How to create single photo with a look of both side?

[KmH]

Absolutely no doubt, you pull the switch to save 15 lives at the sacrifice of 1 life.

You're out with your camera gear on a photo stroll walking down the park path next to the river. You come upon a man drowning in the river. Which lens do you use? ; )

 

[ph0enix]

You're out with your camera gear on a photo stroll, walking down the park path next to the river. You come upon a man drowning in the river. Which lens do you use? ; )

So wrong but I can't stop laughing!

 

[Tight Knot]

Absolutely no doubt, you pull the switch to save 15 lives at the sacrifice of 1 life.

You're out with your camera gear on a photo stroll, walking down the park path next to the river. You come upon a man drowning in the river. Which lens do you use? ; )

ROFLMAO!! Well, for me, it would be my 55-250mm telephoto lens. That way I KNOW my camera won't get ruined from the splashing, because I'll be far enough away.

 

[unpopular]

Absolutely!!
Without a seconds thought
EDIT: Or, If I was really sinister, I'd step back and pull out my camera and make millions on the photos of the calamity. J/K lol.

Ok. Same scenario, but this time you're standing on a bridge above the tracks. Next to you is a very large man who, with certainty, you know if you push over the bridge and onto the tracks you'd stop the trolly but also you know with the same degree of certainty, you'll kill the man.

Do you push the man onto the tracks, killing him to save the rest?

 

[Tight Knot]

There's a big difference emotionally between pulling a switch and actually pushing someone over to save other peoples lives, but the right thing to do intellectually is weigh the lives of the many versus the one.
To make the question more difficult, imagine if the man next to you was the Pope (Place in your own world or Religious personality here), and the 15 people on the track that would either be killed or saved were a group of hobos. What would you do?
So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

 

[Dao]

Maybe just kill myself so I do not need to make the decision.

 

[unpopular]

So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Save the Hobos. I've never been a Pope.

---

The point is what is right and wrong is often based on circumstances. Nearly everyone would agree to pull the switch, but very few would agree to push the man. In the end, you're still responsible for one or many persons' death, regardless who that person is. If killing an innocent person is wrong, why is it OK to kill a person in one scenario but not the other?

There are variations to the problem addressing the hooligan/pope scenario as well. The fact that I have been homeless would influence my choice, whereas, say a devout Catholic, might value the Pope's life before the hooligans.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tight Knot]

So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Save the Hobos. I've never been a Pope.

---

The point is what is right and wrong is often based on circumstances...
Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are universal rights and wrongs that will almost always be right or wrong. And if those are changed based upon society, we end up with world horrors. However, there are also many things that DO change based upon the circumstances.
We need to be smart enough to tell the difference, and moral and brave enough to act upon them.

 

[Tight Knot]

So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Save the Hobos. I've never been a Pope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Hilarious answer

 

[unpopular]

So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Save the Hobos. I've never been a Pope.

---

The point is what is right and wrong is often based on circumstances...
Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are universal rights and wrongs that will almost always be right or wrong. And if those are changed based upon society, we end up with world horrors. However, there are also many things that DO change based upon the circumstances.
We need to be smart enough to tell the difference, and moral and brave enough to act upon them.

What we are doing, why we are doing it and what people think about what we are doing are of course basic sociological problems. But i tend to think that no matter what we do we believe it is justified regardless of any etic interpretation of the belief or action. If 'right and wrong' were universal, then nobody would do anything wrong in the first place because they would not be justified in doing so.

While it's easy to consider this when talking about Hitler and genocide, what about in lesser evils as in this case? You an I feel it is wrong (at least until it turned out he had the right to do so), but the OP obviously didn't. Why are our beliefs about that behavior more valid than his or hers?

 

[GnipGnop]

KmH, the issue is with treating the Internet as a simple broadcast medium. It's much more than that, and as a result the same rules that apply to simple broadcast media cannot be applied successfully to the Internet. Doing so would capitalize the Internet, and reduce it to just another means for us to fill our faces passively. I'm willing to throw my work out to the world. I my rights on Flickr don't allow anyone to make any money off my pictures, but I know full well that I can't really stop someone if they really want to. I'd rather contribute to the greater good, to help inspire and to be a part of the collaboration than to greedily hold on to my rights and contribute to reduce the Internet to a passive wasteland.

/2 cents.

(sorry to bypass your chat room above)

 

[KmH]

There's a big difference emotionally between pulling a switch and actually pushing someone over to save other peoples lives, but the right thing to do intellectually is weigh the lives of the many versus the one.
To make the question more difficult, imagine if the man next to you was the Pope (Place in your own world or Religious personality here), and the 15 people on the track that would either be killed or saved were a group of hobos. What would you do?
So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Still no doubt.

You push the Pope over the railing to save the hobo's, but you tell the media the Pope jumped and sacrificed himself to save them.
Actually, if the Pope was true to his office, you wouldn't have to push him and the story to the media would be the gospel truth.

They always get another Pope when one dies.

 

[Tight Knot]

What we are doing, why we are doing it and what people think about what we are doing are of course basic sociological problems. But i tend to think that no matter what we do we believe it is justified regardless of any etic interpretation of the belief or action. If 'right and wrong' were universal, then nobody would do anything wrong in the first place because they would not be justified in doing so.

While it's easy to consider this when talking about Hitler and genocide, what about in lesser evils as in this case? You an I feel it is wrong (at least until it turned out he had the right to do so), but the OP obviously didn't. Why are our beliefs about that behavior more valid than his or hers?

I agree and disagree. I agree that most of us (to quote my son) believe that we are good, it's just that we all have so many different points of reference on the scales of what good is.
At the same time, I disagree that "If 'right and wrong' were universal, then nobody would do anything wrong in the first place because they would not be justified in doing so", because so many people couldn't care if what they are doing is right or wrong, they just care how it affects them, and how it makes them feel.
As far as the lesser evils, it's far too easy to get into a discussion of politics instead of morality (morality says theft is theft). Capitalism or socialism on the internet? Do we all just give our stuff away for the supposed good (socialism/communism)? Or do we try to make money from what we are doing, and if somebody else takes it without paying for it, it's theft (capitalism)? Or do others dictate to us what we have to do (government)? I know that this is way, way over-simplified.
In my opinion (I am a capitalist at heart) in a capitalistic society (which the USA is), if a person follows socialism, great!! Let him/her give away whatever they have created for free to make this a better world (in his/her view-point), but that does not give them the right to decide what to do/ force others to do/ or to give other peoples creations away, because of his/her beliefs.

 

[Dao]

I wonder what you will do if she is mother-in-law instead of Pope.

 

[Tight Knot]

There's a big difference emotionally between pulling a switch and actually pushing someone over to save other peoples lives, but the right thing to do intellectually is weigh the lives of the many versus the one.
To make the question more difficult, imagine if the man next to you was the Pope (Place in your own world or Religious personality here), and the 15 people on the track that would either be killed or saved were a group of hobos. What would you do?
So, now that you have asked the hard questions, what WOULD YOU do?

Still no doubt.

You push the Pope over the railing to save the hobo's, but you tell the media the Pope jumped and sacrificed himself to save them.
Actually, if the Pope was true to his office, you wouldn't have to push him and the story to the media would be the gospel truth.

They always get another Pope when one dies.

And that is how sainthood happens.