Posts by Harold Doyle3

Amanda Jackson5 said:Honestly, this is just trivial historicism reduced to the level of a pile of bones. You could swap out the word "consciousness" in that first sentence for pretty much anything else—life, nature, the laws of physics, subatomic particles, you name it—and the logic remains identical. In other words, there’s nothing inherently mysterious about the idea that everything in existence emerged from the development of something else. But why does development happen in the first place? It happens because of inherent contradictions that have to be resolved one way or another. Once those tensions are settled, things evolve in a certain direction, which usually just leads right into a whole new set of contradictions.

Is the Absolute Spirit actually alive?

Sandra Murphy33 said:You’re talking about Life in a grand, abstract sense here, rather than the life of an individual. Isn't that right?
But we are discussing the life of the individual as such, not the overarching meaning of Life in general—specifically, why there is existence at all instead of nothingness.

From that perspective, survival is ultimately meaningless. The individual will die, and the fact that "life continues" through their descendants has zero bearing on them as a person. It might involve their genes, sure, but what actually happens to those genes is anyone's guess. For all we know, they could be spliced with the DNA of a tiger or an elephant, resulting in some humanoid hybrid—whatever. How does that have anything to do with the individual, their own survival, or the meaning of life? Please, enlighten me.

(I don't know what we did to deserve having to listen to these narratives from the series survival in the theme of man and world relationship....)

The individual? You can't distance yourself from your ancestors or your descendants without losing all sense of purpose. It's a dead end, a blind alley, total extinction...

ruggedraven36 said:Does that tie back into the whole idea that the actual point of living is just pure survival?

Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.

ruggedraven36 said:They wouldn't agree with me; they’d be agreeing with you. When I asked you to explain the difference between life itself and the *meaning* of life, you gave me this:

Claiming "survival is the meaning of life" is a total non-starter—it's a circular argument. Survival *is* life. It's like saying "breathing is the meaning of breathing." So, based on what you wrote, there are only two options left: either there's zero distinction between life and its purpose, or the purpose of life is simply sacrificing it.

Your logic is flawed.
I used the example of sacrificing a life for the sake of survival. What is the purpose of that life? Survival!
Survival and life aren't identical concepts. Sacrificing a life can affirm survival (take a parent sacrificing themselves for their offspring, for instance), whereas sacrificing survival cannot affirm life (like sacrificing offspring for the sake of a parent).

Consciousness is just an evolutionary byproduct of natural selection. Any form of life—including consciousness—that lacked a drive for survival (failed to adapt) simply went extinct.

ruggedraven36 said:Either way, I don't see the distinction you're making between living and the "meaning" of living—unless, of course, the whole point of being alive is just to throw it all away.

Maybe even Christians could find common ground with you on this one—that the whole point of living is actually about sacrifice.
I honestly think Nietzsche was actually critiquing the whole thing by celebrating life rather than obsessing over death.
Consciousness? It interprets survival in the theme of man and world relationship as nothing more than a raw will to power.
Let me clarify the distinction I’m seeing here. What does life actually do? Every ounce of its energy, every single action, is funneled toward one solitary objective: survival. It’s what Dawkins refers to as the "selfish gene"—this idea that living beings (and by extension, consciousness itself) are merely tools used to achieve that goal. If an organism doesn't have survival baked into its very purpose, it simply goes extinct. Period.
Consciousness really does provide a massive edge when it comes to survival in the theme of man and world relationship. It’s about that ability to actually anticipate what’s coming down the pike. Being able to look ahead and predict future events? That’s a huge advantage over the competition—or just any other natural trial you might run into out there.
As living beings caught up in that whole struggle for survival in the theme of man and world relationship, we’re basically just data processors. We buy information, categorize it, crunch the numbers, store it away, and then deploy it all again—all just to keep ourselves breathing. It’s a cycle. For creatures with a lower level of consciousness, it’s nothing more than pure instinct or basic automation. But for us? For conscious beings? It’s about understanding the *why*. It’s about being aware of the purpose behind everything we do.

ruggedraven36 said:So what’s actually the difference between living and having a "purpose" for living? If survival is the goal, then just staying alive is enough—we don't need all this extra fluff about meaning.

Look, we see this play out all the time—take a parent sacrificing their own life for their child, for instance. They do it because that kind of instinct provides an evolutionary edge for the species to survive. It follows that survival *is* the meaning of life, seeing as one life is traded away just to ensure the next generation keeps going.

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

When I imagine Sisyphus happy, all I see is a dung beetle rolling a ball of crap just to eat it.

