For a long time, the theme of the battle royale type has always been able to get people's excitement, just like a primitive desire for bloody killings. I have also imagined countless times that if there is a battle royale plot around us, if one day, our peaceful life is broken, and suddenly we start to play battle royale games for our own survival. mentality, has been doing it in vain that may be useful? In fact, this is what many of us should be like. No one will hurt others, and no one has the right to deprive others of their lives. But who can keep this idea when their own life is at stake? Still like an intern, avoiding everything, hiding from the start, avoiding everyone. In a way, this is probably the smartest thing to do. Successfully avoided everyone, avoided the harm caused by group decision-making, and avoided any possibility of others hurting themselves. But in the end, it is still unavoidable to avoid these cruel rules or CEOs. In times of crisis, they dare to take risks and stand up to lead the masses. But the crowd in fear is so easy to control. Under the rules, one had to make one difficult decision after another, taking away the lives of others. Once the killing begins, it cannot be stopped. Finally, driven by the rules, to kill everyone, personally, I am more inclined to the ceo's approach (starting to reveal my dark side?) After all, in a last resort situation Next, this is the best way to do it. If I had to choose between killing 30 people myself and being randomly executed 60 people by others, I would choose to kill 30 people without hesitation, just like what I saw a few days ago when the third master faced the murder of Fa Xiao and his friends When we make a choice, we say, "In this world, the lives worthy of my respect are limited." We can't save everyone, but we can choose who to save. It's a tough decision, but someone has to make it... Which brings me to the Tram Paradox. A madman ties five innocent people to the tram tracks. An out-of-control tram was heading towards them and was about to run over them in moments. Fortunately, you can pull a lever and send the tram to another track. But there's a problem, that lunatic tied a guy on that other track too. Considering the above, should you pull the lever? The trolley paradox was first described by philosopher Philippa Foot put forward to criticize the main theories in ethical philosophy, especially utilitarianism. Utilitarianism makes the point that most moral decisions are made on the principle of "providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people." From a utilitarian point of view, the obvious choice would be to pull the lever, save five and kill only one. But critics of utilitarianism argue that once the lever is pulled, you become an accomplice in an unethical act—you are partly responsible for the death of a single person on the other track. Others, however, believe that your situation requires you to do something, and that your inaction would be equally immoral. In conclusion, there is no such thing as complete moral conduct, and that is the point. Many philosophers have used the trolley problem as an example to show that real-life situations often force a person to violate his own moral code, and there are situations where there is no fully ethical approach. , because human nature can't stand the test.
View more about The Belko Experiment reviews
