Pathologic Thread

Answer the question Yea Forums.

Attached: 20190730014048_1.jpg (1920x1080, 146K)

>this shit again
What gives me the right to condemn someone to death

I have no reason to assume a fat guy would save 4 children, the uncertainty means I'd be committing murder and go to jail afterwards.
What if the fat guy bought a farm full of women and bred them 24/7 thus providing the world with hundreds of children? Then I'd be killing all those would be humans as well.

You saved four children by killing the fat man. You claim his farm full of women and breed them in his place.

Attached: 20190730014103_1.jpg (1920x1080, 185K)

The question is a hypothetical and you're supposed to stay within the presented confines of it. What if those kids would go on to cure cancer? What if the fat guy is a serial killer? Etc, etc, there's no point to trying to guess more than is given.

Well duh of course. Anybody who doesn't is either a stupid moralfag like or just a retard like

Push him
Offer one up

The point is, would you allow more destruction to occur in the world if it meant your conscience is relatively clean, or would you help the world at the expense of your conscience? If your choice is inaction, then you are a failure in terms of Pathologic's world.

Hm this one is actually conflicting. I am not sure how I would behave in such a situation, so I'd probably pick the second answer there.
The psycho/rational choice would be to save one, but the moral ramifications and the question of how to choose the one to save are too hard.

>daughters
I ask the soldiers can I shoot them myself to uncuck myself.

Attached: 1564157744840.jpg (960x960, 146K)

Then the question is poorly formulated since it leaves room for doubt which ruins the dilemma.

based

Admit you're simply a passive moralfag who refuses to take action because it breaks your pathetic sense of what's right and wrong.

I wish she asked you a few more of these, she only asks these two and that's it, it just goes on with the story then. I like these things.

Attached: 20190730014109_1.jpg (1920x1080, 145K)

A stupid cunt is asking you ridiculous questions when you've already been having a bad day. What should you do?

Shoot her in the head

Shoot her in the gut so she suffers before she dies

Be merciful and only cut her tongue out

It is almost impossible to construct a question with zero room for externalities. On the other hand, if the person being questioned is unable to think figuratively and instead resorts to retarder "what if"s, they are simply brainlets.

I would devise a test of worth for my daughters to let them compete for their life.

you actively condemn one man to death or you passively condemn four children to death
you don't have to like it but whichever way you cut it, you're responsible for condemning someone to death in this scenario

Bachelor route when? I want to play god damnit.

But doubt is the entire point of the dilemma you fucking nonce. If there's no doubt in your response, there would be no dilemma in the first place.

Attached: joker.jpg (674x510, 129K)

The question doesnt state you WILL save the children. So you can read it as "you murder fat guy, children may or may not survive" in which case it's mostly a decision of wanting to go to jail as a murderer.
Then you can read it was the children will survive (without good reason) and assume you will 100% save lives by killing the fat guy without doubt.

>Touch rifle to read it's description
>I've held such a rifle in my hands only once before. I'd prefer to not think about that day.

Attached: 1539458418245.png (640x720, 1.02M)

P2 had plenty of little moments like this. Every time a child gets infected and you talk to them is feels central.

Attached: 20190730011253_1.jpg (1920x1080, 276K)

But it clearly states you will save the children, without a doubt. It offers no room for debate in that instance, as it says: "to keep four children from being run over". It isn't to "possibly keep" or "potentially keep". Any possible doubt you're feeling stems from your own thoughts, outside the context of the question. Which is fine either way, because it's meant to be kept relatively simple as to offer a large degree of variability. The variables you choose to act on are ultimately what determine your moral stance, after all.

Attached: 1526581295872.png (293x256, 103K)

No for there to be no room for confusion you'd need to word it like
>click button and 1 man dies
>dont click it 4 children dies
>what do you do?