he Brilliant Scientist Dilemma

Imagine just for a moment the following scenario. A brilliant scientist by the name of Edward Gettysburg is revered by his colleagues as a modern day “Albert Einstein”. He has already at the age of twenty discovered two new laws of science through empirical evidence, turning physics inside out. He has had dozens upon dozens of his scientific papers published for peer review, all of which has been met with awe and glowing commentary. He has received international attention, he has been described by the Denmark prime minister as “one of the most inspiring, ingenious scientists that mankind has had to offer”.

Catastrophe happens at the laboratory that he works in, from a chemical accident the building is now in flames. He is trapped inside and unless someone can help him, he is doomed to die either from infrastructure not upholding or smoke inhalation. If something is to be done, it must be done now. On the other side of the building there are ten homeless people that aren’t able to escape the blaze either. You are in charge of a rescue squad, you must do what you feel would be the best course of action. There is not enough time to save everyone; you have to make a choice in which to save between the two. Which will it be, the scientist or the group of homeless people? There is a third option, you can do nothing and let everyone die. Which of these choices is morally sound?

Evo ja ću prva ,spasila bih naučnika.
objasnit ću zašto kasnije.

Evo ja ću prva ,spasila bih naučnika.
objasnit ću zašto kasnije.

Ma ovo je garant neka "navlakuša", uvod te usmjerava ka izboru tog znanstvenika, a kad se dođe do kraja priče čeka te "iznenađujuća" moralna pouka (suptilna ko malj u glavu) kad se obznani da je znanstvenik bio neki novi dr. Mengele a ovi beskućnici bili prerušeni svećenici

Znanstvenika,

čovjek radi nešto sa svojim životom i bori se, a ovim zgubidanima bi opet poslije spašavanja bio nešto kriv i mrmljali bi dok bi ispijali kahvu od socijalne pomoći.

Ma ovo je garant neka "navlakuša", uvod te usmjerava ka izboru tog znanstvenika, a kad se dođe do kraja priče čeka te "iznenađujuća" moralna pouka (suptilna ko malj u glavu) kad se obznani da je znanstvenik bio neki novi dr. Mengele a ovi beskućnici bili prerušeni svećenici

Evo proslo je kasnije...a tebe nema...
Ipak se vodi i tim da naucnim inovacijama nigde kraja...I posle naucnika..naucnik...

Možda je poruka da ljudi moraju imati sens za racionalno rasuđivanje. u dadenom trenutku.
Da čovjek ne smije biti ambivalentan već odlučan i borben.
Vođe prave izbor bez obzir koliko je on nehuman.

Ne!
Ja po obicaju moram kontrirati...
Naucnik........Ima ih raznih....
Meni ne treba onaj sto je izmislio atomsku...ili hidrogensku bombu...Nehumano!
Sta je sledeci potez? Neka sibica s kojom ce Zemlja nestati...
I s njom ce pretiti zapad istoku ili obrnuto...
E sad ako zamislim da je naucnik iz oblasti medicine...to je vec druga prica..
Tu ih hvali ...mashala puno!

Pa nećeš valjda u onom trenutku kontati iz koje je oblasti naučnik?

Da je ta informacija bitna, valjda bi bila navedena u pitanju.