Game has complex moral choices

>Game has complex moral choices

>moral choice has complex games

>The complex choice has game morals

MULTI
TRACK
DRIFTING

>There are people who truly think doing nothing is the right choice

>no option to kill the 5 guys with the train and then shoot the single guy on top in the head

>game subscribes to the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics

Ah, but if you half-pull the lever the train will go right through the middle without injuring anyone

COMPLEX MOTIVES

It is because I don't have anyone's blood on my hands.

>complex
This is not really that complex. Either 5 people die, or one person dies. It's not that hard.

Name 5 games that does that

But if you get involved, you will be responsible for the death of whoever dies (be the group of 5 or the lonely faggot)

If you do nothing, if you just stay the fuck away then nothing that happens can be blamed on you

if I do nothing then I'm not responsible for anyone dying. whoever tied them up is.

"you have the choice. Either you say that one person dies, or i will kill 100 people."
"i won't say anything, because that means i am not at fault for the death"

This is my favorite one of these

but what if the train originaly kill the five person (like if you do nothing).

you allowed 5 people to die through your inaction

You can actually be charged for not helping thanks to how messed up the legal system is

You witnessed the situation (in fact, in the image you already have your hand on the lever). That alone is enough to place a moral burden on you

I like the ddr one

5 games that does that

name one gamne were your choces actually matters

Therefore you are evil, because thousands of people die early every day and your action could have saved them

Correct. The other guy is killing them. I didn't ask for these choices.
No, because I didn't put them there or start the train

This is bullshit, if you were stood right there next to the lever then people could easily blame you for letting the 5 die.

...

>Game gives you two distinct choices
>The title of the game changes depending on what you chose

>game has no clear good guy
>people suck its dick over being morally complex when actually it's super simple

but you were in a position where you could have saved their lives, and chose not to. If you hadn't walked down that street that day then you wouldn't be responsible because you would have been ignorant of the situation, but because you do know, you are now burdened with the responsibility.

Alpha Protocol.

I can't, because no video game actually matters.

>I didn't put them there or start the train
But you did let them die when you could have saved them simply by pushing a switch.

That's not true, at least not in US. If you decide to help, and end up doing more harm then good, you can be charged. But the law never obligates someone to save another who is in danger, unless you created the dangerous situation yourself in which case you do have a duty to act.
If you see some kid drowning you can stand there with your hands in your pockets and legally you've done nothing wrong.

At least one person will die no matter what. By simply pulling a lever, you can save five people.

If you have the ability to help and don't there is definitely blood on your hands

That man is larger than the train
He should ignore the lever and just shove it out of the way.

Is there actually any person here who wouldn't pull the lever to save the 5 people? I mean, it's a no brainer. You have the power to just sacrifice one person to save 5 people. Inaction would just mean that you helped kill 5 people, instead of 1.

I don't know who's job that is but it certainly isn't mine.

Seinfeld wasn't real life

Well duh I'm not the one who killed the 100 people. It was the bullet's fault. Maybe the gun could be tried for manslaughter idk

Kek my face when the lever does this

It's a VERY fast train going at incredible hihg speed

If you had more info, you could potentially justify killing the five over the one.

The five could all be terminally ill for example and the one is not

G
A
M
ONE

Would you actually not push the lever to save the group of people in this situation because it's not your job?

What if the five people are mere peasants who have nothing while the single one is a king who will reward you with riches and maybe even a noble title?

The only way you can't be blamed is if you are completely unaware of what is happening. Like you were in another fucking continent or whatever

You are there in the scene, you are watching it, you are part of it. Your actions (or lack of them) will determine who dies and who lives.

>inb4 'b-b-ut i didn't ask for it!"
so what? A lot of shit in life is forced on you without giving you a choice

name three games that do this

My favorite is the one where it says if you don't pull the leaver you don't get to do the sick loopty loop

A lever pull is a lever pull, you can't say it's half.

...

>implying there is any philosophical obligation to accept something if it's forced on you

You literally can't prove there is

Yes. I'm not going to explain to the the lonely dude's wife and kids why I killed him. My choice is to not take part in the situation. I'm not a cop or a firefighter, it is not my job to play hero.

Nothing matters.

