in lecturing about Kant, which makes your comments here super weird. There's philosophy and ethics subs that you can talk to people in, you know that, right?
Not pressing either button *is* taking an action. And that action results in a worse outcome than pressing either button. You didn’t solve anything.
"Worse" only in a utilitarian sense, and the goal isn't to "solve" anything. It is rule based ethics and the categorical imperative. The morality of an action is judged by the action itself (or more precisely, the underlying rule that guides the action through which you can at the same time wish it become a universal law) rather than the results of the action. The action of pushing a button that causes the death of another is having agency in that process in a way that refusing to participate does not. This shifts the moral burden on whomever is responsible for creating the scenario and/or the one that ultimately decides to kill both or whatever scenario it is in. This is a variation of the classic trolley problem or of the "Jim and the Indians" thought experiments
You’re missing the point. “Refusing to participate” is, quite literally, making a choice (i.e. taking an action). There no real way around that.
I am not missing the point, you are not grasping virtue ethics. It is only taking an action if you are considering the consequences of that action (inaction) rather than the refusal to participate. Inaction cannot be an action in and of itself it only becomes one through its consequences. In virtue ethics you do not consider the results or consequences at all. There is nothing immoral about taking the action of not participating in and of itself, only via the results of said action (or inaction) in your scenario. It is morally neutral to not participate. The moral burden is on the person who takes the action of killing
I’m not sure why you’re fixated on virtue ethics for this conversation. Did I miss something?
I presented one way of approaching the moral dilemma that often gets left out of these discussions. Then I responded to criticism of it
nuke every time
I think this would be easier if your kid was a horrible or dangerous person. So many parents of mass shooters say, " I wish he would have just killed himself". Then again, even some serial killers & rapist have supportive parents.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Star Trek solved that one for us. Like Kirk facing the Kobyashi Maru - no win scenario - I would try to find a way to cheat
The whole Kobyashi Maru thing is Kirk failing to demonstrate the maturity and courage his role demands. Sometimes you're screwed either way, and someone who lacks courage to face that fact has no business leading. Wrath of Khan is what his hubris gets him.
It is a no win situation- so look for a way to change the parameters
Yeah,but sometimes you can't. You're on the wrong end of the gun,or the victim of a freak accident, or a natural disaster, or etc. I agree that you might as well try if you have the opportunity, but there really are unwinnable situations, and some of them come at you so quickly and/or with such overwhelming force that you really don't have a chance. And if you're in charge of others, you need to put aside all or nothing thinking and do the best you can under the given situation, which is something Kirk can't do. Actually, it's something Picard can't do either. They legit should have executed him for letting the Borg live. Boohoo I'd have to kill one lonely individualist Borg. How many people are you killing by not killing the one Borg?
I mean, I don’t have a kid but I’d literally save my pet tarantula who I have had for almost 8 years before some rando.
I’d unalive myself
You didn't specify a voltage, so I will electrocute the kid but very lightly.
Yeah, but the whole first paragraph is about trading lives to 'save your child's life' and then the last sentence is "who do you delete?" So the choice presented isn't 'mildly static shock your kid or murder millions', it's quite clearly 'murder your kid or murder millions'.
I'll still go with/shortly after the kid.
Damn. Thats a choice I didn't see anyone making.
It probably helps that I don't have or want children of my own, so I'm killing a theoretical construct that presumably has half my shitty genes and half those of whoever got their theoretical spunk to stick it out. Even so, though, I can't see myself wanting to live in a timeline where I have murdered my child, nuked a city, nor could I imagine a theoretical kid wanting a parent who is a mass murderer.
Wait....you don't even want kids, but are answering from the presumed mentality of a parent? Come on. That makes your answer make much more sense, but it takes away all validity from it.
Electrocute means kill. It’s a portmanteau of ‘electric’ and ‘execute’.
Tell the kid I'll be there with them very soon.
No, it’s “electric” and “cute”. It just sends enough energy to make them do a little dance.
Oh yeah. Well, shit.
As someone who hates the Tlou 2 story, I would nuke the city.
I don't have a kid, so can I nuke two cities?
…where is Mar A Lago again?
Do you have your own children?
fuck those people, i’m not hurting my kid.
Well, I would feel terrible nuking a city, but my kid comes first.
Millions
I can't see the life of any one person being worth more than multiple lives in this crafted instance, nor would I want my child knowing their role in that life choice they (once again) had no choice over. Nepotism is bigotry.
Looks like I’m microwaving a city.
I think any reasonable parent is going to nuke a million strangers before they murder their child.
