Interesting question my Dad asked me...

[Jimmy Gough]

If you were in a building held by terrorists and you had to kill somebody or the terrorists would kill 5 other people, what would you do?

If you saw a train hurtling towards a group of children on a railway line, oblivious to this, and the train was unable to stop but you had the option to switch the train's path so it only killed one kid, would you change it?

If you knew that you could sacrifice your life to save several others from a certain death (idk, can't be bothered to think of a scenario) would you sacrifice yourself?

Then how come we don't just kill a random person and donate his body organs to help save people who desperately need them to stay alive? Think of the lives that could be saved! Surely this would be the moral thing to do?

I couldn't really think of an answer. I mean of course that would be wrong but it's sort of a good point isn't it?

[Jason Larsen]

I would do what's better for my own self!

[Dan Vanniasingham]

These questions were featured in a bbc news article last month, so if you'd like a read on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Bit too late in the night for my head to come up with sensible answers, but I think my initial thoughts were:

If you were in a building held by terrorists and you had to kill somebody or the terrorists would kill 5 other people, what would you do?

I wouldn't kill, but the term 'had' is a bit open-ended. It doesn't matter how many are killed by the terrorists, I can't think of a way whereby they could prove 5 more wouldn't be killed unless you murdered someone - ergo it's a bloodbath but my conscience is clean (until I die anyway).

If you saw a train hurtling towards a group of children on a railway line, oblivious to this, and the train was unable to stop but you had the option to switch the train's path so it only killed one kid, would you change it?

Yes I would. Given the judicial system in this country I'd probably get done for manslaughter, but if I was certain (beyond reasonable doubt) that the group would certainly die (or suffer the same consequences as the individual) then I'd made the switch. Assuming I didn't just stand there in anyway.

If you knew that you could sacrifice your life to save several others from a certain death (idk, can't be bothered to think of a scenario) would you sacrifice yourself?

Depends on the situation, but I'm quite cowardly so probably not even though I may feel I should.

Then how come we don't just kill a random person and donate his body organs to help save people who desperately need them to stay alive? Think of the lives that could be saved! Surely this would be the moral thing to do?

I can't imagine how killing a random person would ever be the moral thing to do. I suspect that bit was tagged on to the article to get people thinking by winding them up though.

[Jason Larsen]

I wonder who in their right mind came up with these questions!

[Jimmy Gough]

These questions were featured in a bbc news article last month, so if you'd like a read on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Oh ok, thanks. I can't be fucked to read it now since it's like 4 in the morning but yeah it probably explains it a lot better than I do.

[Jason Larsen]

Jimmy, what makes you think you can read them at all?

[Phil Reynolds]

Q. You have Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe and Gyles Brandreth at gunpoint but only two bullets. Who do you shoot?

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

A. Brandreth, twice, just to be sure.

[Jason Larsen]

I would rather shoot Osama, and I'm not afraid to admit that!

I don't think anyone would be, frankly!

[Kirk Bevins]

Q. You have Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe and Gyles Brandreth at gunpoint but only two bullets. Who do you shoot?

A. Brandreth, twice, just to be sure.

How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

[Charlie Reams]

How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

Have you mistaken this for the Asperger's thread?

[Jason Larsen]

I don't know what Kirk was thinking, Charlie!

[Charlie Reams]

I don't know what Kirk was thinking, Charlie!

Again, try the other thread.

[Phil Reynolds]

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

An assumption based on what exactly? According to my (admittedly non-ODE2r) dictionary:

gunpoint n 1 the muzzle of a gun. 2 at gunpoint. being under or using the threat of being shot.

[Michael Wallace]

The obvious answer being "Gyles Brandreth, twice", right?

[Kirk Bevins]

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

An assumption based on what exactly? According to my (admittedly non-ODE2r) dictionary:

gunpoint n 1 the muzzle of a gun. 2 at gunpoint. being under or using the threat of being shot.

OK - I tried being clever but it backfired. Excuse the pun.

[Jason Larsen]

Charlie, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

[Charlie Reams]

Charlie, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Roflcopter!

[Jason Larsen]

You're a funny guy, Charlie!

[Kirk Bevins]

You're a funny guy, Charlie!

Do you find anyone unfunny?

[Jason Larsen]

You all are funny here, but then again everybody knows it!

[Gavin Chipper]

That organ donation question is a bit strange. I 've seen it before and wondered why you would have to involve a random stranger. The version I read had several different people all requiring different organs, so the random stranger could supply each one. But surely one of the organ-needers could just sacrifice their own life and provide the others with what they need.

[Gavin Chipper]

How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

Have you mistaken this for the Asperger's thread?

Brilliant.

[Jason Larsen]

Who donated an organ?