How would you adapt this picture in to a film?

How would you adapt this picture in to a film?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's the x-men series
>C is humans
>B is mutants
>A is magneto and raven
>person in question are the x-men

So if we both pull the lever it ends up on B?

How would you solve this?

i like this one

I would walk away and say "not my problem"

Isn't Saw kind of like this?

Don't pull anything. The only deaths in this scenario I could be directly responsible for is either 2 people total on B, or 4 people total on A, so I choose 2 by not pulling.

The only way all those people on C die would be the man at A pulling the lever, which puts the responsibility on him, not me. In a way, if he pulled that I would be responsible for 0 deaths total. So my choice is really kill 2 people, with a chance that I might kill 0 bundled with that. That's a lot better than killing 4 people.

lol who cares they ded

...

Why don't they just roll off the tracks?

I can't do anything because I'm tied.

Though I think the question posed is kind of irrelevant, the panic of waiting for a train to hit you overrides the pain of witnessing death, I'd still pick the same option and kill the 5 people first. Even if the pain is comparable you're giving mercy to more people quicker that way.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y
Isn't Snowpiercer the closest thing to a movie about a scenario like this? He has to constantly choose about left or right. It even takes place on a train.

Snake eyes

This is too wholesome for this website.

Someone else's problem.

The egalitarian decision would be to save the most amount of people possible, so save C. I will do my best to live with that decision.

shut the fuck up website expert

You are complicit in him pulling the lever, since you could have stoped him from killing more people than you could havr saved.

But if A operates by the same logic you'd be killing more people than necessary since he wouldn't pull his lever.

...

I don't know if he is going to pull it or not and you can't expect me to waste time debating the merits of "if" when I know there are 10 people I can instantly save on my own.

I'm not responsible for his decision he made with free agency. If my decision makes me technically complicit I don't think that word carries any moral weight.

>if I watch someone commit a murder, that doesn't make me complicit ;)
Yeah, Yeah, "don't tread on me" and all that, right Mr. Fiscal conservative, socially libertarian?

...

...

It's literally none of my business, I have no relationship to any of these people.
I'd let the man at A pull the lever to save his wife and kid.

someone post the goats one

>if I watch someone commit a murder, that doesn't make me complict
In what world does it? You might be expected to report it to the authorities and cooperate in an investigation but that's it. If you witness a robbery you aren't charged with theft. There's no option in the hypothetical to run over and tackle the guy at A preventing him from pulling it so that only his wife and kid die. My only power rests with the lever I'm given in a cruel twist of fate I had no control in beforehand.

>t. sociopath with little regard for human life.
The point is that you can't leave the scenario, retard. You need to choose.

...

But if he wouldn't have pulled it then you didn't save any of the people at C since they weren't ever in any danger.

I'd pull that lever so fast I'd rip a tendon in my arm.

no

...

Right, and in the parameters of a thought experiment where it is assumed you either have to pull the lever or don't, leaving the scenario is not one of the options...which makes you complicit if you do nothing.

I did choose you retard, I'd let the man at B pull the lever. Please explain how it's sociopathic to let a man save his wife and kid versus directly killing his wife and kid in front of him.

...again, how do you know he won't pull it to save his wife and child?

Because you are unfeeling about the deaths of 10 people?

...

I would do nothing. I can't justify making two extra people die based on what someone else 'might' do.

So why the hell wouldn't anybody just pull the lever? I'd kill millions if it meant my family, especially my kid(s), survive, Stupid scenario

He might. But he might not. Yes, you're gambling with the life of more people by pulling, but the best possible scenario as far as least loss of life goes requires you to pull

...

>I would kill millions to save my kid
I'm sorry that tribalism has fucked your brain up that bad, you would be a poor human being then.

It's not your family you spaz.

*by not pulling that is

>Every Meme a Reddit

Human life isn't a numbers game.
Either way people are dead, I'm not going to kill a wife and kid in front of their husband/dad, or kill a husband/dad in front of a wife and kid.

>but the best possible scenario as far as least loss of life goes requires you to pull
Which is literally what I said.

Tribalism is core to what it means to be human.

I'm not doing nothing though, I acknowledge inaction equates to action in this scenario. If the two people died I said I would be directly responsible. The optional possibility of all those people on C dying though rests with the man at A. The only decisions I have agency in are killing 2 people, or killing 4 so I choose 2.