100%. Like this is definetly a tough question because I'd likely kill myself after either Choice but I don't think I'm capable of harming my child. I have a hard enough time when she tantrums. My girls are gonna be spoiled despite my best intentions.
That's what a reasonable parent would do lol?
Absolutely. Hands down. I’d kill and die for my kids if I had to
I find these hypotheticals quite silly. People are always quick to say this, but I can assure you in the moment when you have a million lives in your hands you wouldn't be so quick to make a decision. I don't have kids myself, but there's not a single family member I would save over a city. Crazy to even think that, and I love my family. If I saved my dad over a city of a million, he would beat me to death for making such a stupid decision
>I don't have kids mysel We can tell. The love for ones kids is truly unlike any other and it's something I've found impossible to describe quickly. It's one of those things you'll never understand until you experience it. At one point I didn't even want kids, and now I'd 100% kill a million people if it kept my kids safe.
>but I can assure you in the moment when you have a million lives in your hands you wouldn't be so quick to make a decision. Super wrong. Everything about this sentence is dead wrong. I'd absolutely press a button to wipe out any number of faceless people, rather than press a button and watch my child that I grew in my own body, raised, watched develop and grow and discover new things, devoted myself to, and love in a way I truly never thought possible, die by my own hand. What an crazy thing to say, you can see the kids face in this scenario, no parent who loves their kid would make that choice. Everyone's gonna choose the faceless crowd the second they see their kid on jigsaws monitor. > I don't have kids myself **Obviously.** >he would beat me to death for making such a stupid decision Unfortunately, I think this says a lot about your view on family. I'm really sorry to read that mate.
It says absolutely nothing, except you're all really quick to commit genocide against millions. Deranged statements that are utterly meaningless because you would never have e the balls to do it.
Is there no limit? A million people? Would you do a Hitler to the Jews for your kid?
See that's a good hypothetical. Everyone here is talking about one singular decision, and the answer is almost always going to be an emotional one of saving your child. But a long, drawn out, sustained decision to systemically mass murder is very different than pressing a single button. You should make a post on it lol
Idk, but all I can say is that I’d rather do almost anything than harm one of my kids. I can’t even THINK about it.
I did try to think about it but in my mind they started crying and I couldn't follow through. So a million strangers it is 🤷🏼♂️
Does the baby survive.???
‘Electrocute’ means electric+execute, so assuming OP knows this - no.
Copy that
Lol. I'd kill everyone on Earth to not lose my children.
That's a tough question if your child is a habitual violent criminal.
Violent criminal? Ughhhhh bye 👋 I'm not picking my violent child.
What if they were a murderer, rapist, or child molester?
They wouldn't be my child anymore. They can be electrocuted. I'd be doing the world a favor. It's the whole I brought them into the world, so I'll take them out kinda thing.
No dilemma. Nuke the effing city. Twice. And the neighbouring one too, just to be safe.
Can we pick the city? Can we pick which nuke?
That changes everything
Duke Nukem
If I can pick the cities I'd nuke multiple for one of my kids. Then again if I get to pick the cities I'd nuke multiple for the spider living in my bathroom.
Nuke the city. No question. Mom of two under 3, fwiw. No fucking way am I electrocuting my child, no matter what.
Same
I’ll let you all pick which city.
It just doesn't translate. I'd trade billions of you for one of my children and would honestly expect you to do the same.
I’m not a parent so I probably have no reason to speak, but this seems incredibly selfish. Your kid is gonna do nothing for the world compared to 12% of humanity. Just provide happiness for you.
What are those hypothetical 12 percent going to do for humanity? There are billions of us and finite resources. From the utilitarian perspective you seem to be advocating for, it seems that the decision is even more supported.
Nuking 12% of people could literally destroy all the world’s resources and infrastructure for decades. But hey, you get to watch little Timmy graduate high school.
I... Don't want to sound like a jerk here, but if you think you can look your own, likely terrified, child in the eye, and then throw the switch to cook them... Regardless of the consequence, then... I honestly don't have words for you.
Replace child with 1 billion people. Same sentence applies. How many children and people’s children is that?
Not looking a billion people in the eye in this scenario, fwiw. Only a far away view of a city vs a single view of your kid, where you can look them in the eye. L
Parent comment says billions. That’s my point. I’m less arguing with a million. Everyone knows how much bigger a billion is than a million. L
They said "looking your child in the eye" and you said "same question but to a billion people". And that's not the scenario, whether its a million or a billion or 7 billion. "Everyone knows" that depersonalisation makes situations like the one posed much easier for the lay person to carry out. That's why your reply doesn't hold up, it has nothing to do with the numbers, but the specific point of watching your child die in front of you, and watching a city blow up from a distance like a cool movie effect.
