Moral lesson of the video: Don't take a nap at the hospital

**reads title** **chuckles a bit** “No.”

If you just need a simple push, then he's not that fat KILLED ME

So, in my psychology class, we’re learning about how humans develop ethics and morals. Let me just say I quite literally jumped out of my seat when I saw we were watching a DanPlan video as one of the videos for class.

The real question is: WHY TF DOES A HEALTHY GUY TAKE A NAP IN THE HOSPITAL

Everyone came here with the knowledge that Stephen was probably not a good person.

“If I am to chose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all”

I was laughing so hard at 4:21 "You can get away with everything." and the responce was "Well, I wouldnt stop with just one murder.. I would keep going.." That had me rolling in hysterics...

"By the way, are you a good person?" Why's Hosuh here? Of course he is

"then i wouldn't stop at this murder, i'd keep going!" Stephen- 2017

You really see how his friends try to avoid these difficult questions by humor

Armin Arlert once said: “I don't like the terms "good person" or "bad person" because it is impossible to be entirely good to everyone. To some, you are a good person, while to others, you are a bad person.” So therefore, we are all neither good nor bad people.

Imagine killing the check-up guy and none of his organs are a match

Moral of the story: don't be fat because everyone will want to sacrifice you

I think that the biggest difference in the situations is that there is always an objectively better choice to save the 5 people over the 1, but in the doctor and fat guy situations, you would be making someone else's decision. If it is set in stone that you must make the decision, you can relatively guiltlessly sacrifice the one, but if the one still has agency, it feels wrong to choose for them.

I had a class in university in Japan during study abroad, and it was literally reading and talking over these exact situations, and talking through it in groups and in front of the class, then the professor would discuss the author's philosophy and the 'answers' to these questions. Brought back memories. Thanks for the vid. Funny enough this video actually came out before I even went to the class, so in an alternate reality I could have seen this first, and went into the class already enlightened.

The real question how is the one without a heart alive

1:12 if it is KKK, I would keep going STRAIGHT

I'm shocked by how smart you guys are. Really! Deep thoughts... I really loved it. Brilliant minds!

0:03 that sounds like the beginning of the supernatural outro

"This is Canada.. WHERE ARE ALL THE OTHER DOCTORS?!"

The correct answer is tokyo drift the trolly to kill all 6

Dayuunng it's been so long! And I'm getting recos of thes channel again! Like long time no see!

0:16 I would do multi-track drifting and do my best to get a strike. You know the quote "got to get them all"

So The trolley cart situation at the start I have an answer *why the hell would there be workers on an active trolley cart rail*

Moral of the story: Am I a good person? Well yes,but actually no

I remember that saving whom has a color scale, I'd recon that the 5 in question are of red-yellow and the 1 is in red - black. This does help professionally to determine what to do tho that is less in regard to my moral stand point.

On the first one I'd pick to go for the 5, reason being that if its 5 people they'll probably all try to run away, if the 5 see the 1 they might try to help him possibly killing them aswell

Dan- lets say you can get away with everything. Stephen- Well then i wouldn't stop with that murder. Stephen is a closet pyscho

Stephen: 1 persons life is less valuable then 5 persons lives Also stephen: how dare you value that 5 lives over 1 life

why was the reccommended to me again... after a year of not seeing this damn channel... i missed this so much

In that situation I think if I was the bystander, I would honestly just try to scream at everyone to get out of the way. Like. That's all I can do. And panic and cry afterwards

by the way can you survive stephen?

But the real question is... why? Are they idiots? Why are they working on a active trolley rail?

Heres how im currently thinking of it. What ways more on your soul? the act of saving lives, or the act of taking lives. in one your not saving nor are you killing, in the other you are saving and killing.

Its a good series of lectures. Everyone should watch it.

4:23 "Lawsuit"! The only thing between Stephen and mass murder XD

Next question: 6 patients come in your way that we’re hit by a trolley Hmm what a coincidence

I just a recent video of yours, wow well done I see so much improvement!!!

i think the difference between the questions is that, in one of them u have 6 persons involved in the situation, in the other one, theres the five involved and 1 that isnt, so in a way, its worst adding the non-involved person, versus the one where he is already in it

“This is Canada..! wHerE aRe thE othErs dOctOrS!?” *lmao* 😂

I love this contrast of funny chatting and serious and intelligent brainstorming in your videos. Paired with the cartoon style it makes them so entertaining!

0:53 id aim for that center between both options derailing the trolley crashing into a building

There are more differences, but one that i noticed is that the one person yoi sacrifice is needed in one scenario, but not in the other one. On the changing tracks problem, even if that one worker wasn't there, you would still be able to change tracks and save the 5 workers, same when treating the 5 people. On the hand, when it comes to the fat guy and the one for check-up, if they weren't there, you wouldn't be able to save the other 5 people.

Casually taking a dude organs during a check-up

"Are you a good person?" me: "I eat cereal with a fork" everyone: "Are you Satan?"

