Came to mind because Mortal Kombat 1 is one of the greediest fighting games I’ve ever seen, with the recent announcement of a $12 Halloween fatality plus all characters + DLC adding up to $118, so I’m assuming it’s because Warner Bros/Netherrealm Studios just wants more bonus money, so I’m genuinely curious how that whole thought process came to be, and if there’s any way for society as a whole to counteract that, or is it simply built into capitalism and we’re stuck with this forever.
Edit: I didn’t buy MK1, just know people who did because I go to tournaments
There is a way. Corporate ethical principles stemming from Christianity, it existed in the past, but it declined and fell off in favor of businessmen adopting Consequentialism over time, which is basically a postmodern ideology in all but name. (Its basically "ends justify the means").
Its even taught about in classes like business law (well, more of how it declined, as consequentialism rose instead) and even leftist textbooks and liberal professors had to admit the decline of ethical standards that accompanied it.
You want ethical formalism to make a comeback. Basically, a system like that is "wrong is wrong, no matter what", rather than this bullshit slippery slope of "If we can justify how it helps win a good result, its okay".
Basically, you need good people to control the institutions of academia, the media, and parent the children to hold to absolute moral standards again.
Back when I was in a business college in undergrad and had to take some classes for my major (which wasn't business-focused, but the major was still in the college and adjacent to a major that was), there was a required business leadership/psychology class where the professor basically posited a well-known question to the class.
Its basically a well-known variation of the "runaway train" question. If you could push a button which would drop 1 guy in front of the tracks (assume he's fat enough to stop the train), in order to save 5 people who wouldn't be able to get away in time, would you do so?
And the majority of the class raised their hands. I did not.
The followup question was instead "what if there was no button, and you had to push the guy unto the track instead", and the majority of the class did not raise their hands anymore. I obviously stayed consistent.
The second part of the question was the "trap". What they were doing was the same, but the illusion of bullshit allowed themselves to lie and pretend like they weren't essentially murdering someone in the process until they're forced to come closer to the ugly truth than they otherwise would be.
The professor didn't denigrate them for it (but he should have), he was just doing it to illustrate the 2 major schools of thought, but it shows how slippery the slope is for things like morality when you don't rely on absolutes. You get a bunch of inconsistent retards who are fine with lying to themselves until they are forced to face the consequences of what they are actually doing (which most never will, ironically enough).
Basically, you don't want people like that, or shit like that being taught.
If you have the ability to save five people and chose not to, isn't that still murder?
Your Christian moral framing doesn't work here beacause Christianity will just teaches you to jump on the track yourself. I don't think self-sacrifice is a fundamental rule in business.
No, its not.
You don't know what murder is.
Christianity doesn't tell you to pointlessly die for no reason for that matter. Its made clear in the question that the single guy in question is large enough to stop the train, but its usually stated that you are not able to stop the train on your own (and if you are, that would change the question drastically)
It also doesn't say anything about self-sacrifice, if its not a valid option, its not relevant to the question.
There are plenty of situations where you sacrificing your own self won't make a difference.
What you are doing is hilariously obvious here. You are looking for a hole in my argument (even a slight one) to justify moral relativism and ambiguity.
Try learning something about Christianity before commenting on what it tells you to do or not do, you come across as that one atheist meme where you think you understand it from an outside perspective and it believes that you can make Christians your doormat.
Not looking for holes just that I never like the train dilemma because its stupid and always required some moronic details to make it more complicated than it is. The answer is always to sacrifice one person to save five because that how we as a species survive. The old must be must be sacrificed to protect the young, the strong for the vulnerable (remember woman and children first?).
I'm sorry if I came across like some cringe atheist but I just don't think this is a good scenario to ask for some Christian perspective. Either option you choose, there will still be blood on your hand and I knew enough Christians in my life that would jump on the track to save as much people as they can even if it would cost their life.
So ask your business professor to came up with better moral dilemmas.
Life, and the value of it, isn't just a numbers game. The same goes for one's actions. By taking action to sacrifice someone else's life without their consent, you are essentially playing God.
I recommend watching Fate/Zero, the main character basically has your viewpoint and is forced to come to certain realizations.
Would you be fine with being sacrificed for a "greater good" by someone else without having a choice in the matter?