Jump to content

Are you a psychopath? (Trigger Warning)


Soloray

Would you save the people?  

  1. 1. Scenario 1

    • Yes
      163
    • No
      57
  2. 2. Scenario 2

    • Yes
      76
    • No
      144

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Not all psychopaths/sociopaths/Anti Social P.D. sufferers kill/murder. If I were asked a question like this, and I have been tested for A.S.P.D. due to my diagnosed personality disorder, then my real answer, if I were a psychopath, would be to just let them all die and not give a shit. I would be more concerned about my train being delayed/late. If we are going down a moral/empathy route, then this should be a true psychopaths answer. If we're going down a "what would you do" route, then I would probably panic for too long until something awful happened.

And a big thumbs up to 5_DCC for making me laugh :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vyanni Krace

Well according to this I'm a psychopath. What a shame.

Yes, I'd flick that switch. If I had time I'd probably try to warn that one person on the other track and save everyone, but when push comes to shove I'd let that one man die to save the other five.

I'd also chuck the fat guy over the bridge. I mean, it would be difficult considering the size difference but I'd try at least. I mean if throwing myself over would do any good (and if I weren't a wimp) then I'd throw myself over, but unfortunately I probably wouldn't be big enough to stop the train, while the fat dudes bulk will be. And it saves five other lives. Logical if you ask me. Think of it as triage. However if I don't think pushing him over will help the situation then I wont do it because what's the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like asking if you would kill a murderer to save people.

not doing something to save people is just as bad as killing them yourself.

The need of the many outweigh the need of the few. I say yes to both.
I don't think this is a test whether people are psychopaths or not.
I am not sure how to define empathy but I can tell what people want and they expect me to act and respond.
also I saw this video the other day and made me all fuzzy inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O8lbQGq7W4&hd=1

I don't even know if it matters to wonder about this. If I am then there is nothing to win by associating as one. It has no positive meaning in the real world.

other people are just way to sentimental about humans...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because too many people are arguing I wont bother to quote anyone on this, but I will explain my side. I actually meant the specific scenario in which you can just as easily take action as not take it, thus making acting eqivilant to not acting. In a situation where acting is just as easy as not acting and the effort is minimal what is the difference between acting and not acting? The only real difference is that one way you can delusion yourself into believing that you did not choose to do something, even though technically you chose to do nothing. The examples given to counter what I said are completely different situations then what I was getting at. I was talking about situations in which the action and not acting are just as easy as one another and are just as effective. Curing desese takes a lifetime of commitment, something that isn't all that easy, saving people from starvation takes the commitment and money it takes to get food and send it to people, saving people that you don't know will die takes a life time of studying the signs to realize they are about to die. Each and every situation like that is already covered by those who chose to dedicate their life to that, and also dedicating your life to saving people is very different then simply choosing the action that will result in the better outcome. In the senario presented you yourself are not incapable of moving, and you end up having to chose that you will do nothing, so unless your saying that you would still be thinking it over by the time you can no longer act then you have either chosen to allow five to die or to kill one, for the greater good. If you can not understand this consept then I'm sorry but I simply can't explain myself well enough to get the point through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just repeat - if there's no universal and unalienable human right to protect the fat guy's and the stroller's life, then it's ethically irrelevant how many folks are made to snuff it; the most ethical choice will be to do what's the most fun and profit for you. If you want to take a third option and throw a hand grenade that kills all six and damages the tracks enough to make the train derail and kill a few dozen more, that's perfectly ethical if it gives you the giggles for a few seconds and staves off the dreary boredom. As Crowley said, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

Well, that's quite an extreme position to take, then, Mysticus and qwair. But it is, of course, yours to take.

Honestly, it absolutely scares me to see it described as extreme. It shouldn't be anything but absolute baseline, IMO. This thread and the number of Yes votes shows me that humans, indeed, are bastards... I'll grant everyone a right to live, of course, because I do unshakably believe in UHR; but I need to point out that I think folks who vote yes to both, while unalienably having them, have done nothing to have earned these rights - to live, be free from bodily harm, be allowed free speech, free movement, etc.pp. -, and are acting on selfish entitlement alone if they ever complain about being "victimized"/their "rights" being "violated". I'm not ashamed to say that I find such entitlement arrogant and distasteful.

Still, thanks for the cake. [/sincerity mode]

Link to post
Share on other sites

First one yes, second one no. It's got nothing to do with being a psychopath. I learned about this in psychology. It was a few years ago, but we did a study on this and it's relation to the participants' disgust propensity, anger, and a bunch of other traits. More people will say no to the second one because it's physical, whereas the first one is just pressing a button and therefore not as personal.

