# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We shall return to the issue of whether it is possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. But what about the desirability of doing so? Why have ethicists thought that their theories should preclude the possibility of dilemmas? At the intuitive level, the existence of moral dilemmas suggests some sort of inconsistency.

# data[].attributes.body
I didn’t like this kind of question very much, and no one like it too, but sometimes we must face on this problem.
Firstly, I want to talk a movie called “Train to Busan”.  The film describes events that occur on a train to Busan, and the same time a zombie was on a train, zombie bit somebody else and they became zombies. An average person escaping in the train, passengers in the first-class cabin decided to close the door of the cabin so the zombies couldn't come in, that means everybody also couldn’t alive. A grandma in the first-class cabin seen through the world about people’s moral, about the selfish, so she opened the door, let zombies came in. This is a peak of this movie; many people thought this was the correct behavior, because people in the first-class cabin are very selfish and hateful. However, I think this is just an artistic way to adorn the movie. I think no one will do this, if this is true in the real life. The most people are selfish, almost everyone, Everybody, has their family, have their ideals. The same idea of this problem, if I was a person in the cave, I will kill the fat man. Because I want alive, I don’t finish my dream; I need do lots of things, I can’t see my parents cry for me… This against the moral which I was educated. This is mental suffering for everyone in the cave, from the childhood, in the book, in the movie, in the TV program, the world always said sacrifice one’s interests for the sake of others, but the truth usually tells us something that bothers our conscience. This is the world, and cruel people also include me.

-----------------------------------------------------------
More information:
1. A discuss about Moral Dilemma :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muFAuRkE3-w

2.The video is a part of "Train to Busan",  It can shows the condition I wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TRAIN TO BUSAN - Zombie Action Thriller | Clip + Trailer Compilation [HD]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Train to Busan - directed by Yeon Sang-Ho The Best Int'l Trailers: https://goo.gl/HTJZPF Subscribe to our channel: http://goo.gl/Etb1I3 starring Gong Yoo, Jung Yu-mi , Ma Dong-seok A disastrous virus hits South Korea. Passengers on a KTX train from Seoul to Busan struggle to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a knife.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] knife which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown.

What should they do?

Mr Fitipaldi

# data[].attributes.body
Fat man :"Oh! I'm the fat man,how to make the decision now, should I kill myself in order to save others? Why should I save their lives? I also need to go my way home! But! Oh oh , all right, I can save other's lives, I will feel happy , at the same time, I will also be a hero! Let me just do this now! Aaaa...(I killed myself)"
The people in the cave: "Will this fat man save us?ummm, whatever, we can not change his mind, we should respect him!oh my god, why does this fat man stop his steps? Is he thinking? Oh, I'm gonna crying!"

# data[].attributes.body
Should this man contemplate suicide or let other people die? This is the topic hotly debated recently. Somebody thinks that the man should die to save other people's lives. Some people think this man should not die to protect himself. I believe he should not kill himself.
When we are facing life-threatening decisions, many people are realistic: they will not give up their chance to survive.  We cannot define this kind of people as selfish.  This is a kind of self-preservation mechanism.

# data[].attributes.body
Moral dilemmas involve conflicts between moral requirements. This kind of case is usually hard to solve.
Based on this question, my perspective is to kill the fat person, and the consequence would be relatively
Firstly, since the fat man is said to be "leading" the group, he is responsible for their predicament and reasonably should  volunteer to be
blown up.

There is a somehow similar dilemma called The Case of the Speluncean Explorers.Five Speluncean Explorers were trapped in the cave during cave exploration, lacked water and food; to survive, they agreed to eat a person deciding by draw, who would be a sacrifice to save the remaining four. Witmoore was the proposal of the scheme, but he took back the suggestion before the draw, and the other four insisted on it. The result was that Witmoore was pulled in. After they were rescued, the four people were prosecuted for murder.

It is extremely hard to judge the case, in the article the author offers five possible judicial responses.Until now there is no one can win everyone' s agreement.

