Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Push the button

12 (54.5%)

Don't push the button

10 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 15

[Dishevelled Den]

No, of course not - the quest for riches while disregarding how they are amassed has been responsible for mankind plumbing the depths of morality on more than one occasion throughout history.

no one would ever know Zulu.....and its a lot of money, and if you refuse they give someone else the option and so on and so on 

Aah but I would know BJ - standards begin within the individual and no amount of money would tempt me to ignore them.  Money is just not that important. (To me at least)

give the £1m to a good cause then, its tax free Zulu - what if that money saved 10 or 100 lives.........

This has developed into yet another interesting topic from you BJ. 8-)


Yes, this is where the question of morality and high personal standards both conspire to confuse the issue - should an individual be tortured for information about the bomb that may subsequently kill or maim many other people should it explode undiscovered? - there's never an easy answer to it.

The only thing I can say is that if any person permits their standards to slip in relation to any given situation (irrespective of whether or not money is involved) then in many cases that can be the start of the slippery slope to making an already difficult situation (such as in this case) much worse.

Sometimes people die unnecessarily but unavoidably in the event of apparent inaction by those charged with protecting them - but I can say from experience that when the line of reasonable, moral and justified behaviour is crossed the results can be, in many cases, far from those intended at the outset.

To take the money and redistribute it as you suggest would simply justify the already worrying dilemma of facilitating the demise of others for what would amount to be personal gain.

[Banjax]

No, of course not - the quest for riches while disregarding how they are amassed has been responsible for mankind plumbing the depths of morality on more than one occasion throughout history.

no one would ever know Zulu.....and its a lot of money, and if you refuse they give someone else the option and so on and so on 

Aah but I would know BJ - standards begin within the individual and no amount of money would tempt me to ignore them.  Money is just not that important. (To me at least)

give the £1m to a good cause then, its tax free Zulu - what if that money saved 10 or 100 lives.........

This has developed into yet another interesting topic from you BJ. 8-)


Yes, this is where the question of morality and high personal standards both conspire to confuse the issue - should an individual be tortured for information about the bomb that may subsequently kill or maim many other people should it explode undiscovered? - there's never an easy answer to it.

The only thing I can say is that if any person permits their standards to slip in relation to any given situation (irrespective of whether or not money is involved) then in many cases that can be the start of the slippery slope to making an already difficult situation (such as in this case) much worse.

Sometimes people die unnecessarily but unavoidably in the event of apparent inaction by those charged with protecting them - but I can say from experience that when the line of reasonable, moral and justified behaviour is crossed the results can be, in many cases, far from those intended at the outset.

To take the money and redistribute it as you suggest would simply justify the already worrying dilemma of facilitating the demise of others for what would amount to be personal gain.

good points Z - I'm not condoning or condeming anyone who chooses - in actual fact, unlike Albs' point that people faced with the harsh reality of the situation would choose not to press the button despite saying they would, I think when faced with a suitcase full of money we would be more inclined to push the button even if we said we wouldn't 

[Amigo]

Much as i'd like the dosh i voted no. If i were to cause someone to die randomly it might be a struggling parent or hard working nurse /doctor.
    If i could choose who snuffed it then YES but that would be too easy.

  I could'nt gamble a decent persons life for any money.

[bigboykarl]

the only question i have is if i press it 100 times do i get £100 million..

[Dishevelled Den]

good points Z - I'm not condoning or condeming anyone who chooses - in actual fact, unlike Albs' point that people faced with the harsh reality of the situation would choose not to press the button despite saying they would, I think when faced with a suitcase full of money we would be more inclined to push the button even if we said we wouldn't 

Yes I certainly agree that there's nothing like cold hard cash to cut through the moral maze.

Although it has to be said that to give in to temptation - be it from a woman, man, money, privilege or whatever - is to sell one's right for clear-headed self determination and ownership of one's soul. (Or equivalent)

[doug4293]

av just pushed the button, when do a get ma million quid ?? and have a got to share it with the other 7 that have pushed it ?

[Martin_1962]

Depends who was on the other end.

There are quite a few I would press it for. (Huntly Sutcliffe Gadaffy)

But many more I would not

you've no idea who dies and you don't know them

No then

[Martin_1962]

Actually the button pusher is not the murderer the person who carriess it out is

[mantahatch]

I voted to push the button, I assume I am a terrible person who should be condemned to eternal damnation.

I suspect many people would take the money and run. And yes it is probably to do with the way we live these days.

[jonnycool]

The fact that very, very many people would actually push the button, and that it would take a lot less than a million quid, is probably why we have had atrocities like the holocaust occur in history.

I remember the electric shock experiments where people were told to give a person (unseen) in the room a possibly lethal electric shock, to the sound of agonised screaming, just because they were being ordered to. There wasn't even any money involved, and the people weren't to know that they weren't actually hurting someone 

[Amigo]

The fact that very, very many people would actually push the button, and that it would take a lot less than a million quid, is probably why we have had atrocities like the holocaust occur in history.

I remember the electric shock experiments where people were told to give a person (unseen) in the room a possibly lethal electric shock, to the sound of agonised screaming, just because they were being ordered to. There wasn't even any money involved, and the people weren't to know that they weren't actually hurting someone 

I've heard of that expriment on the radio some time back. There was alaso another in the 50'/60's where students were divided into prisoners & wardens. If i remember rightly it was stopped as the results were startling.

   Human nature eh?

[aaronjb]

The fact that very, very many people would actually push the button, and that it would take a lot less than a million quid, is probably why we have had atrocities like the holocaust occur in history.

I remember the electric shock experiments where people were told to give a person (unseen) in the room a possibly lethal electric shock, to the sound of agonised screaming, just because they were being ordered to. There wasn't even any money involved, and the people weren't to know that they weren't actually hurting someone 

I've heard of that expriment on the radio some time back. There was alaso another in the 50'/60's where students were divided into prisoners & wardens. If i remember rightly it was stopped as the results were startling.

   Human nature eh?

The Stanford Prison Experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

The electric shocks to strangers was the Milgram Experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment - and - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OQKS2mA5QgYC&pg=PA566&lpg=PA566&dq=electric+shock+stranger+experiment&source=bl&ots=cDHHyjqZA8&sig=H4IltG-h1FuwuVZcgDiGzK_Rgc4&hl=en&ei=wG5pTfXTOIOq8AP44rHyBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=electric%20shock%20stranger%20experiment&f=false

The 'push a button and a random stranger dies' scenario is from a story written in 1970 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29#Short_story - it's the odd one out in the list since it's never been (as far as I can tell) a legitimately studied case, unlike the first two where real-world studies have been done on the premise.

[jonnycool]

Thank you Aaron, it's good to know I'm not imagining things 

[aaronjb]

Thank you Aaron, it's good to know I'm not imagining things 

 

I'm fascinated by studies of human nature.. and, it seems, I have a memory for (largely) useless facts 

[Banjax]

Very interesting results - and keeping the amount at £1m is appropriate as its not quite enough to do what you like, but it would certainly clear most peoples debts and leave a nice sum, put it this way if you were given £1m quid and told you could go double or quits - i doubt any of us would - so its an amount you wouldn't want to risk losing.

now, at the risk of sounding pious, i wouldn't touch that button for £100m or a £1bn - the 54.5% who would are obviously a bunch of psychopaths 

the rest of us are liars