I concluded same what the person said at last there is no right or wrong .....right for one is certainly wrong for other so I would do anything my moral would allow me to do or my sub concious mind in some situations cause sometimes he knows better

There is actually sort of a term for what happened in the first dilemma. The bystander effect, there was this big study into it after an incident in New York, where many people in an apartment block witnessed a woman get murdered. The killer left for a while before returning to finish the job. No one did anything to stop it because of the bystander effect. Because there were other people, there was an assumption that someone else was doing something about it. So no one intervened.

"Let's be serious, here." _Organ Bucket_

Wait, if I have time to turn, don't the workers have time to move?

The reason I think in the second and fourth scenarios people have more doubt in killing the one guy is because they are directly causing their deaths, in the first and third scenarios someone's going to die either way so you may as well pick the one that causes the least deaths but in the other scenarios the five people are going to die and you are directly choosing to save them by involving someone who wasn't going to die.

In the er, sure they focus on the people who are more injured, but they have to care for the people more likely so survive.

Hosuh: this is Canada, where are the other doctors Me: *Social distancing is more important*

“Are you a good person?” - No. Edit: uh..the f#ck?..likes? What? °-° YES! FINALLY :’)

Ironic how this was recommended to me after the drama although very late since then and the original upload date of this video

Before watching this all through, my initial thought is not to change the situation. I decide not to decide which of the human being(s) should live or should die. After watching this, i feel kind of right for thinking like that.....kinda... i mean...its difficult after all.

4:26 "Well then I won't stop at this murder, I'll keep going" Wise words from a Psychopath

*1:00* i would kill the 5. If i kill the 1, i wont get xp and and no combos 😂

It's like the question posed in Monster by Naoki Urasawa. I am a doctor and I have a choice between two patients. Do I save the mayor or a child who was brung in before the mayor and what are the consequences of each choice. Although a little different it still reminds of that masterpiece.

its quite simple the change between first and second question in the first one you are directly involved and will guarentee a loss but in the second you could just ignore it and it wouldnt affect you in also people must remember in situations humans have been shown to quite frankly ignore much worse crimes i can completely absolve myself of any part in the 2nd question

Hi, just rewatching my memories before danplan isn’t the same ever again

"either turn right and kill 1 or stay straight and kill 5" Animator draws the turn as left 0:50

The first that that came to my head is to push the 5 people out of the way of the trolly or tell them to look out

Just because situations exist that may be more difficult to distinguish as right or wrong does not mean that there's no such thing as right or wrong. You already know this. The only way to not know this is to unlearn what is intrinsic.

A teacher once asked us the first question the other way around. So you're driving towards the one person but plot twist: the one person is someone you know and like.

*"Well then I wouldnt stop at this murder I'd keep going"*

Stephans answer at 0:23 is so facts I try to answer it that way every time.

Only thing that makes these questions hard is that they are hypothetic( You may have ideal but you'll never know how you'll act in the real situation). Moreover it's easy to find logical mistakes in most of these questions.

"This is Canada, where are all the other doctors?"

Why is there a guy for a checkup in an organ donors office?

Love your old videos 👀

"No matter how good of a person you are, you are the villain in atleast someones life. So get yourself together and atleast be a good villain"

"Then I wouldn't stop there and kill more."

as the king of Wakanda put it "victory at the expense of the innocent is no victory at all"

I dont understand the point that makes equal the situation of the first and the second question about the train rail, cause the main difference is that the active will is in the equation, so in the second question implies an active action to finish the decision, but in the first question the train is cumming from before the situation happens so, theres no volition between put in funtioning the train or stoping it, sure you can decide which way you can go, but more obvious is the condition that not allowed you to make it stop.

The studies with these questions have found the answer given is often much less important than how the person responds to the hypothetical physiologically. As pointed out in this video, different answers can be reached with valid reasoning. Individuals with varied experiences, education, and beliefs might come to different solutions. Still, with most people, there are indicators that being forced to decide who lives or dies causes them measurable distress. Those who show sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies make decisions without such distress, especially psychopaths, who decide based on numbers quickly and without the slightest indication of guilt or trepidation.

I just remebered answer on last question: "I just transplanted one of a five patients and save four of them"

there is a reason why the answer changes. when you are contemplating taking a turn choosing to kill one person or going straight and killing 5, your choices are exactly that being personally responsible for 1 death or for 5. On the other hand, when you are pushing the fat guy onto the track you are choosing between being responsible for one death or zero. Yes, 5 people are going to die if you don't push the guy but those 5 deaths are not your responsibility and no one is gonna question you why you didn't push the guy to save the 5. At the end of the day, it is not an ethical dilemma, it is simply a question of what are you willing to be responsible for? There is also the fact that working on the tracks the 5 workmen have consented to the inherent risks associated with the work and the one being push did no such thing.