That's in china isn't it, the good samaritan law

>pushed the lever
>saved 5 sadists/rapists/murderers
>killed 1 neurosurgeon

>if you pull that lever you're going to prison for manslaughter if you can't afford a good lawyer

USA USA

MUH UTILITARIANISM

Lisa: The painful

Lisa: The joyful

Did you you sacrifice your feelings for joy or did you experience them just for them to give you pain?

Don't push the lever
Shot the lonely guy as he will probably tell the cops that I didn't do anything

Neither of those are true.
I believe there is something called "gross negligence" where basically if you see someone get stabbed on the street and just walk past them you CAN get in trouble.

Conversely, if you do try to help them but end up doing more harm, you are safe, thanks to the Good Samaritan laws.

It might be more complex than that but I learned about it last in like junior year health,

And what about the families of the 5 people who you could have saved?

its essentially the same as butchering a guy and using his organs to save five people dude

in both circumstances you are choosing to murder one person to save five

You are completely wrong in both counts.

>I didn't do anything wrong because no one can say I did anything wrong
this is how you do nothing appologists sound

Weird it didn't change the title of the game in my library

I'm a law student. Gross negligence is something else and isn't really applicable here. Don't talk about things you don't understand

what was the dilemma here anyway? the one person is someone you love while the five are literally whos?

Why does the choice have to "matter"? I think it can be very poignant when the end result is the same, because then it simply becomes a question of "what is the right thing to do in this situation?"

>save the five faggots and kill that one dude
>dude that dies was supposed to be the next Tesla

>save five faggots
>one of them becomes the next Obama and starts WW3

>An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
?

Don't talk shit about utilitarianism motherfucker

No you don't know anything about any of them.

The definition of something being forced on you is that you don't want it but are going to take it. No one gives a fuck if you don't want to have to make the decision, it was given to you so whatever you choose to do is part of the final outcome and therefore your responsibility as well.

No matter what, blood is on your hands. Inaction is a decision itself.

/r/ing the "I'm no longer a bystander" version.

Depends on the people.

Would you pull the lever if the group of 5 were hitler, stalin, erdogan, trump and hilary?

>People actually think this is a hard choice
Killing one person>Killing 5 people.

oh, the dilemma is whether you'd murder one person to save five, or do nothing. I remember now

I don't have to explain anything because I didn't put them there. I played no part in the situation, I have nothing to explain. How do I decide that 5 people desire to live instead of 1? For all I know, the 5 dudes are rapists and Murderers while the lone dude is a aerospace engineer

There is one dilemma that always blew my mind.

>A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives?

Well then please kill yourself as the pleasure we would get from watching you blow your brains out will be greater than the pain you get from it

No, all of them are literally who's.

The dilemma is that letting five die is the default, while letting one die is due to your choice.

The question is, if you do nothing have you killed 5 people or have you killed no people.

>Being ignorant frees you of blame

You're not getting out what happened in France that easily.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

It all was trick. Pushing the lever could stop the train and save everyone. Guy who force you to make the choice cough you crazy shit on camera and reported to police

What if I'm daydreaming or stoned out of my mind and didn't realize what was going on?

But you DID play a part in the situation. You are there, in control of the lever

...

Your choice whether to press the jump or attack button, or refrain from pushing any buttons at all, matters.

>muh nihilism
>muh "I'm not to blame"

Not doing anything also makes you responsible you dumb fuck

>If you have the ability to help and don't there is definitely blood on your hands

Sacrificing an innocent person to save other people is evil. Pulling the lever means you're a murderer, murder is worse than not saving people.

>responsibility
W
E
W

the dilemma is about choice and what choice means; the man can either do nothing and kill 5 people, or switch the lever and kill 1

>Be in the USA
>This whole train thing happens in Australia while I am asleep because timezones and whatnot. Find out about it a week later
>I am not free of blame

?

Until Dawn.
But you faggots will move the goalposts

ahh junior health, where all good legal advice comes from.

>Not doing anything also makes you responsible
Nope. I'm not an emergency responder. Saving people is not my job.

lrn2 hierarchy of interests
critical interests > trivial interests

>save new Hitler
>kill 5 Tesla
I can play that game too