Can you be the person who does it?

[Ambitions]

#1 If you don't kill the kid 2 people die, so why wouldn't you kill it? Its fucked anyway.

#2 Let the two dome givers on the boat.

#3 Yes I could. Who the fuck wouldn't put an animal out of its misery, thats just fucking cruel.

#4 If I saw tuskate having a seizure in the road I'd be out there faster that speedy gonzales. I mean I'm from Jersey anyway, I got mad car dogging skillz

These are all really easy to answer. We need harder shit like would you rape your own mother to cure AIDS? Or for world peace.

How about could you curb stomp a little girl for $1,000,000,000. No one would ever find out.

 

[Darkflagrance]

There is a formula to determine the value of altruism that has to do with how related the person is to you:

Assuming the cost of altruism is determined by the impact it has on your survival, r is the relatedness coefficient of the person benefitting (determined by the genes they share on average with you; for example a brother is 0.5, a cousin 1/8, c is the cost to you (determined by probability of death), and b is the benefit to the person (determined by probability of survival), when

rb-c

is greater than zero, the act is condoned by nature (i.e. will occur among animals)

Therefore, whether or not I choose to sacrifice or save any of the humans in the question would depend on their relatedness to me and the lives of the other people at stake.
If I was sharing the room with the child with many other people of my family, I might risk killing the child (surely one can keep its nose clear)?
In the case of the mother and child, if they were my relatives, I might do it; I might also do it if the effects on my conscience from not saving them would impact my ability to function to the point where my own survival would be at risk.
As for the friend, if he had a seizure, how much longer might he live anyway? If there is apparently a good chance of saving him, and I knew it might depress me if I didn't save him, I would do it. Otherwise, it would be futile anyway.

In the case of the dog, I would let someone else kill it, in the hope that if they were an expert in dog physiology they might be able to determine that it might be saved after all.

 

[Stathakis]

I'd feel good about killing it actually. I wouldn't feel good about it dying, but I'd feel good to end its pain. I completely condone mercy killing.

 

[DiamondDust]

These are all really easy to answer. We need harder shit like would you rape your own mother to cure AIDS? Or for world peace.

How about could you curb stomp a little girl for $1,000,000,000. No one would ever find out.

thats just unrealistic.
i would do either of those for the sake of the world. 3/4ths of the money i would get from curb stomping a girl would go to charity and fixing her jaw.

 

[linksage]

Number 1: If just covering its mouth didn't work, then yes, I probably would. :-/ Hate to say it, but it'd be dead either way.

Number 2: I would let the mother and child go. I've no doubt about that one.

Number 3: I would probably let someone else do it. I've never held a gun in my life and probably wouldn't be able to figure it out if I was upset.

Number 4: I would push them out of the way. No doubt there either. I've actually been in a kind of similar situation, though my friend was just being stupid and not paying attention--there was no medical reason for what they did. Then she tried to blow it off by throwing that "they've got to stop" garbage at me.

 

[QuickDraw]

i can say right now that without a doubt i would do every single one of these but you can never really be sure until push comes to shove. i actually have already done number 3 once. my dog got mortally wounded by an elk so i gave him 3 oxycodin pills to ease the suffering and let him die peacefully. i guess its not quite the same as shooting him but it still let him die without suffering.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

#1: You could just choke the kid; it might live. The worst case is that it dies which is what would have happened anyway.

#2: Yeah, we'd be overloading that boat as much as possible. I certainly am not buying into that sexist nonsense of women first. Actually, I probably would advocate a drawing of lots for everyone competing for a slot and accept whatever the randomness determined.

#3: I would neither kill the dog nor allow it to be killed because I know the dog doesn't want to die. Non-human animals almost never choose their own deaths, and it is absurd to kill them as "mercy" given that fact. I know for sure I would never, ever want to die if I were in the dog's situation as well so it would be super hypocritical of me to kill the dog.

#4: Of course I try to save him.

How about this scenario:

You are recently married, and fortunately for you your new spouse has recently inherited a large sum of money (note: you didn't marry for money; you actually really like this person). However, soon after the wedding your spouse confides in you that he/she murdered his/her father to get the inheritance and justifies it by claiming the man was a real bastard. If you don't interfere, it seems almost sure that he/she will get away with it. Do you go to the police (ending both your otherwise happy marriage and your wealth), or do you just keep your mouth shut and go on with your life?

That would be a pretty horrible dilemma for me, but I can see it being a very easy question for other people to answer.

 

[Krul]

Thats an interesting question, and (Answering hypothetically, I'm with Glen that this would be different in an ACTUAL situation) I say it depends on a few things, mainly the father and the murder. Was the father just your average rich guy, or was he in the Mafia or some shit who killed people. On the murder note, if it came down to these 2 situations:

1. The father was a known criminal known to hurt/kill people and used bribery to shut witnesses up, and died a "Peaceful" death, I have a MUCh stronger chance of not saying anything than in 2.

2. The father didn't do anything wrong, and was violently stabbed/shot etc. I'd have to say something to the police.

I believe that murder without strong reason is a terrible thing, but if someone threatens the existence of mankind (Say with a super death ray, hypothetically), that murder is a lot more justified than say, your neighbour, who you killed because the look through the window at you too often.

 

[dynamo]

1 and 2, me first easy. 3 I'd probably want someone else to do it.

4 I'm not sure. And I think a lot of people's answers would change if they actually were in that situation. Obviously me and my family first, but iono.