In b4 the move to "Off Topic"...
psycological question
Sort:
If I may ask a question of you, If one can explain it simply, do you understand it well enought?
At school, makes sense, only a kid could think there's a real dilemma there.
I would rather die and everyone live, but hopefully the world knows about it and forever respect me as the guy who died to save them all from death B)
Id probably die of loneliness if I lived and everyone died anyway.
Id probably die of loneliness if I lived and everyone died anyway.
I could be the last person to post on the Star Trek thread - so it would be great if everyone else on earth was killed so I could be the winner in this particular off topic thread. I'd also be the de facto world chess champion!
Nov 5, 2017
0
#7
it would be easier to just let them kill me. the alternative sounds a bit nasty.
Nov 5, 2017
0
#10
Let them all die then clone them with the DNA from their bodies.
Yeh as long as there are no carnivorous monsters I'm living happily with Abbey.
As long as they don't turn to zombies....
The question has two parts, one ethical and the other psychological. Ethically, you should prefer the smaller number of deaths to the larger number, so the morally correct answer is that you should prefer that you die while the rest of the world lives. Also, while you alone could not continue the human race or its cultural achievements, any large number of people could, which is a further reason to prefer the larger number of survivors.
Psychologically, you have to ask yourself whether you would want to live all alone in the world, which would amount to a perpetual and irremediable psychological and emotional starvation.
So both components of the question suggest that your own death is preferable.
Neither. Every question that has two options where neither is right or wrong always have a third option.
Nov 5, 2017
0
#16
Luitpoldt escribió:
The question has two parts, one ethical and the other psychological. Ethically, you should prefer the smaller number of deaths to the larger number, so the morally correct answer is that you should prefer that you die while the rest of the world lives. Also, while you alone could not continue the human race or its cultural achievements, any large number of people could, which is a further reason to prefer the larger number of survivors.
And this is why I consider utilitarianism an illness.
Nov 5, 2017
0
#17
good question.
Well, i am all about surviving of course. But if i am the only one left, what would be the point?
So I get to die, to save the world? Cool enough on its own right.
The only other option is to be a hermit the rest of my life? I guess I woud not be sacrificing much by dieing to save the world in that case now, would I?
No more sex either way, so...
I started at 1200 rating and they let me win a few games. I thought i was a masster chess player. Now I am ******* down to a rating of 756 and never win a game???? chess.com is a computer and you never play a real person chess.com should be renamed chess.con
if you would die and everyone in the world would live, or if everyone dies and you're the only one living on earth, which o0ne would u pick?
PS my friend asked me this question at school