If you can press a button to get $1M and a random person dies somewhere in the world would you press the button?

This is a question that is deserving of looking at the parts first, rather than the whole. First- "If you..." This directly states that you are going to be the one to press the button. You are the person willing to accept the terms of the agreement.

You will be trading your cooperation for money. Pressing the button becomes your choice and ultimately... your responsibility. Second- By your action you receive money- $1M.

This agreement is a contract. There is the offer, there is the acceptance and consideration (the money) Basic contract law- assuming this was legal to do in the first place. Third- "Somewhere in the world" and "a random person" indicates that the person offering the money is distancing you from knowing who this person is.

They are also indicating they are unimportant but calling them "random". Both of these de-humanize the one who will die. Much like we use the term "soldier" rather than "Twenty two year old Captain John Lester, devoted husband to Mary Lester"...or "A California Man" rather than "Mr. Bob Smith, father of two young girls".

It makes it easier to accept when we remove the personal element. It is a standard manipulation tactic. Fourth- Motive.

The only reason you are willing to do this is to gain money...irregardless of who the person was, where they may have been at the time, how old they were, Who depended on them for their life, etc. This form of greed is seen permeated throughout the world as people are willing to do many things for money regardless of the after effects. We see it in our homes, our schools, our churches, government...greed is a wide-spread powerful force. This leads to rephrasing the question from a different angle: Are you greedy enough to take a million dollars if it means that when you do... a seven year old girl named Alice Barbery will die in front of her entire family, her classmates, and their families while she is preforming in her school play?

And when you are done you will have the full knowledge that you were the one responsible for ending her life because you made a contract (much like a hired killer) to do so... simply for the money. Would you press the button? To that I would adamantly say...no.

Nope. I value life, not only for myself but for others, above all monetary gain. I'm poor.

I have been all my life. I can live with it when I have to and I do. I'd rather continue to be poor than kill someone to make myself richer.(Darn, there goes my job prospects in politics, the military, the gemstone industry, the Healthcare industry, and a whole mess of other industries.).

At the moment I or you or anyone was given the choice to push or not push the million dollar button a random person or random people would/will die anyway.. whether I push the button or not. .. so yes I am pushing the button. The pushing of the button in this case is irrelevant to the equation except that one would get the money if they did, either way someone will be dying regardless... so why would I feel the responsibility of these or any deaths was mine because I choose to take a million dollar payoff a the time of any deaths.

Any time and every time anyone takes money for doing anything someone dies at that moment. Humans die at a rate of 1.8 +/- every second of every day.. it would be just as easy to say that if you didn't push the button someone would die... because they would.

I will make the assumption that pushing the button causes one extra person to die, since that has apparently caused a ridiculous amount of debate for what appears to be a fun question. If I had never seen the Twilight Zone episode that inspired the movie that I'm guessing might have inspired this question, I would probably say "yes. " Based on the logic that it's likely the person who would die may be near death and would be a complete stranger to me regardless.It would take much debate, but I may have ultimately chosen to push the button.

However, I did watch the Twilight Zone episode ("Button Button", I believe it was titled). It was emphasized that the person who would die would be someone "you don't even know." After excruciating debate, the poor couple pushed the button.

They got their money; the box was picked up; and the man told them it was to be recalibrated for the next person, who would be someone "you don't even know. " So, I might get a million dollars, but the next person who decides to take the million dollars might kill me! Nope, I'm selfish, I'll keep my life and keep doing without the million.

=D.

Buddawiggi is correct in his analysis. Using boolean logic I will break the statement down into its simplest form: If A, then B AND E This can be further simplified to: C AND E, where C = If A, then B Looking only at the statement C AND E, it is plain to see that C has no effect on E and E has no effect on C. They are independent clauses.

Event E will always be true -- a random person will always die somewhere in the world! Knowing this, and understanding that A implies B, I would definitely press the button to get the $1M. With all the buzz about finding out ways to raise the quality of questions on Mahalo, you have to wonder if this is a test for the ability of the readers to analyze questions with attention to detail.

What good is having a quality question if it cannot be interpreted correctly. Final answer: Yes!

Everyone should just watch the movie "The Box" with Cameron Diaz.. It coveres this whole thing.

Easily solved using Kant's Categorical Imperative. That says: a) the act itself must be inherently moral, b) the desired ends must be moral, and c) it must be universally applicable. A) Killing someone isn't moral.

Kant says the ends do not justify the means, so this act is immoral. B) The desired ends, getting a million dollars, is neutral, so it tells us nothing. C) The act is not universally applicable.

If everyone in the world pushed the button the supply of money would be greatly inflated and things would cost more; the economy would be in ruins if EVERYBODY had a million dollars. Additionally, if everyone pushed the button, everyone on earth would be dead. There is absolutely no way in which this can be considered a moral action.

Anyone interested in leading a moral life would not push the button.

No, because I wouldn't feel good spending the money knowing that it came from making someone dies. It is just like being hire to kill someone for $1M but worse because that random person could also be someone close to you. Would you rather live happily and guilt free but poor but rich and guilty all the time.

I choose to live happily poor.

No, I believe in working for what you make of yourself. No amount of money is worth someone dying. If anybody presses that button, they are an accessory to murder.

Its as simple as that.

No, I can not say I could do that. Life is too short to be taken away with the push of a button. I come from a very loving family and I could not even imagine the thought that someone could push a button and one of us would die.

Nope could not do it. Besides Iam a firm believe in the Heavens above. He knows when it will be my turn and thats not for anyone else to decide.

flickr.com/photos/benheine/3883532523.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.