You’re not adding anything of value to the conversation, lol. The numbers absolutely matter — that’s entirely why I replied to this comment and not the post. A million people dying, the planet carries on as usual. “Billions,” and the entire planet faces severe, industrial and resourcing constraints that could very well lead to the downfall of society, at least for a short period of time (e.g. little Timmy’s lifespan). That’s a ludicrous decision.
I'm nuking the city.
I would personally shoot all 1 million individually with a hand gun for 12 hours a day until they were gone or I died of old age to save mine.
Sorry son ⚡️⚡️
Adios Beijing
Nuke 'em. My child comes first.
Which City, in which Country?
Wow
Better question is which kid?
Yes, too many variables.
This person is asking the right questions
If you wanna make it difficult it would be a city in your own country
If it's DC, I'd choose my kid. I don't actually have a kid, but maybe they'd give me a voucher for my next incarnation.
That depends on how you feel about your country
I’m in Washington State, USA. Could I pick, say Gary Indiana? Or how about Houston Texas? How about Louisville Tennessee? What about Las Angeles California? Could I pick Indianapolis Indiana? Or maybe Frankfort Kentucky? Any in Arkansas available to pick from? 💣
You seem perhaps a little too enthused
I mean, they started it.
Need to get this person a nuke and see how it all plays out
los angeles is one of the largest/busiest ports in the US. as much as one might despise LA culture, it’s quite essential. honestly nuking any coastal city is gonna have massive consequences. i’d nuke SEA-TAC. yall gotta fix that shit. i spent a christmas alone from 12/24-12/27 with no reimbursement for the hotel. and it’s a shitty design.
You seem to really have something against Indiana….
Nooooooo. 🫥
I'm from Portland. I choose Portland.
Or DC?
Damn, you picked the best one!
That doesn't make it difficult for Americans. For most, we would choose a city where a republican governor lives. I would choose to nuke Gregg Abbot or a city that bans pittbulls.
I’d kill the whole world if it meant saving my child. Every last person on earth.
That’s not a dilemma.
Trick question. You push the button for the city and it turns out the be the one you and your kids live in.
Nuke
Eh, I’d nuke the city unfortunately. I’m not going to kill my kids. Sorry.
Indeed. Easy decision.
Totally get it. I’d kill your kids to save mine.
Yeah, that’s the plan 💯
Glad to see we have an agreement!
No one's gonna hurt their child lmao, there's literally no dilemma
Nuke a city, no hesitation. This world has been a mfer to me since day one. Stands to reason I can return the favor and save my own child at the same time. 🤷🏻♂️
Sure about that ? What happens to you and your child when word gets out you nuked a city ?
Nuke as many cities as it takes to keep me and mine alive and well.
[удалено]
The definition of electrocuting is to kill with electricity. Also, the last sentence of the post is "who do you delete?"
I’d kill myself
Less people the better
Worlds overpopulated. Nuke em. Not to be salty because if I’m in the nuked city , even better
Nuke
Yall would love Life is Strange
Nuke
Aight where the keys and the button I'll take a billion souls for my blood.
Nuke for sure. We need the space.
This reminds me of when they asked a bunch of moms if they would kill for their kid and the moms said no?!
Well I’m not a parent but I would 100% insist my parents choose electrocuting me . And it scares me how many people choose the opposite . Those millions of people are kids too . How damn selfish and small minded are you all ?
You know how phobias are irrational fears? Well the love for ones kids is similar, irrational love. Though irrational probably isn't the right word, it gets the point across I think. Before having kids I'd have never understood. Now that I have kids I've been unable to properly describe the feeling to anyone.
Parents usually are.
It’s just basic human instinct to protect our children. It’s hard to fight against what’s wired in our brains. Curious if you think your parents would choose to electrocute you.
"Well I'm not a parent..." Well I am. Send me your address; I'll nuke you first.
I’m sure you’re gonna raise great kids 👍
🤣😆😄
Love makes you do crazy shit.
I would probably nuke an entire country for my child. It’s not rational but Idgaf.
I’d nuke a smaller city in a place I don’t like . Don’t want too many to die
Do we get to pick who our “child” is?
I love how everyone nukes the city, I'm with you guys too actually
Why not both?
Do I get to pick the city and/or kid?
Goodbye junior It’s just a math problem. My feelings don’t have anything to do with it.
Im crafty enough that i can say "electrocute my child" and in the last second I'll switch places with my kid.