It's irrelevant if the trolley is the same trolley by the end because either way my actions caused the man to be run over by a trolley

At that point I couldn't possibly care less

You're right, I miss read. In that case, I do nothing

>Human life isn't a numbers game
I don't know where this pseudo-Christian meme comes from. If I have to choose between saving 10 people or 4, I will automatically choose the largest number for minimal loss of life. It is literally the most sensible and logical choice.

I meant not pull. Since the best possible scenario is 2 people dying only, not 4 which would happen guaranteed if you pulled.

im sorry you have been brainwashed so much you cant understand what a family is.

...

Tribalism is literally an offshoot mess of genes that don't apply to a world filled with billions of people anymore.

So you'd save 10 homeless men over 4 world renowned Doctors?

That's not a decision you have the ability to make in this scenario. The only way the train goes towards C is if the other guy pulls his lever.

If you don't see them die they are neither dead nor alive.

Run away

Then why has every mass migration in history always completely fucked over the native inhabitants?

Ten people don't become less people if they are homeless. The goal of any crisis intervention is "action with minimal loss of life". Every time, I am going to pick 10 over 4.

Well then I'd bank on the idea of self preservation in others, and pull the lever, hoping that the man at A also pulls his lever.

Because your brain is fucked by Sup Forums and that isn't really true. I'm sure that rustles your jimmies though.

>tribalism is an offshoot mess of genes
what?

>not pulling
>you or your wife and her son die
>pulling
>kill some random people
no brainer m8

That's dumb. You're supporting people that are a burden on society, over people that can save many lives. Your direct actions have a long term negative effect.

>literally not what he was talking about

lmao

...

Fuck off you social Darwinist Nazi faggot. I don't have the right to judge a person's long term worth. I can only play a numbers game and pick a decision with the least amount of casualties.

>Because your brain is fucked by Sup Forums and that isn't really true.
It'll be easy for you to cite a miss migration that hasn't then.

trying to picture the autistic neckbeard that made this

It's not your family you spaz.

You judge a person's worth every day you look at someone, you absolute faggot.
You just do the numbers game because you want to sleep easy and night and can't handle tough decisions.

>prove a negative to my Sup Forums meme
Your entire premise is somewhat autistic and you can't even see why. What are you constituting "mass" migration? You realize that 9 times out of 10, it boosts an economy of that country? Bringing in low paying work that builds up the lower middle classes?

>you or your wife and her son die
Nice try.

You don't need a right to judge that.

You're still judging their worth, you're just arbitrarily judging them to be equally valuable.

Selfishness is what it means to be human. At the end of the day everyone looks out for number one, no one is truly selfless deep down. How would saving a million people I don't know help me as opposed to my own family?

Tribalism is the result of evolutionary traits that were best suited for small community management. Technology

>You realize that 9 times out of 10, it boosts an economy of that country? Bringing in low paying work that builds up the lower middle classes?

This. Get rid of borders. The economy is your god.

Why do we not need to manage small communities anymore?

This

If you think that asking for an example of something you claim to have happened is asking you to prove a negative then you're even more retarded than I thought.

Thats not how genes work, they dont just stop being relevant when you want them to

He's not asking you to prove a negative, just fine one single example.

kek

>you just do the numbers game because you want to sleep easy and night and can't handle tough decisions.
For some reason it autistically bothers you that I will choose 10 over 4 each time because of some goofy social Darwinist meme logic of "personal value" of maybe the 4 are doctors or something and yet you can't seem to see how you are incorporating the same logic you condemn, you are arbitrarily choosing worth based on your feefees.

I'm not, faggot. 10 people are worth more than 4 if it is between a loss of 4 people or a loss of 10.

What was the answer to this anyway?

Because nobody in the first world actually functions in small communities.

>For some reason it autistically bothers you that I will choose 10 over 4
This part of the post would make a lot of sense if you weren't the one that started this whole debate in the first place

>10 people are worth more than 4 if it is between a loss of 4 people or a loss of 10.
Only once you pre-judge them to all have equal worth, which is ideological, not logical.

Because I'm not making the initial claim you fucking retard, you did. Mine was a counter claim, you first have to prove your Sup Forums-tier premise on mass migration. All I said was, no.
He literally is...

I don't think you know what ideological means.

...