Whether to kill a person to save majority is correct in both legal and moral aspects is always contentious。

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers

References:

McConnell, T. (2002, April 15). Moral Dilemmas. Retrieved January 04, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/

# data[].attributes.body
Asking the man if he wants to save us and kill himself is not very realistic. The man's arm is out of the cave. He can not get the knife if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore,  even if he agrees to die, I still need to help him kill himself, which will make me go to the jail, because the man is dead and he can not prove that he said he wants to die for us. This mercy is useless.

I think we can ask the crowd, who wants to kill the man, and we hold the knife together when we kill him. It is the man's fault to be so fat and stuck in the cave, and it is right to kill him.

# data[].attributes.body
Compare to kill or not kill the man; I'm more interested in to give the man the knife to let him do something. The man's decision and how he thought must be interesting and meaningful.
What the man needs to undergoing is not only the pain of die, maybe he will cut his arm by himself and get out of the cave so that nobody going to die. However, it extremely pains to lose a part of the body. Maybe he will die because of the infection.  It may even let the whole thing become more meaningful to consider.
@Gabe Newell in the picture.
notice your weight Mr Newell, don't get stuck:)

# data[].attributes.body
Saving more number of lives is what I always prefer and is also what others often prefer, except the fat man. Based on my previous experiences, I made up several scenarios to solve this problem.
Firstly, what they should do is to try to persuade the fat man. In order to let the fat man willing to die for his members, they should find people who can make a stimulating conversation with the fat man. Vanity and the sense of mission are the keys to persuading anyone, let alone the fat man. This is the first scheme I make up.
Vanity and the sense of mission are the keys, but rationally, when death is coming, everyone is desirable to escape facing the death so that the first scheme is not enough to solve this dilemma. My alternative plan is killing this fat man by these people's hands. I said hands, but not hand so that everyone in the group needs to be related to the death of the fat man. Therefore, all of them has to keep themselves' mouth shut.
In conclusion, whatever what happens, the fat man should and will die unless the fat man can persuade all of the others.

# data[].attributes.body
My personal view is that the essence of life is about saving not murdering, such cold blood behaviors. Affairs, however, will not follow our assumption that also repels it. It is not the issue of right and wrong,  vice versa; it is about how many mistakes we can stand to make. In term of moral perspective, the fat man should be killed, because of the outweighing benefits, the majority purpose here is to figure out who can endure quite abundant guilt feeling. Even if they make out, at last, the person who holds the knife will just get to be too much for he or she to sustain. Based on the previous statements, we enable to express the man who made the final decision to kill the outweigh man is not only the person who has strong desire to survive, but also the one who is brave enough.

# data[].attributes.body
Though the fat man does not want to die,  the rest of the people will urge him to let do so.  For the preservation of the most, people will persuade the fat man to give up his life. So it is of no use to ask the fat man whether he wants to commit suicide because, to save their life, they will persuade him, and make him feel guilty. Thus the fat man will give away his life to save the others.
As a result, the fat man must die whether he wants it or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Under this situation, we no longer have the opportunity to make a win-win situation. Neither of the choices will make us feel comfortable, thus we should try to make the seemingly "best" choice for most of the people. Also, we are assuming that both the fat man and the crowd want to live and there's no other choices to escape. From my point of view, killing the fat man is the optimal choice currently for the reason that we should save as much people as possible and minimize the number of people who will die. There will definitely be somebody die today, so we shouldn't feel that guilty and think that we will go to jail if we kill someone. Under this consideration, killing the fat man is a reasonable thing to do.

However, if fortunately, we have got an amazing doctor with us in the crowd who can cut the precise part of the fat man without letting him die, we should use this advantage and cut some flesh off the fat man. This is the best situation which no one actually die in the end. It is very unusual, but maybe.:)

Another ideal situation. We can ask the fat man first if he wants to sacrifice himself to save the crowd. If he wants to be the hero, then everything goes on well with he killing himself. We will not feel that guilty because this is his will and the rest of the people will survive. This is just an ideal situation because we cannot predict what the fat man would react under this situation.:)

# data[].attributes.body
From my perspective, although that man's life is also the human being and we cannot deny it, it is no doubt that not all man can survive in this circumstance. If I have the knife, I will kill that fat man stuck at the mouth of the cave.
Lives have numbers, and they can be counted, which is the essential principle of human society. The principle has mentioned above maybe forgotten by the development of the society and the change of moral's structure, but it will still appear and enact its effects particularly when it comes to the situation about an issue "To Be or Not To Be," or the life and death. Obviously, the bigger the number the lives is, the more significance it possesses, both for the meaning of the individual and for the society.
Back to the situation in the question, the option is conspicuous, which is to kill the fat man. It is the very reflection of the real humanities. More people means more people in the future and more hope. Life is important and significant because it exists, and if it does not exist, why do we need to regard and consider it? It is unquestionably morally right to kill the fat man to continue these existences because it is always reasonable to have more people alive.
In the cruel human world, there will always be some people who are willing to give their life for the preservation of others and some who need to be sacrificed during the development, and their behaviors are just a kind of exchange in the human's philosophy. The critical point is. Why not save more people but try to save a meaningless fat man? From the discussion, to kill the fat man is such a good choice and there is nothing about the moral problems.

# data[].attributes.body
I envisioned how the situation would be like if no one in the cave chooses to make a decision(which is very possible). Under this situation, the fat man would be the only one to survive. The truth is that, even though he survives, he would still be stuck in the cave. He is not able to move, and there is nothing he can do about it. His life would be even more miserable if he is going to be stuck here until his life ends.

Since the cave is on a coastal area, few people would go there, it is very likely that soon another strong tide would then kill the fat man as well. By thinking about the opposite situation, it seems that the optimal choice is to kill the fat man and save everybody else. Also, it is very important to let everyone in the cave to be aware of the consequence. People in the cave should make an verbal agreement that everyone acknowledges the decision of killing the fat man.

# data[].attributes.body
From my vantage point, the final decision ought to be saving the maximized number of lives as you could. Due to the description of the story given, all these people are strangers to me. Thus, killing the fat man as an exchange of lives seems is the most rational option.
Besides, as the information we could gain from the text, we can assume that the fat man have a serious issue in obesity, which means his body size must have restricted his potential contribution to the society or any groups, for instance this group of travelers here in this situation. Therefore, compare to the rest of people in that group who were not specifically distinguished by the storyteller/dilemma maker, the sacrifice of this fat man is inevitable, because within a group, he is considered relatively harder to achieve a realization in his personal value. Thus, we should kill the fat man, but in a compromised moral way
You may notice that most people, including me myself took the side of killing the fat man as an exchange. Most people made that decision because they evaluated the probable loss of value and eventually they will all at least try to minimize the total loss. However we should also be critical and think about what benefits we could gain from sacrifice the rest of people.
What if the fat man is some one you know? What if he is a relative of yours? What if he’s not only a fat person, but also a successful pioneer in his career and could do something more valuable than all of the rest people, like saving humanity from extinction etc.In our daily lives, we always are standing in a higher place than those who are actually making decisions, maybe those people would rather die to kill an innocent person.(Which may seems unlikely to be true because they are facing death)

# data[].attributes.body
In this situation, the most crucial thing to do is to minimize the loss. Compare to morality, law is more important. The law in our country is written law at present, it  has clear rules for the constitute of crime. It must  be ensured of four factors which includes the subject who, object (who is), the subjective aspect (intent or negligence), the objective aspect (how) to conviction. In fact, when I’m facing this problem, I won’t accomplish a crime whether I choose to kill the fat man or not since Whatever I do will cause the death of someone. It’s just the difference among 1 person and all other people, it is an objective condition. Thus, the action of me killing the fat man is just trying to minimize the loss. It's not my subjective intention, so I have no obligation to feel guilty for that.

