 |
Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
 Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:00 pm Post subject: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
 |
|
| In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Channel GannoK
pffrt
 Reputation: 130
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 608
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Channel GannoK wrote: | | yes |
You would have found him guilty for murder? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BreakinGods
How do I cheat?
 Reputation: 17
Joined: 13 Jan 2013
Posts: 0
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would definitely try to get the others to agree it was necessary before hitting shore. Maybe they could lighten the load even more if some people were going to snitch... The people at shore shouldn't have known what happened because it saved all the others lives and they at least owe their silence.
_________________
I'm a young producer and rapper from Washington D.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sir h4xalot
Expert Cheater
 Reputation: 1
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sir h4xalot
Expert Cheater
Reputation: 1
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
The answer is no.
Killing to save is never the wrong answer, regardless of the outcome, so long as the number you chose to kill was less than the number you chose to save. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
The answer is no.
Killing to save is never the wrong answer, regardless of the outcome, so long as the number you chose to kill was less than the number you chose to save. |
In this case, 23 had to die to save 7, but if they didn't, 30 would die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sir h4xalot
Expert Cheater
Reputation: 1
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
The answer is no.
Killing to save is never the wrong answer, regardless of the outcome, so long as the number you chose to kill was less than the number you chose to save. |
In this case, 23 had to die to save 7, but if they didn't, 30 would die. |
Well then it balances itself out, doesn't it?
7 lives are worth more than 30 deaths |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
The answer is no.
Killing to save is never the wrong answer, regardless of the outcome, so long as the number you chose to kill was less than the number you chose to save. |
In this case, 23 had to die to save 7, but if they didn't, 30 would die. |
Well then it balances itself out, doesn't it?
7 lives are worth more than 30 deaths |
Just saying the number of kills outnumbered the number of saves, because in the example of 30 people dying, no one is "killed" by anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sir h4xalot
Expert Cheater
Reputation: 1
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Overcrowded Lifeboat |
|
|
| HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | sir h4xalot wrote: | | HackOtaku wrote: | | In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided? |
Is this a "death of the few for the lives of the many" question?
Because the answer is always yes
unless you're scumfuck. |
It's more along the lines of asking if one is still "guilty" of killing people, even if it was to save lives. If no one was made to sacrifice, a boat full of innocent people drown, if some people are made to sacrifice, is the person who lead the charge ultimately guilty of a crime? Was it a "wrongdoing"? |
The answer is no.
Killing to save is never the wrong answer, regardless of the outcome, so long as the number you chose to kill was less than the number you chose to save. |
In this case, 23 had to die to save 7, but if they didn't, 30 would die. |
Well then it balances itself out, doesn't it?
7 lives are worth more than 30 deaths |
Just saying the number of kills outnumbered the number of saves, because in the example of 30 people dying, no one is "killed" by anyone. |
It isn't about how many people died its about how many people lived
thats the number that matters in the end |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