Also again I agree just try and tip the train thing if you're the one driving it where find an emergency break or just like start breaking it while throwing things ahead of the trolley at the workers to get their attention and be like yo get off the track or actually just choose the way with the one person and starts throwing stuff at that one person like you get off the track now

MISS HIM so much

Stephen: I’m a philosophical thinker Hosuh: who are you and what did you do to Stephen

"The bigger question is how to kill all 6 of them" The Good Place: Micheal (A demon)

I did a project on Morality for school and I really didn’t wanna do it so I just wrote down a bunch of stuff from this video

to tip a trolley you put the thing to change lanes in the middle...itll derail and youll buckle on the side fast.... for your question

“A-Ah!” Daniel - 2017 “Speaking of cannibalism!” Hosuh - 2017 “Lawsuits coming your way!” Stephen - 2017

Dan: He teaches that life is never black or white. Me: Then it’s gray..

2:30 No, I don't believe it does. Just because you didn't act in the best interests of the five workers by sacrificing the fat guy, it doesn't make you a morally nasty person, it makes you rather normal. What kind of person is willing to throw just about anyone ONTO the tracks to save a group of people. By doing so you are taking his life. It is classified as murder, or maybe even vehicular manslaughter. It has a designation. However, if you DON'T act, you are still morally justified. What kind of person can stop a trolley car or a train? Probably superman, but we are just mere people. In fact, I think that in a real scenario one would be too shocked by the visuals to even consider murdering the person beside him. Anyways, you cannot otherwise stop the train unless you commit murder. Even if you did consider it an option, you are perfectly justified if you don't act.

"imagine you could get away with anything" stephen: then i wouldn't stop there, i would keep going

For the Frist one, *JUST WARN THE WORKERS*

6:49 i mean there’s 2,000 of you guys video posted: 2017 current year: 2019 *has over a million subs*

The Trolley Problem is only difficult because of the way it's asked. It presents you with a situation, and then gives you an either or. If someone says something like “I would throw myself in front of the trolley”, the common response is “well, what if you couldn't”. This sort of manipulation makes it so they have to decide between only the two answers you give. To answer it morally for every question, don't do anything, except in the doctor scenario where you are obligated to heal the 5 people and not the one. The Trolley Problem isn't actually about being good or bad, but instead about if morality is set or malleable. A moral stance would say that the action of taking control is also assigning your own worth to the people, while not doing anything allows their fates to remain in their own control. A malleable moral stance would say that morals change based on the outcome. One life is less than five, and 5 people are better than one, thus kill the one. To accept morals is to only use what you own to change this. You don't own the life of the fat man or the people on the tracks, only your own life, which is why you jumping is more moral. Doing nothing is also more moral than pushing the fat man, because by pushing the fat man, you are claiming ownership over his life and his fate. Hose's stance is clearly explained when he says he doesn't think good or bad exists. I would have to fundamentally disagree with him, because of his reasoning. Just because certain civilizations at one point thought something was good, doesn't change its moral value. Morals are not decided by the masses over time, but operate on the same level as the statement “stones are hard”. If morality exists, then different views on morals don't prove morals wrong, it just means that those civilizations, at that time, were wrong. If people think something is wrong when it's actually right, it makes the people wrong, not the morals. If stones are hard, but everyone says they are soft, who is wrong? Obviously the people.

The way I personally would answer it would be to take whichever action results in the least loss of human life. No matter the situation, you are just as responsible for the death of someone, and all of these situations are fundamentally the same. Therefore, it is just as justifiable in the hospital as it is on the train tracks (it's probably not a good thing to be thinking so logically about it, but still)

1. Kill 1 2. Scream “run” 3. Save the 5 4. Do nothing I’m fringing insane

Him: Life is never black and white Me: Exactly it's rainbow.. UNLIKE THE BLOOD IN THIS VIDEO

0:20 on that situation i just turn, out of reflex, like, even if i somehow have enough time to notice the other worker, i just turn. fight or flight, you know?

I already knew the answers for the first two, because it tells you if you will feel guilty or not, a normal person would not pull the lever cause if they did they would feel very guilty for killing that one man in order to save the others, but someone who wouldn't feel guilty at all would pull the lever to kill that one man, and wouldn't feel guilty at all for what he did, and that goes for the second one as well

FUN EXTENSION! : what if the 1 person on the train tracks was a loved one, would you still save the 5 ?

When rewatching danplan videos like this one is just hard to believe that all this time you thought housuh Stephen and Daniel were such good friends but now Stephen is leaving because for so long he felt under appreciated

1st question is hard to think about but I would probably choose to turn the car. No matter what I do someone is going to die so you take the least amount of life 2nd one is to do nothing (aka shout at the ppl on the track but that changes nothing in the simulation) I would not take a life even to save other people. 3rd question is something people in the emergency field have to think about. You triage the situation and unfortunately the person who needs the most care is usually the person who receives none. You need to use the resources you have at your disposal to save the most amount of people you can at the time. So the people who need help and you can save the most get the care. 4th question seems the same as the 3rd but I honestly cant think of many people who would kill one person to save 5. Its more like the 2nd question where your direct action kills someone to save 5 people. In the 3rd question if you stand by everyone dies. So you focus on saving the most people. In this question one person will be fine if u do nothing so you let that person live. Well its 1:30am and I'm going to sleep lol have a good one

Daniel: are you a good person Me: No Im a disappointment