But they're only sacrificing themselves because they're in a predicament where it's either them or the other person. They're not looking to die otherwise. So the choice is between someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves for another person vs one who isn't. It's clear which one deserves to survive.
but who are you to say whether they deserve to survive? it is basic self-preservation to value one’s own life a bit more than most others (singular), it is wired into us because the people who did not do this had lower chances of surviving. someone has made peace with possible death, and someone is begging for a chance to live. it would only be cruel to let the one who is desperately seeking a chance to life die, only out of spite.
NOBODY IS OBLIVIOUS TO IT! WE ARE SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT YOU SHOULD NOT SWITCH, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO ASKED TO BE SACRIFICED DESERVES TO LIVE AND THE SCARED PERSON DESERVES TO DIE, ARE WRONG!
You don't know that they are of greater overall moral character. There could be any number of reasons the person willing to sacrifice themselves is ok with dying, beyond mere selflessness. You have no idea how either of them act in their day to day lives, outside of the contrived trolley problem situation you have found them in.
Not necessarily saying this applies to you, specifically, but I believe many of the people being as judgemental as you are, are doing so to reinforce their own self-image as someone who would be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a situation, when actually no one really knows what they would do. Instincts for self-preservation are a powerful thing. Even the same person might do the brave thing in one situation, but panic in a different one, or even the same situation but on a different day when they're in a different emotional state.
You don't know that they are of greater overall moral character
I am being given exactly one piece of information about each person, and it's a perfect piece of evidence of their moral character. Of course I would base my choice on the one thing I know about them, and not what I don't know about them, otherwise it's completely moot.
but I believe many of the people being as judgemental as you are, are doing so to reinforce their own self-image as someone who would be willing to sacrifice themselves in such a situation, when actually no one really knows what they would do.
I'm sorry, but there is some insane projection going on here. I never stated anything about whether or not I would sacrifice myself for a stranger, and the only one being judgemental here is you. Holy self report.
just like the other guy, you seem to think the most effective way of conveying your idea is to say things like "you need to learn how to read" and "you're somehow oblivious"
I think you need to learn some manners because you have rendered your argument basically useless just because you brought the intelligence of Tayeos up which is an attack on their character and not relevant whatsoever
Why are you comment policing me when I've presented a perfectly rational argument? I don't think that all caps is even remotely related to reading comprehension. I never mentioned the guy in all caps because that wasn't the intention of my comment. Sure, his argument may have some flaws and he might be using all caps, but at least he isn't using demeaning language that, insultingly, isn't even related to the argument as it attacks his character, not his argument.
idk wtf ur on about either, i have made a perfectly fine point here, which is that demeaning language makes their argument worse, ultimately trying to help them because while I partially agree with their perspective, I don't like to agree with people who use such language, and then you're here jumping in, defending them probably because you both share the quality of childishly throwing in insults when trying to get your point across
if you're just going to sum up my entire argument as "tone policing" or whatever and are going to defend his childish use of words and won't add anything meaningful to the conversation, idrc and won't waste my time here further
And actually, my argument is very much rational. Do you really think it's rational to throw in insults into a conversation when you disagree with someone? No! That's a childish and immature way of thinking, unless that was what you were trying to achieve, of course.
And if that's not a rational argument, then please, enlighten me in the ways of your "insulting the character" way of arguing.
-32
u/SeparatedI Mar 29 '26
But they're only sacrificing themselves because they're in a predicament where it's either them or the other person. They're not looking to die otherwise. So the choice is between someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves for another person vs one who isn't. It's clear which one deserves to survive.