The Greater Life

[Nomanis]

How often do you think about the first pet of yours that died?

I will answer you, without knowing what your point is.

Not often!

[Humility]

Nah, just look it up in some scientific journal. The human brain can only think of a few things at a time and will shove all sorrows into the same little box. If you had a hundred family members die you aren't going to be able to feel sad for them all at once. Only one or two at a time.

[japanpimp]

Some people in this thread are formulating thoughts based on assumptions as to who to save. I would caution you guys not to do that. The only thing we know is that there is a child and an older man who can live a few hundred more years. Thats it. We do not know if mankind can benefit if the man is saved. Save a man or save a child. How much life the man has left is irrelevant because we can only speculate about the rest of his life. Maybe he holds the cure to cancer in his genes. Maybe he holds a super genetic mutation that will erase mankind. We do not know. So we cannot assume anything and use those assumptions and speculations in this decision. So this is not a rational decision, this is a decision which should be based on ones loves and compassion.

A different situation would be if there was a chemical weapon in an apartment building full of 2,000 people. Men, women, children. It is gong to detonate in 30 seconds and if it does it will kill half of the people in New York, about 8 million. And the only way to stop it is to hit the building with a missle that will kill the 2,000 people inside. You have 5 seconds to press the button to launch the missle in order for it to hit the building in time. Lets say these are all facts. Well, what do you do? There are children and all kinds of people in the apartment building. This type of decision must be 100% rational. You are weighing a few against many. 2,000 against 8 million.

[abracax]

A simple question, if you had to choose between saving a five year old that would live to be a hundred and a hundred year old man that would live to be a thousand who should be saved?

On one hand, the man has nine times more life to live then the child. However on the other hand, the child has yet to live life.

Assume that both the child and man have been relatively good thus far in their lives and both will live good lives.

Persoally I believe the man should be saved, his life is more valuable. He has a hundred years of experience and many more years left which to contribute. And just numerically 900 years lost is greater then 95.

I can think of no truly rational reason to choose to save the child.

The information is vague and unrealistic in it's differences between two lives. You yourself tried to steer everyone else to one conclusion with your own answer mixed in with the dilemma.

The fact is that you cannot judge life solely on what someone might do in life, because no one knows until it becomes the past.

The difference between how long each will live is unrealistic and has no explanation for the huge disparity in time.

The correct thing to do is save the child first. If in fact both will die no matter what at the same exact time and they are both exactly the same distance from you.

Since there are no details on how they will die, or if you are even close to either one or whatever. I would save who I could as I could, if the child was a mile away and I have 2 min there's no way I am going to get to him and the man is 5ft away, it's more plausible to save the man. And vise versa.

There is also no information about what kills them, how they would die. Is it drowning? Hit by a car? Fall off a cliff? Is it Spontaneous human combustion? This information would actually make a difference in some people's answers, because most adults can save themselves in certain situations. And this would change who most people would try to save.

[Alec0009]

my view is that i would save child. the child would be more important then the old man he may know more but the child would be younger and children learn really quick as they are young but when people get older it would be hard to teach them as they go. but as im a family man that why i would save the child.

[FoxyBunny]

Some people in this thread are formulating thoughts based on assumptions as to who to save. I would caution you guys not to do that. The only thing we know is that there is a child and an older man who can live a few hundred more years. Thats it. We do not know if mankind can benefit if the man is saved. Save a man or save a child. How much life the man has left is irrelevant because we can only speculate about the rest of his life. Maybe he holds the cure to cancer in his genes. Maybe he holds a super genetic mutation that will erase mankind. We do not know. So we cannot assume anything and use those assumptions and speculations in this decision. So this is not a rational decision, this is a decision which should be based on ones loves and compassion.

A different situation would be if there was a chemical weapon in an apartment building full of 2,000 people. Men, women, children. It is gong to detonate in 30 seconds and if it does it will kill half of the people in New York, about 8 million. And the only way to stop it is to hit the building with a missle that will kill the 2,000 people inside. You have 5 seconds to press the button to launch the missle in order for it to hit the building in time. Lets say these are all facts. Well, what do you do? There are children and all kinds of people in the apartment building. This type of decision must be 100% rational. You are weighing a few against many. 2,000 against 8 million.

I don't know if I could make the decision. I might well kill 8 million people by default simply because I could not bring myself to press that button and murder 2,000 people. In fact, what I would probably do is shove the button at someone else, tell them to wait until 29 seconds had passed to push the button, and head for the building myself to try to save who I could or die trying. Goodness knows it would be easier than having to live with the consequences of my actions or inactions.