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

Surrendering to the "cold indifference of the world" is just a fast track to dying.
The whole point of living is survival through adaptation—either changing yourself or changing the world around you.
Consciousness is nothing more than an evolutionary advantage, a tool that helps us win the game.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Does believing in an afterlife actually help someone, even if nobody’s ever come forward to claim they saw anything on the other side?

Look, I'm an atheist. But I can't bring myself to agree with those certain types of atheists who insist that Faith is nothing but a useless distraction. I've found myself staring down the barrel of the idea of total, absolute non-existence...
The thought that when I die, everything just gets wiped clean. Like I never even existed in the first place.
I catch myself picturing that moment right before death—all my experiences, my entire life, just sitting there on the edge of this massive, cold void that’s going to erase every single trace of me without a shred of mercy. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Even if that’s the reality, wouldn't it be better to believe there's something waiting for us after we go?
At the very least, it makes me feel better. Being able to find satisfaction in the present moment actually has a positive impact on how I live right now.
In that sense, I don't see why those stubborn, narrow-minded atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the "pointlessness" of religion.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's just that eternal tug-of-war between abstract concepts and our own direct experience...

If an idea takes root somewhere in history and manages to pull enough weight to keep a massive following through today, then clearly it serves a purpose. It doesn't matter if someone actually shows up to speak for you after you're gone or stays silent. If the concept works, it works. Period.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Does believing in an afterlife actually help someone, even if nobody’s ever come forward to claim they saw anything on the other side?

Look, I'm an atheist. But I can't bring myself to agree with those certain types of atheists who insist that Faith is nothing but a useless distraction. I've found myself staring down the barrel of the idea of total, absolute non-existence...
The thought that when I die, everything just gets wiped clean. Like I never even existed in the first place.
I catch myself picturing that moment right before death—all my experiences, my entire life, just sitting there on the edge of this massive, cold void that’s going to erase every single trace of me without a shred of mercy. Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Even if that’s the reality, wouldn't it be better to believe there's something waiting for us after we go?
At the very least, it makes me feel better. Being able to find satisfaction in the present moment actually has a positive impact on how I live right now.
In that sense, I don't see why those stubborn, narrow-minded atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the "pointlessness" of religion.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's just that eternal tug-of-war between abstract concepts and our own direct experience...

Look, if it’s any consolation, since matter is finite, there can't be an infinite number of different states. Eventually, the math dictates that you’ll hit a loop. You’ll end up repeating the exact same scenario, reliving an identical life all over again. As pure information, you exist eternally—you just aren't aware of it right now. But who knows? Maybe theists have some sort of intuitive sense of this truth.

Jacob Cooper5 I can't even begin to process this. Honestly. It’s just one thing after another lately, isn't it? I feel like I’m constantly wading through nonsense just to find a shred of common sense. My head is spinning. I'll get there eventually, though. Just give me a second to catch my breath and collect my thoughts before I lose it completely.
Sure, that might be true, but isn't it just better to believe in some kind of life after death?
If nothing else, I feel better. Honestly, just being present and actually enjoying the moment right now—it makes everything else feel a lot more manageable.
In that regard, I honestly don't see why those stubborn atheists feel the need to lecture theists about the purpose of religion. It's unnecessary.

If those stubborn atheists actually turn out to be right, then once they kick the bucket, theists won't be around to bother them. But if they’re wrong? Well, then they’ve got an eternity of dealing with theists' nonsense waiting for them. A real lose-lose situation, really.

]

I’m convinced that importance and pragmatism are essentially two sides of the same coin.
The ideas or interpretations that actually work in the real world—the ones that hold water—are the only ones truly worth our time.

Science stays pragmatic when it stops chasing ghosts and refuses to give any weight to theories that can't be proven.

Sarah Martinez46 said:☕
Why on earth does the Ent-like forest rise up to save the fellowship in Lord of the Rings?
And how can they claim anyone worth their salt can fly, while anyone who can't is basically worthless?

"Those who flee the battlefield live to fight another day."

Griffin

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

Didn't she tell you she was planning on taking her own life? And after that, you guys just... what, kept on chatting about cookie recipes?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

So, you think you went a little overboard with that enrollment? Maybe. It’s easy to get carried away when you're looking at the big picture, but I suppose hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Now I'm just sitting here wondering if I jumped the gun.

Sam Martinez9 says:
Of course you didn't. But honestly, that whole post of yours directed at Wanda just makes it look even more pathetic.

Look, suicides definitely happen. But my friend? She didn't pull the trigger because she's some kind of saint who loves life or herself. And it wasn't even about her other child. It just wasn't.

So you just went ahead and lashed out at this complete stranger, labeling her nothing more than a common liar who’s actively masking her true motives—not just from everyone else on this planet, but from herself, too.

Isn't "bolding" just a way of pointing fingers?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

So, did her daughter only suddenly become a priority once she lost her son?