And it's most definitely not what's profitable for me. It's the simple concept of sacrificing the life of one for the lives if many. The bastard move would be if the situation were reversed and the single person was someone I knew - so my friend was about to die, and I could prevent that by flicking the switch to kill the other five people - and I did indeed flick the switch. That would be bad, and only for my benefit. But saying yes to these is arguably the more moral choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we've arrived at an impasse; proponents of both courses of action calling each other immoral, selfish, and "bastardly," while expressing stunned disbelief how anybody could even consider to do such a thing.

This is very intriguing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we've arrived at an impasse; proponents of both courses of action calling each other immoral, selfish, and "bastardly," while expressing stunned disbelief how anybody could even consider to do such a thing.

This is very intriguing.

When you get to the very basics, it always end that way in my experience. ;)

And note that they're only selfish if they object to being killed (or beaten up, raped, tortured, locked away indefinitely etc.) themselves. If they see that as par for the course if they're not strong enough to defend themselves - well, it's a dreary worldview, but at least it's logically consistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we've arrived at an impasse; proponents of both courses of action calling each other immoral, selfish, and "bastardly," while expressing stunned disbelief how anybody could even consider to do such a thing.

This is very intriguing.

When you get to the very basics, it always end that way in my experience. ;)

And note that they're only selfish if they object to being killed (or beaten up, raped, tortured, locked away indefinitely etc.) themselves. If they see that as par for the course if they're not strong enough to defend themselves - well, it's a dreary worldview, but at least it's logically consistent.

I think I'd 100% object to being killed, but I wouldn't consider it morally wrong if someone did kill me to save lots of other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'd 100% object to being killed, but I wouldn't consider it morally wrong if someone did kill me to save lots of other people.

And as long as this belief of yours goes only for your own life, instead of the lives of random bystanders, too, I have no beef with it, even though I find it not terribly consistent on a logical level. Once you start morally expecting the sacrificing of third party innocent lives, you won't find me giving you the benefit of an agree-to-disagree option anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the bumbling rotifer

Either no to both or yes to both - I don't really see the difference between them (apart from the fact that I find it hard to believe that I would know for sure that the person crossing the tracks would be killed, or that the body would stop the train).

I went for no to both, because killing people by failing to act seems preferable over killing people by acting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to this I'm a psychopath. What a shame.

Yes, I'd flick that switch. If I had time I'd probably try to warn that one person on the other track and save everyone, but when push comes to shove I'd let that one man die to save the other five.

I'd also chuck the fat guy over the bridge. I mean, it would be difficult considering the size difference but I'd try at least. I mean if throwing myself over would do any good (and if I weren't a wimp) then I'd throw myself over, but unfortunately I probably wouldn't be big enough to stop the train, while the fat dudes bulk will be. And it saves five other lives. Logical if you ask me. Think of it as triage. However if I don't think pushing him over will help the situation then I wont do it because what's the point?

Speaking as a fat guy myself, I sure hope I don't find myself on any bridge or overpass with you in the future

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ace of Swords

I said yes to both.

I am a psychopath though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

But, honestly, I have no idea what I would do. Kill one person and be personally responsible for ending their life, or sit idly by and watch five people die knowing I could save them? Both would probably put me in therapy, regardless of the decision. As for the inaction not counting as killing debate - well, I have no way of curing AIDs, or stopping wars. But, if I see someone about to be shot in front of me and my options are 1) do nothing or 2) grab the gun and prevent the shot .. I would feel pretty responsible if I just sat and watched. So, for me, in either scenario you are killing someone and the choice is "who do you let die?" rather than "do I kill?" ... and I would not want to make that decision. And have no idea what decision I would make when presented with it. All I know is, I probably couldn't live with either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Waist of Thyme

I'd just stand there watching in horror in both scenarios. :) Unless it's in self-defense or defense of someone else, or if I'm helping someone who wants or needs assisted suicide, I have no place at all to determine who has to die and who gets to continue living. And if you really want to sacrifice someone to save others, you should at least ask for their consent first. I'm sure some people would be glad to give up their lives for other people to live, but not everyone would be ok with that, and seeing as it's someone's life that's involved, they should have a say in that.

