Originally posted by vetran
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: oops our more portly members are fecked
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "oops our more portly members are fecked"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by IR35 Avoider View PostIt would not just be murder if you chose to push that fat man, it would also be a breach of his human rights, under European human rights law.
I base this conclusion on two things I remember reading:-
1. The German airforce asked a German court to rule on whether they could shoot down a hijacked airliner in a 911 scenario. The answer was no. You cannot kill one set of people to save another, the numbers involved are irrelevant.
2. In a reality TV program I didn't see but read reports of, contestants played the role of politicians and had to decide whether they could destroy a dam, killing one person who had resisted all attempts to move them out of the way, in order to prevent a flood elsewhere that would kill far more people. The contestants were advised by actual civil servants who'd deal with this in real life. Apparently the correct answer was once again that it would be illegal to kill one person to save others.
This AIUI is why they are trained to push the airline to land by using their wings & fuselage.
Taser the muppet
Leave a comment:
-
It would not just be murder if you chose to push that fat man, it would also be a breach of his human rights, under European human rights law.
I base this conclusion on two things I remember reading:-
1. The German airforce asked a German court to rule on whether they could shoot down a hijacked airliner in a 911 scenario. The answer was no. You cannot kill one set of people to save another, the numbers involved are irrelevant.
2. In a reality TV program I didn't see but read reports of, contestants played the role of politicians and had to decide whether they could destroy a dam, killing one person who had resisted all attempts to move them out of the way, in order to prevent a flood elsewhere that would kill far more people. The contestants were advised by actual civil servants who'd deal with this in real life. Apparently the correct answer was once again that it would be illegal to kill one person to save others.Last edited by IR35 Avoider; 23 January 2020, 19:58.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zigenare View PostWhy? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!
The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zigenare View PostWhy? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!
The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zigenare View PostThe real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostIn UK and US common law, you're not legally obliged to help anyone in danger or distress, even if there is negligable or zero risk to yourself.
So legally, and arguably morally, you're perfectly entitled to let the five people be killed. It's just their hard luck and not your fault.
But things may be more complicated if you had a part in getting them into their predicament in the first place, or if your job has an explicit life saving aspect such as a pool guard.
edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
What if the person to be killed for the preservation of others is a research scientist who if they had lived would have discovered the antidote for the coming flu epidemic that kills all mankind?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
However I did point out to here that in general under crashing a car at 40 is not fatal due to modern airbags etc - where as hitting a pedestrian at 40 could be fatal so....
Not sure how it would work if some muppet walked into the middle of the motorway when you were doing 70...
But yeah all of these things are just moral dilemma questions - and they all assume that the person making the decision has just happened on the scenario - e.g. they did not do anything to put the 5 people on the oath of the train in jeopardy.
Which removes any 'legal' requirement for the person to do anything.
But as soon as you act you will be held responsible for your actions.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shaunbhoy View PostWhat about pushing the fat guy off the bridge then claiming he selflessly jumped?
That way he dies a hero, the five other people survive, and you don't get done for murder?
Win-win-win!!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by original PM View PostInteresting question but nope - do nothing and you are innocent.
So the choices you are given are :
- actively push a man off a bridge to kill him to save 5 or/
- actively decide to do nothing and to allow 5 people to die
These scenarios often move on to give us more information about the people. For example, you initially chose to not push the fat bloke off the bridge, but now you are told he is a convicted pedo on the run. Would you push him now? How does this change your moral compass?
Or maybe you had decided initially to push the fat bloke, you are then told he has a young wife with 2 young children. Would you still push him off?
This is an update to the balloon debate .... that is, there are 5 people in the balloon but it is sinking. 1 person needs to be thrown out to save 4 others. If no one goes overboard, they all die. The 5 people are given characters (e.g. an old priest, young mom, lawyer etc).
There is never a 'right' answer - it is just a test of morality.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: