About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

lily. · 01-02-2012, 12:18 PM

6. The Pregnant Woman

A pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless she is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the woman, whose head is out of the cave. Fortunately, (or unfortunately,) someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Source: Top 10 Moral Dilemmas

Benjamin · 01-02-2012, 12:22 PM

Ooh-er. This one is a trickier one. I'm not actually sure what I would do for this one.

Benjamin · 01-02-2012, 12:23 PM

It would have to be the dynamite. Cruel, I know, but for the sake of all the other people, she would have to be sacrificed.

Kate! · 01-02-2012, 12:39 PM

This is the one I am really struggling with. I guess I would go with the majority decision, I know that's a copout but the fact that she's pregnant makes it tough, if it was just one life for many then I would say use the dynamite.

MTVN · 01-02-2012, 12:45 PM

I would use the dynamite, I'm not sure how many are in this other group but in this kind of situation you just have to save as many lives as you can I think

lostalex · 01-02-2012, 12:49 PM

So if you don't use the dynamite, everyone else is gonna die? use it of course. this one seems less complicated than the others. Why is the pregger's woman putting herself in danger to begin with? and she's the tour guide, so she's like the captain of the ship, sorry little fetus, but the captain must go down with the ship!

Niamh. · 01-02-2012, 12:51 PM

Hhhmm, probably use the dynamite, she's going to die anyway. I'd hope someone else would actually do it though

Tom4784 · 01-02-2012, 01:29 PM

I'd use the dynamite, a lot more people would be affected if the majority of the group died. In situations like these the needs of the many outweigh that of the few.

Livia · 01-02-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'd use the dynamite, a lot more people would be affected if the majority of the group died. In situations like these the needs of the many outweigh that of the few.

And yet you wouldn't torture a terrorist's wife to save hundreds of innocent lives. That's quite interesting.

lostalex · 01-02-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

And yet you wouldn't torture a terrorist's wife to save hundreds of innocent lives. That's quite interesting.

It is interesting how a lot of the responses have political tinges to them isn't it?

CharlieO · 01-02-2012, 01:37 PM

Do not use the dynamite. Let nature do what it wants to do.

lostalex · 01-02-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Do not use the dynamite. Let nature do what it wants to do.

would yu use that same argument if you had a curable disease? don't be silly. If nature was allowed to take it's course, we'd all have a life expectancy of 40.

lily. · 01-02-2012, 01:41 PM

I doubt I could use the dynamite. I'd probably use my energy to try to pull the woman free.

Z · 01-02-2012, 01:55 PM

I'd use the dynamite. It was stupidity to let this woman go first and get stuck; and I'd rather the rest of us lived with just her and her unborn child dying rather than all of us.

Tom4784 · 01-02-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

And yet you wouldn't torture a terrorist's wife to save hundreds of innocent lives. That's quite interesting.

Completely different circumstances. In this situation it's either the group dies or the woman does while with the bomb dilemma you could argubly evacuate the area try to save as many people as possible without having lower yourself to torture. I'm not going to torture someone needlessly when I can save a number of people without having to resort to such measures.

Niall · 01-02-2012, 02:55 PM

I'd use the dynamite but I'd make sure she consented and knew what was going on.

CharlieO · 01-02-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

would yu use that same argument if you had a curable disease? don't be silly. If nature was allowed to take it's course, we'd all have a life expectancy of 40.

No because to cure a disease another person isn't going to have to die.

Were it to be someone that had a disease and another person who had to be murdered for an organ to cure the one persons disease. I would stick by my first answer and I would let nature kill one person rather than one person be murdered.