I've always hated the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" because it seems to imply that the worth of someone's life is determined by whether they're in the majority or the minority. And the main reason people choose the majority seems to be that more people being alive = probably more people reproducing and so our species continues to exist, rather than actually caring about the people whose lives are at stake. I don't think it's important whether or not our species will exist in the future, I just think the people who are alive now should be taken care of as best as possible. Here's another variable to think about: What if it's one person's life versus ten, and those ten are all serial killers, rapists, child abusers, or the like? You'd be killing one innocent person to save ten monsters. You can never really know what the people are like if you don't know them personally, so it's best not to intervene in times like that and just let whatever happens happen. This entire paragraph is just me rambling, though.

Right now, I'm imagining myself as a person in a scenario like this, where someone might choose to sacrifice me to save a greater number of people, and it's an absolutely terrifying thought. If that ever happens, the person trying to sacrifice me should expect resistance. A mother bear attacking someone/something to protect her cub would be less than nothing compared to the ferocity and desperation I'd display if that occurred. Fortunately, situations like this almost never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just stand there watching in horror in both scenarios. :) Unless it's in self-defense or defense of someone else, or if I'm helping someone who wants or needs assisted suicide, I have no place at all to determine who has to die and who gets to continue living. And if you really want to sacrifice someone to save others, you should at least ask for their consent first. I'm sure some people would be glad to give up their lives for other people to live, but not everyone would be ok with that, and seeing as it's someone's life that's involved, they should have a say in that.

I've always hated the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" because it seems to imply that the worth of someone's life is determined by whether they're in the majority or the minority. And the main reason people choose the majority seems to be that more people being alive = probably more people reproducing and so our species continues to exist, rather than actually caring about the people whose lives are at stake. I don't think it's important whether or not our species will exist in the future, I just think the people who are alive now should be taken care of as best as possible. This entire paragraph is just me rambling, though.

Right now, I'm imagining myself as a person in a scenario like this, where someone might choose to sacrifice me to save a greater number of people, and it's an absolutely terrifying thought. If that ever happens, the person trying to sacrifice me should expect resistance. A mother bear attacking someone/something to protect her cub would be less than nothing compared to the ferocity and desperation I'd display if that occurred. Fortunately, situations like this almost never happen.

Well to be fair the entire scenario is unfair towards choosing, sense in real life there would be many more things that can be done. Choosing between the only two choices is quite unfair, and really makes it to where many people are misinterpreted because of the scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always hated the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" because it seems to imply that the worth of someone's life is determined by whether they're in the majority or the minority. And the main reason people choose the majority seems to be that more people being alive = probably more people reproducing and so our species continues to exist, rather than actually caring about the people whose lives are at stake. I don't think it's important whether or not our species will exist in the future, I just think the people who are alive now should be taken care of as best as possible. Here's another variable to think about: the saying "Quality over quantity". What if it's one person's life versus ten, and those ten are all serial killers, rapists, child abusers, or the like? You'd be killing one innocent person to save ten monsters. You can never really know what the people are like if you don't know them personally, so it's best not to intervene in times like that and just let whatever happens happen. This entire paragraph is just me rambling, though.

Well, obviously I'd rather save one good person compared to 10 losers; I should hope others would agree. But the scenario seems to imply that each person on the track is equally unknown; the single person is just as likely to be a loser as any of the group of five. When you can't judge by quality, quantity is what tends to come next.

To me, the difference between the two scenarios is that in the first, the lone person is caught directly in the scenario (by being on the train tracks), but in the second, the lone person is just a bystander. I have no right to decide whether he gets to be a hero; he's not even involved. I would go as far as to say that I would consider anyone who would go through with pushing the guy over the bridge to be a murderer, regardless of whether the act saved another life or numerous lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
littleheartsofjoy

If I was ever a witness to either scenario, I'll probably panic and be unsure of what to do, especially for the second scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a psychopath yay!

I'd have no issue with throwing the switch or pushing the person over. It's both very clear for me and I'd not even hesitate.

That's assuming I was motivated enough to even care that an accident was happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If quality over quantity is the deciding factor, who is to judge quality ? Is it the richest person? The person with the highest IQ? The nun/priest? The person with a family? What gives any person the right to judge one persons life worth more than another? How can anyone predict the impact removing that one life will have on the future - maybe they would give birth to the person that cures cancer if they live, even if they are a low IQ bum themselves. I doubt any human alive is wise enough to truly decide the worth of a person they meet.

