Philosophy Now Forum

You are a time traveler. A car bomb is about to go off in a town square, and you are the only one able to warn people (from a distance).
The bomb will kill 10 people. Among them are: a serial killer, a drug cartel boss, the future mother of a brutal dictator, an abusive father/husband and a future terrorist, who will one day kill dozens.

Will you (A) sacrifice the five innocent people by doing nothing, or (B) warn them all, knowing that the five "bad ones" will get away alive?

Note: You are not able to time travel again, or catch them later! This is it! Either they die now, or get away!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:44 pm You are a time traveler. A car bomb is about to go off in a town square, and you are the only one able to warn people (from a distance).
The bomb will kill 10 people. Among them are: a serial killer, a drug cartel boss, the future mother of a brutal dictator, an abusive father/husband and a future terrorist, who will one day kill dozens.

Will you (A) sacrifice the five innocent people by doing nothing, or (B) warn them all, knowing that the five "bad ones" will get away alive?

Note: You are not able to time travel again! This is it!

I would warn them and take my car and run down the five bad ones. Case closed.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:59 pm I would warn them and take my car and run down the five bad ones. Case closed.

PhilX

Once the warning is given, they will spread and get far away rapidly. Besides, you are a visitor, and have no car.
Even if you succeeded, you'd get life in prison for multiple murders.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:02 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:59 pm I would warn them and take my car and run down the five bad ones. Case closed.

PhilX

Once the warning is given, they will spread and get far away rapidly. Besides, you are a visitor, and have no car.
Even if you succeeded, you'd get life in prison for multiple murders.

Now you're changing the conditions so are you amending the problem? (btw I posed a similar problem on another website)

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:20 pm Now you're changing the conditions so are you amending the problem? (btw I posed a similar problem on another website)

PhilX

It's logical additions. Things I didn't think to write down from the beginning. It's not easy setting up such a scenario perfectly.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:23 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:20 pm Now you're changing the conditions so are you amending the problem? (btw I posed a similar problem on another website)

PhilX

It's logical additions. Things I didn't think to write down from the beginning. It's not easy setting up such a scenario perfectly.

True

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:24 pm True

PhilX

I added a poll. Just found out I could do that

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 5:59 pm
I would warn them and take my car and run down the five bad ones. Case closed.

PhilX

Except that one of them was your great-grandmother (yes, your grandfather was a brother of the brutal dictator.) so you were never born, so you never had the chance to warn anybody about anything.
The past is done. Leave it alone.

First Quantum T:

I would make sure no evidence is left behind for the police ("The perfect crime").

Now Skippy:

What scientific evidence do we have that we can go back in time? Evidence by mainstream scientists? No affecting the past. I'll be born. (You disappointed me here. I'd expect more from you).

PhilX

Of course we can't go back in time. The past doesn't exist. There is no time.
I thought it was a thought-experiment. As such, you failed it, just as I've failed you.
C'est la vie!

Skip wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 4:42 am Of course we can't go back in time. The past doesn't exist. There is no time.
I thought it was a thought-experiment. As such, you failed it, just as I've failed you.
C'est la vie!

You should have made that clearer Einstein. C'est la vie.

PhilX

Why should it have been my responsibility to clarify the obvious?

Skip wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 4:55 am Why should it have been my responsibility to clarify the obvious?

Which means it wasn't so clear. You're tripping yourself up here. Better give it a rest Skip.

PhilX

The obvious wasn't clear to you and that's my fault?

We are equal because we are conscious beings. So ethical code should be in favor of more lives.