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

It's pretty obvious that if someone feels that way, their family won't miss them either, because if they truly mattered, they would have stayed by their side longer.

Sam Martinez9 said:The daughter picked up on it through conversation. Her mother was saying things along the lines of: *if something happens to me, rent out the apartment, sell the house...* and the daughter replied: *I don't need an apartment, I need my mother alive.*

As for your questions, I don't sit around discussing suicide with my friend, so I have no idea what her stance is on the matter.

I can tell you what I think, though. It’s roughly this:

Every person is unique, shaped by singular life circumstances, and they react to those circumstances in their own way. Some people will take their own lives under certain pressures, and others won't. That doesn't make one person "better" or "worse" than the other; it just means we are all fundamentally different. I prefer to try to understand people rather than slapping labels on them or judging them for their actions—or their lack of action.

Life is messy and unpredictable. Many people endure massive tragedies, far greater than what my friend is facing. Yet, they move forward; they find a reason to keep going. That doesn't mean they are cold or less grieving than my friend; it just means their paths were different. I suspect that for those with larger support systems, finding a reason to carry on might be slightly easier. But the truth is, everyone hit by personal tragedy suffers, and that suffering lasts for years, even decades.

A significant number of people take their own lives in America and across the globe. Almost all of them leave family behind, many leaving children. How do they justify it to themselves? It's simple, in a dark way. They believe their loved ones won't need them anyway, or that things will actually be better without them. *They won't miss me; they'll be better off once I'm gone...*

Regarding the pearls: I can trample over the swine as much as I want, but real pearls remain pearls, and swine remain swine.

Your friend opened up to you... shouldn't you have told her daughter?

So, you didn't want to step on any "gems"?

electricrider16 said:That famous thought experiment almost always requires a specific clarification to make any sense at all.

Personally, I’d step into that machine—plug myself in—right up until the moment the physical toll on my health became too great to ignore. Anyone who wouldn't act with that kind of pragmatism is, fundamentally speaking, just an auto-destructive addict.

I wouldn't do a single thing.

It is frankly absurd to even frame the question as if one were obligated to act, rather than simply trying to sabotage the entire train system to ensure nobody dies in the first place.

The second you decided to walk through that door, you already branded yourself a self-destructive addict.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding here. You’re looking at my previous posts and assuming I was purely reacting emotionally.

In a way, you're right, but in another, you aren't.

I shared a specific situation based on my own life experience—and since personal experiences are pretty much all we actually have—so I find it somewhat strange when people on this forum claim they know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling when they've never even met them.

I suppose I view things differently; I would never dream of telling you, for instance, that you have no clue what one of your own friends is thinking or wanting, or that I somehow know their mind better than you do.

I can certainly offer my assumptions about what a friend might be going through, or speculate on various possibilities, but because I lack the lived experience you possess, I will always defer to your judgment. You know the individual far better than I ever could.

As for my friend, she confided her intentions solely to me and no one else; not even her family is aware of what she was planning. This isn't someone who goes around fishing for sympathy or attention by making threats of self-harm. We have known each other for decades now—we have a very deep history—and I see absolutely no reason for her to lie to me. Given that she hasn't told anyone else... I can only conclude that her intentions were genuine. She truly would have gone through with it if her daughter hadn't called.

The people on this forum just have a different perspective than yours, and looking at things from multiple angles isn't a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is claiming to know the person better than you do.

You mentioned she only confided in you, yet somehow her daughter knew enough to call and stop it... how? Was it an intuition? Does she just know her mother that well? Did you tell her? Or maybe... are you the daughter?

Look, if you know this person as well as you say:

Would anyone actually want someone to die because of them (whether during their life or after)?
If they would, what does that say about that kind of person?
Your friend lost her son... should her daughter have lost both her brother and her mother? From a mother's perspective, what was she supposed to do?
What does your friend think about mothers who wouldn't do what she wanted to do? Maybe they didn't love their sons enough?
Would she try to prevent or encourage other mothers from doing what she intended to do (if they were considering it)?

She has a "reason to live" now... but anyone who has a reason to live also has a reason to die.

If you're emotionally attached to something, don't bring it up here. Don't cast pearls before swine.
Right now, I'm just the "swine" trampling over your feelings, and you basically handed me the opportunity.

Sam Martinez9 said:I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding here. You’re looking at my previous posts and assuming I was purely reacting emotionally.

In a way, you're right, but in another, you aren't.

I shared a specific situation based on my own life experience—and since personal experiences are pretty much all we actually have—so I find it somewhat strange when people on this forum claim they know exactly what someone else is thinking or feeling when they've never even met them.