[abracax]

Some people in this thread are formulating thoughts based on assumptions as to who to save. I would caution you guys not to do that. The only thing we know is that there is a child and an older man who can live a few hundred more years. Thats it. We do not know if mankind can benefit if the man is saved. Save a man or save a child. How much life the man has left is irrelevant because we can only speculate about the rest of his life. Maybe he holds the cure to cancer in his genes. Maybe he holds a super genetic mutation that will erase mankind. We do not know. So we cannot assume anything and use those assumptions and speculations in this decision. So this is not a rational decision, this is a decision which should be based on ones loves and compassion.

A different situation would be if there was a chemical weapon in an apartment building full of 2,000 people. Men, women, children. It is gong to detonate in 30 seconds and if it does it will kill half of the people in New York, about 8 million. And the only way to stop it is to hit the building with a missle that will kill the 2,000 people inside. You have 5 seconds to press the button to launch the missle in order for it to hit the building in time. Lets say these are all facts. Well, what do you do? There are children and all kinds of people in the apartment building. This type of decision must be 100% rational. You are weighing a few against many. 2,000 against 8 million.

I would say you have an obsession with killing people for sport.

[Boleslav]

I don't think I'd save either. As the sandman says in Brief Lives: “You got a lifetime. No more. No less. You got a lifetime.” I have no place making judgments about life and death. If I see a person in danger or trouble, sure, I'll help them (and I have in RL), but the moral and mental ramifications of dispassionately and objectively making a live-or-die decision would kill me.

[Humility]

Some people in this thread are formulating thoughts based on assumptions as to who to save. I would caution you guys not to do that. The only thing we know is that there is a child and an older man who can live a few hundred more years. Thats it. We do not know if mankind can benefit if the man is saved. Save a man or save a child. How much life the man has left is irrelevant because we can only speculate about the rest of his life. Maybe he holds the cure to cancer in his genes. Maybe he holds a super genetic mutation that will erase mankind. We do not know. So we cannot assume anything and use those assumptions and speculations in this decision. So this is not a rational decision, this is a decision which should be based on ones loves and compassion.

A different situation would be if there was a chemical weapon in an apartment building full of 2,000 people. Men, women, children. It is gong to detonate in 30 seconds and if it does it will kill half of the people in New York, about 8 million. And the only way to stop it is to hit the building with a missle that will kill the 2,000 people inside. You have 5 seconds to press the button to launch the missle in order for it to hit the building in time. Lets say these are all facts. Well, what do you do? There are children and all kinds of people in the apartment building. This type of decision must be 100% rational. You are weighing a few against many. 2,000 against 8 million.

By your logic, if you saw somebody who was about to die, you would refuse to save them because they might do something bad with their life in the future.

The difference between how long each will live is unrealistic and has no explanation for the huge disparity in time.

It doesn't need an explanation, because the answer is magic.

The correct thing to do is save the child first. If in fact both will die no matter what at the same exact time and they are both exactly the same distance from you.

Since there are no details on how they will die, or if you are even close to either one or whatever. I would save who I could as I could, if the child was a mile away and I have 2 min there's no way I am going to get to him and the man is 5ft away, it's more plausible to save the man. And vise versa.

There is also no information about what kills them, how they would die. Is it drowning? Hit by a car? Fall off a cliff? Is it Spontaneous human combustion? This information would actually make a difference in some people's answers, because most adults can save themselves in certain situations. And this would change who most people would try to save.

In other words, you don't want to make a moral choice with so little info, probably because you want something concrete to go by to give yourself plausible deniability to you don't sound like a monster.

my view is that i would save child. the child would be more important then the old man he may know more but the child would be younger and children learn really quick as they are young but when people get older it would be hard to teach them as they go. but as im a family man that why i would save the child.
Reply With Quote

Your emotions decide for you.

I don't think I'd save either. As the sandman says in Brief Lives: “You got a lifetime. No more. No less. You got a lifetime.” I have no place making judgments about life and death. If I see a person in danger or trouble, sure, I'll help them (and I have in RL), but the moral and mental ramifications of dispassionately and objectively making a live-or-die decision would kill me.

This has got to be the most common answer. I didn't know so many people were so... overly emotional.

[Moravia Server 3]

The only thing we know is that there is a child and an older man who can live a few hundred more years. Thats it. We do not know if mankind can benefit if the man is saved. Save a man or save a child. How much life the man has left is irrelevant because we can only speculate about the rest of his life. Maybe he holds the cure to cancer in his genes. Maybe he holds a super genetic mutation that will erase mankind. We do not know.

i thought abt this... i would actually not save either or...

dont say omg ure cold!

honestly, i bolive that u dont kno what would happen, as u said, 1 of them might have the cure to cancer the other might have the death of humanity... i would not save either cuz if both died, well for 1, humanity is saved, and second, i bolive technology will some day show us the path to healing cancer, so i wouldnt save either of them...

now some of u will say "well, what if u did pick one up and saved the right one?" my answer would be, what if i picked up the wrong one?