The basis behind the logical statement of the many outweigh the few is if you can benefit 1,000 by sacrificing 10, the odds are in your favor that the 1,000 will do more productive things than the 10. It is logical. But, humans are not often driven by logic in such matters. Nor should they be, really. Or, we'd have things like in I Robot with people rescuing the one with the highest survival rate and letting others die, even if the one being saved was begging the rescuer to save the other person. I just linked the video because, honestly, being a geek that is the first thing that popped into my head when I read the question. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Waist of Thyme

By quality over quantity, I just meant people like the ones I used in the examples who have done terrible things to people (serial killers, rapists, child abusers). I don't think quality should be determined by wealth, intelligence, how many children someone has, how much someone has contributed to society, etc. I didn't use the phrase correctly (I now see it was a terrible way to use it), and I could have said what I meant to say without using the phrase in the first place, so I'll edit it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the bumbling rotifer

Are serial killers, rapist and child abusers bad people, or just people who have done bad things because they are misguided or though no fault of their own have urges they can't control or resist?

Sure, lock them up to protect people and to discourage others from doing bad things, but I wouldn't ever be confident enough to call one human being 'bad' and another 'good'. We've all been dealt different cards in life and have different values. Who am I to judge someone without having stood in their shoes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original video he says as for the situation 1 that the one person is also trapped to the rail, in that situation I would probably switch it. However, if the person was just freely crossing over the rail, i wouldn't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Waist of Thyme

Are serial killers, rapist and child abusers bad people, or just people who have done bad things because they are misguided or though no fault of their own have urges they can't control or resist?

Sure, lock them up to protect people and to discourage others from doing bad things, but I wouldn't ever be confident enough to call one human being 'bad' and another 'good'. We've all been dealt different cards in life and have different values. Who am I to judge someone without having stood in their shoes?

A lot of serial killers have psychological disorders that lead them to kill people. A few serial killers and most rapists and child abusers are fully in control of their actions. But they're dangerous people and their actions aren't ok regardless of whether it's their fault or not. By saving a serial killer, rapist, or child abuser, it gives them the chance to continue killing, raping, or abusing.

Having different values doesn't make it ok to kill, rape, or abuse someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having different values doesn't make it ok to kill, rape, or abuse someone.

Your victim having done evil things in the past doesn't make it okay to kill, rape or abuse them either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is simple: 5 people die, or 1 person dies; it's your choice. I would chose the one. By not pressing the button, you're making the choice to let the 5 people die. By pressing the button, you're making the choice to let 1 person die. The only reason not to press the button is fear of responsibility.

:D Reminds me of a question I know of...

Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name.

The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer.

Why did she do it?

I sat staring at that question for a minute or two and then figured it out and burst out laughing. I think I failed the psychopath test :P
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason not to press the button is fear of responsibility.

As I already pointed out, that's not the only reason.

I'd be completely at peace with letting five (or five million) people die through inaction, for the greater good of upholding human rights. The choice in the scenario is very easy for me - there's no way am I touching that button. I have no ethically acceptable way to save their lives, so the five must necessarily die (and I'd honor them as martyrs for the rights of all of us). That's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Waist of Thyme

Your victim having done evil things in the past doesn't make it okay to kill, rape or abuse them either.

But I never said anything about going around and killing them, or raping or abusing them...I said that saving someone who is would give them the opportunity to kill, rape, or abuse more people.

P.S.: It makes me extremely uncomfortable when people like the ones I mentioned are portrayed sympathetically even if their actions were out of their control, because of what they've done to people. Is it ok if I leave the thread instead of continuing this conversation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason not to press the button is fear of responsibility.

The way I see it, pressing the button makes you responsible. Being responsible is what makes the difference between murdering and witnessing a murder. I would rather witness 5 people being killed by accident or even on purpose, than killing one myself.

Please do not do the mistake of thinking, that the fact that other people have a different opinion than yours means, that you're being rational while they're being irrational. I think that we are all being rational, we just have a different set of moral axioms, which leads us to different conclusions.

P.S.: It makes me extremely uncomfortable when people like the ones I mentioned are portrayed sympathetically even if their actions were out of their control, because of what they've done to people. Is it ok if I leave the thread instead of continuing this conversation?

Of course, I will still comment on what you've said if someone else wants to read it, though.

But I never said anything about going around and killing them, or raping or abusing them...I said that saving someone who is would give them the opportunity to kill, rape, or abuse more people.

I think differently. If you have a moral obligation to save people when you can, then you are obligated to save any person, regardless of what they did in the past or will do in the future. You are only responsible for your own actions, not the actions of other people, and other people acting morally or immorally shouldn't influence how you behave one way or another, in my opinion. I think that either you have to save anyone if you can, or you have to save no one, but playing judge and saving people discriminately is wrong in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...