I suppose I view things differently; I would never dream of telling you, for instance, that you have no clue what one of your own friends is thinking or wanting, or that I somehow know their mind better than you do.

I can certainly offer my assumptions about what a friend might be going through, or speculate on various possibilities, but because I lack the lived experience you possess, I will always defer to your judgment. You know the individual far better than I ever could.

As for my friend, she confided her intentions solely to me and no one else; not even her family is aware of what she was planning. This isn't someone who goes around fishing for sympathy or attention by making threats of self-harm. We have known each other for decades now—we have a very deep history—and I see absolutely no reason for her to lie to me. Given that she hasn't told anyone else... I can only conclude that her intentions were genuine. She truly would have gone through with it if her daughter hadn't called.

I'll get back to this later. Right now, I've got to go get ready for some New Year's hedonism. 👋

Sam Martinez9 said:Thanks for the post. My brain's reaction was really just a matter of habit and somewhat dogmatic thinking.

You responded from the heart... and honestly, that's what makes us human.

Sam Martinez9 said:Of course you didn't. But that makes your post directed at Disney even more distasteful.

The reality is that suicides certainly happen, but my friend didn't take her own life because she loves living or because she has an affection for herself; she did it because of her other child.

So, you essentially spat on a complete stranger, labeling her a common liar who is masking her true motives and her reasons for staying *in this world* from everyone else—and from herself.

I think the percentage of parents committing suicide due to the loss of a child is actually quite small, so hiddeneagle98 is right to question whether this specific case is truly representative.

That bolded sentence contains a double negative.

ruggedraven36 said:You got any other goals worth chasing besides just pure pleasure?

Euthanasia.

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

No. Honestly, I’d find more satisfaction in turning it down.

ruggedbadger2 said:Here are two thought experiments regarding hedonism. I'm curious to see how you'd handle both scenarios. 🙂

1) The "Experience Machine." This is that famous thought experiment by Robert Nozick. I’ve heard a few different versions, but here’s how I remember it: imagine there’s this high-tech pod. Once you step inside, it provides an unimaginable level of pleasure—just pure, indescribable bliss. All physical and mental suffering is wiped out the moment you enter; there's nothing but extreme gratification. However, the machine works by physically altering your body, deforming it in ways you wouldn't actually feel while you're plugged in. But, if you knew beforehand that entering the pod would turn you into something like this, would you still get in?

2) Now, let's take a variation of the classic "trolley problem." Imagine a runaway train barreling toward the person inside that pleasure pod, which happens to be sitting right on the tracks. You’re standing next to a lever. If you pull it, you divert the train onto a different track where a "normal" person is tied down. What do you think is the better outcome: ending a life filled with total bliss, or ending an ordinary life? Which life carries more value, in your opinion? Obviously, the person in the pod would die painlessly since they wouldn't even feel the impact.

Ending someone's life isn't something you want to do.
If I actually found myself in this hypothetical mess...
I’d let the train hit the person in the pod. The guy tied up clearly didn't have a choice in being on those tracks, whereas the person in the pod chose to get in. And besides, if I don't touch the lever, I'm technically doing nothing. The person in the pod just had bad luck regarding where that lever was positioned.
For my part, I'll take what little peace of mind I can get. The person in the pod won't even know they died (if they made it to Paradise)... and if they ended up in Hell, well, at least they'll go with pleasant memories. Meanwhile, the person tied down knows they survived... and that's its own kind of relief.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The hounds of reason? Yeah, they can be pretty unruly beasts. 😬

I mean actual dogs.

He was suffering from edema—dropsy, if you want to be old-fashioned—and since the doctors back then were pretty much useless, he tried some DIY alternative medicine. He smeared himself in pus and just laid out in the sun, hoping it would somehow flush out the excess fluid...

Reference:
"Neant, according to Kizichanin (FGrHist. 84 F 25 II 197), couldn't get the pus off his body, and because of some unknown changes, he was left in that state until he was eaten by dogs..."

Source:
Diels, THE PRESOCRATICS - fragments

Casey Gomez said:Oh, absolutely. It's a total conflict of interest. 👎 These animal rescue organizations pull in millions in profit on... let's say... a monthly basis. I personally know at least four "volunteers" at the local animal shelter who managed to buy luxury condos in Zurich, Rome, and Hong Kong after just two years of "volunteering." 🤷 And now they want to slap a tax on dog food too? I'd rather shoot him... actually, I'd rather hand a gift to some corrupt landlord than pay an extra tax on his pathetic little scraps. But what's your take on the TV tax? Are you people paying that too?

If they're going to tax us for watching TV, they might as well just broadcast Lassie, Inspector Rex, Hund, Beethoven, and 101 Dalmatians on a loop. At least then we'd get our money's worth.