Why did he do it?

Why did he do it?

Attached: pig fuck.jpg (1000x562, 32.81K)

what movie?
I remember something similar from The Gentleman, but i dont think it was exactly this.

He remembered the time he fucked your mother and realized this was no different.

>you must fuck a pig or we will kill the princess
>cool, don’t care. bye.

erdoganshi erdogaaaaan

*snort*

This episode was such a joke. It's like a retarded version of the trolley problem, only the answer is blatantly obvious because sticking your dick in an animal is clearly not in the same moral ballpark as allowing a human being to be murdered.

If I was posed this "conundrum" I'd immediately fuck the pig, no hesitation, because I understand that human life is far more valuable than a pig's sexual purity.

>you must fuck a pig or we will kill the princess
>cool, don’t care. *fucks pig*

Didn't David Cameron literally do this, was this made in response to that?

David Cameron is rumored to have put his dick in a dead pig's head for hazing or something.

>fucks pig
>terrorist kills the princess anyway

The dilemma wasn't one of morality, it was one of reputation/social acceptance. You're basically ruining your life and forever accepting a legacy as "the guy who fucked a pig on live TV" if you do the moral thing in this instance. That's why he was so conflicted, not because he was worried about the pig's sexual purity lmao.

It’s not about the “purity” of the pig moron it’s about being a politician and potentially ruining your career over fucking a pig on live television

But you wouldn't be the murder. You wouldn't kill the princess the kidnapper would. You cannot be held morally responsible for the actions of another.

And only reddit tier brainlets pull the lever in thr trolly problem.

I know, that's my point. If you're not an egotistical asshole, this isn't even a difficult choice. The fact that it portrayed it as some profound dilemma was retarded.

I'm aware of all that, which is why i said this is a retarded version of it, because there's no real moral dilemma here, just one of ego and vanity.

>giving in to terrorist demands and thereby incentivizing future such demands
>doesn't even have a guarantee of outcome
You're retarded

>And only reddit tier brainlets pull the lever in thr trolly problem.
If you saw right before your eyes five people were about to get run over by a fucking train, you know you'd pull the level. Everyone would. Even fucking Kant would. Abstract morality means precisely zero when faced with a real-world ethical problem.

>taking such obvious bait

Attached: 1653977667593.jpg (291x318, 50.6K)

he doesn't care for democracies

What show

Black Mirror s1 ep1

Not my problem.

Poor writing. In real life you don't negotiate with terrorists because then there would be a new group demanding new things every day.

This was just a funny stupid thought experiment, "what if..." situation.

Your first point is mostly right, but this...
>Abstract morality means precisely zero when faced with a real-world ethical problem.
...is wrong.
You are morally justified in pulling the lever because of the principle of double effect, which says that you aren't morally responsible for unintended consequences of your actions. In other words, you're not pulling the lever with the intention to kill the one person, you're pulling it with the intention to save the 5 people — the 1 person dying is a secondary, unintended effect of pulling the lever.

WOT IF YOU WERE A COMPUTER

MENTOHL INNIT

Attached: cameron-700x467.jpg (700x467, 27.88K)

Cause is a patriot unlike yourself