Interesting Questions.

I've been itching to have some moral/ethical dilemmas to deal with. These don't necessarily have to be moral or ethical, just something to brood over.

I'll start us off.

-If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you? You would have to kill him as a 2 year old child. He would go on to be the same Hitler if you did not kill him.

-A runaway train is hurtling down the tracks towards five people stuck on the tracks. However, you can flip a lever that will divert the train to a track where only one person is stuck. What would you do? (more personally, I usually wind up wondering who it would have to be for me to not flip the switch)

-A continuation of the first-if you could shove someone in front of the train to stop it altogether, would you? (ignore physics for this one)

-Less moral-if you could only see in one shade of color, what would you choose to see in?

-Would you be willing to entirely give up a sense if it enhanced another one tremendously?

-Would you want eternal youth? (Youth being your prime physical and mental state. You can still die from being shot, for example, but never of old age. You'd live forever as long as you didn't piss someone off.)

1- No. WWII did wonders for science.
2- Depends on whether or not I know the one.
3-Yes. 1:6 is a better ratio.
4- Red.
5- Hellz yeah!
6- No. I would lose so many friends it wouldn't be worth living.

Probably not, because Germany was suffering heavily, and there was bound to be a lot of stuff going down the drain anyway. Better to get the grievances cleared than let them simmer to the Cold War, which would have proved much much worse if it went hot.

Just walk away. No matter what decision you make, the relatives of the one victim or the five are going to beat you down for it if you're seen there. It's out of your hands, blame the train company for being careless with their maintenance.

Again, I wouldn't simply because I prefer to not get involved. If they can stop the train, then they should make the choice themselves. If they choose not, then they can face the wrap for letting peeps die.

Purple.

I would not mind losing my taste to gain supersonic hearing. The only stuff I eat is rather bland anyway, wouldn't make much difference to me.

Only an idiot would want to live forever, it is in that we have a limited time on Earth that we really learn to appreciate what we have.

Jokie, you seem to take a more neutral stance than most. Have you considered the field of law?

Funnily enough I did Legal Studies, although that was more to have a standing in the system than continue on in serious study.

The problem with law is that the micromanaging laws are just so extensive not to Havel loopholes is impossible.

No. What happened happened. If it wasnt the right way, we would all be dead.

By the power of deduction, I would guess that the five people are a family or friends. The one person likely has a family. flip the switch and you get sued, dont and youve killed a family. I'd take internal affairs over getting sued.

Yes. I'd shove my self. But if I for some reason cant... No. Deciding a passerbys destiny is not my choice. But anyone that is stupid or drunk, or what have you and gets stuck... Well trains are dangerous.

Yes, I would be perfectly content with colour blindness.

This question makes me laugh. Heh.

No, considered my prime was some time when I was 12 or 14... ignoring that my answer would be yes. A life of loneliness is no big thing, as long as I could be helpful to those who needed help.


Now I have a question.
If you could go back in time and see if the history books are right at the risk of discovering that everything you know is a lie... Would you?

1. We have no idea how else history might have turned out. It could have been better, but it could have been worse. Screwing with history is never a good idea, because there's no way to know what you're doing. As for the moral implications of killing someone you know will be evil before he's done anything wrong, time travel predicaments aside, that's a tougher one. Death wouldn't be warranted until he'd actually killed somebody. If we knew beforehand, then that would be when you put him in therapy and persuade him to go into art or architecture instead, like he was originally planning to do.

2. Without knowing any other variables, it's got to be a numbers game, and one is better than five.

3. Assuming I could muster the nerve to do so, then probably so. Again with the better odds.

4. If you can only see one color, then color itself doesn't have any meaning. Therefore, based on a purely histogram-related choice, I'd pick blue. TARDIS blue.

5. I could do without scent.

6. Eternal youth, no. More youth, yes, but there can be too much of a good thing.

Balu's question: Yes. I value being right over being comforted.