# data[].attributes.body
what is justice? Everyone has different scales in their mind. We are trying to find the best solution under this circumstance. As for me, the best solution is to use the knife to kill the person,  although it is not fair. If I don’t kill him, all the people will die, include the fat man. but if he chooses to die, the rest of the people can be saved. No matter he chose which one the result of him is death. The only difference is there are people accompany him to died or not. I believe the beginning of the life always with kindness and everyone has their value. Under this circumstance, the fat man’s value is to save others. If I’m the person I will happy with that, because it is a worthy death. I will let anyone come to kill me but I  think they don't want to. because they will feel guilty for killing me. so if I can, suicide is the best choice. No one will compunctious for this solution.

# data[].attributes.body
Life is about choosing, and we have to use our critical thinking to purchase the optimal choices. From my point of view, I would rather kill the man than drowning the rest of all. First of all, leaving the man doesn't mean the fat man can survive at last because people stuck in a remote cave, and himself alone may lack both physical and mental aid. What's more, the fat man is not expected to have a good health condition and live long due to his excess fat.  Why not give the chance to more possibilities. Although the task may seem cruel and immortal, it is the reflection of the wild world. If I were the fat man, I appreciate leaving the chance for the rest. A drawback to the main story"a fat man leading a group of people” we can infer that the fat man is probably the leader or pillar of the group so he must possess dedication for his people. In a word, no matter from a moral or from a realistic point of view, the fat man must die.

# data[].attributes.body
The moral dilemma forces us to choose whether to survive in guilt or die anonymously.
From my perspective, I won't kill and I can't kill. If I am the fat man, I can choose to be the hero or the only survivor. However, if I’m one of the people in the cave, I can only wait for the fat man’s final decision, because nobody has the rights to deprive of other’s life no matter you are under what kind of situation. Some people may argue that if we kill the fat man who put everyone in this dangerous situation, we can save  several lives. I disagree with it and the reason is simple, we cannot evaluate the value life. If we can, what is our standard? Contribution to the society? Social status? If so, every lives has its price tag, the higher the price is, the more important the person is. At that time, as a wealthy man, I can buy others’ lives and do whatever I want to them.

I can marry children, torture my enemies and kill my wives. Therefore, law and order no longer exist.

# data[].attributes.body
When I face the moral dilemma, all I want to do is to reduce the injuries. If I am the person inside the cave, I will use the knife to kill the fat man to save more people's lives, even though that is unfair.

In one community, more people’s benefit is always more important than the individuals’. In my opinion, the fat man is not innocent in this case. All the people can escape from the cave at first; however, they can't because the fat man obstructs their entrance to the cave. In that case, the fat man must contribute his life to save more people' s life.

Also, when people face the emergency that can determine their life, I think I will choose the way that has the best result for myself. Everyone is egoism underneath the surface. If I am the man inside the cave, I have the right to hold the knife and to kill the fat man, since the fat man' s hands are both outside the cave, he can't have the chance to hold the knife.

I think there should be some other solutions. How about the fat man kills himself? In my opinion, that is impossible. No one dares to do that. It's no use to persuade the fat man to kill himself. Generally speaking, kill the fat man is the best way to solve the moral dilemma.

# data[].attributes.body
Basically, I will kill that fat man. But I would do something else before that. For example, I would let most of us agree with me. Maybe they will agree almost before they die. So get prepared to kill him is very important. I believe his death is more valuable than his life, especially his death could save many others. He can become a hero.
Maybe this will be hard to determine if the person who determines that wasn't in that cave. The human desire for life would cause us do things great or horrible.

# data[].attributes.body
From my perspective, the fat man should not be killed. Human life is worthy of respect. In this case, it is doomed to be died. The only difference is who---the fat man or the group of people. Everyone has the right to make their own decision, we can’t force them. it will be fine if the man world like to sacrifice himself to save others, otherwise, no one has the right to kill.

Things happened in the way we cannot predicted. The fat man stuck in the mouth of the cave originally, if someone must die, why not let the nature take its course？

On the other hand, human is selfish. it is very likely that the group of people will finally decide to kill the fat man. However, after they get out, I believe that not all of them, but some of them will feel guilty. If I am one of them, I’d rather quietly wait for death，since I don’t want wo feel guilty in the rest of my life.