The Greater Life

[Humility]

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?

By that logic, should there be only one, you would let them die.

[japanpimp]

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.

I hope everyone reads this response.

No, that is not my logic. That is your logic. It is YOUR conclusion about MY logic. See? By my logic I am saying that we don't know what people will do in th future or how society will benefot from them, if at all. Therefore we cannot use that speculation as part of our judgement call.

Read this:
Star Trek was a popular TV show. Not because it had a cool spaceship and funny looking aliens and a phaser that could stun people or heat up rocks in an ice cave for Captain James T Kirk.
Star Trek was popular because the TV show often presented moral and philosophical dilemmas that the Captain had to make a judgement call on. Notice Spock, he is 100% pure logic. A Vulcan. Incapable of emotion. Spock always made the best logical and most rational decisions. James T Kirk on the other hand was a human. And he often brought a human element into the picture that Spock could not bring. Kirk usually asked Spock for advice. But Kirk would always temper that advice with the human elements of care and compassion, emotions if you will.

You are trying to base your thought process on logic and ration. But that is not humane. We are not Dr. Spock. You are failing to consider humane elements. Fine, call them emotions. But the reason Kirk was a great leader is because he HAD emotions which did not make all of his decisions "cold" and "hard" because they were purely based on logic. Spock could not understand human emotions or why they did certain things. But Spock respected them and at times to a greater extent than his own thinking.

The writers of Star Treak were not teenage kids or 20 something year olds. The writers of Star Trek were older men and women who had families. Highly educated writers who used the show to present moral and philosophical dilemmas to the viewers. So don't be a Spock. Because if you put more valus on logic and reason then you will fail as a human. Because being a human means to temper your logic and reason with humane feelings.

Yes, sometimes it is not logical. But then again, we are not Dr. Spock.

[japanpimp]

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.

Foxy, I think many people are just like you. They cannot make the hard decisions. Not everyone could live with themselves if they did. But a few can. I don't if I could either.

But if two groups of people were going to die if I did NOT push a button, say Group A (2,000 people) and Group B (8 million)... and if I push the button then Group A will die but Group B will live. But if I don't do anything then BOTH groups will die... well, I'll push the button and try to deal with what I just did for the rest of my life. But some people make decisions like these everyday. It must be hard for them to maintain their humane side and not become cold.

[Lord Arumen]

I would save the child. The 100 year old man had a chance to live his life, the child deserves his.

[Moravia Server 3]

I would save the child. The 100 year old man had a chance to live his life, the child deserves his.

fast and to the point, i like that lol

[SunTzu123]

none of them it is there time to die

[Bree Fletcher]

none of them it is there time to die

Okay, I think that is the worst possible way of looking at it. If you shouldn't save someone because it is "their time to die," than why save anyone? It's just a bad idea. No, no, no!

[Humility]

No, that is not my logic. That is your logic. It is YOUR conclusion about MY logic. See? By my logic I am saying that we don't know what people will do in th future or how society will benefot from them, if at all. Therefore we cannot use that speculation as part of our judgement call.

You said you would not save either of them because you have no idea what they would do when they grow up, you made no other supposition. You did not mention ethics at all. Therefore yes by your (stated) logic if you would not save two because you are unsure of their future, then there is no reason you would save one.

@ The rest of what you said.

You just showed that your understanding of logic is no better then Star Trek's, and your understanding of why people liked it even less.

Spock was not logical, to ignore a factor (emotion and often ethics) because of a personal dislike of it, is illogical. Ethics and emotions exist so ignoring them was illogical. Your entire argument is flawed.

Spock was a proponent of what one might call mechanical reasoning. Bones said whatever was the opposite of what Spock, whether his argument was in favor of Ethics, Emotion or sometimes even better mechanical reasoning.

Kirk chose whatever fit with the writer's opinions which was almost always idealistic and often extremely irresponsible. The odds are against him and failure result consequences far worst then if he had just done nothing. If the writers were to hit a spinner with the odds set accurately, Kirk would look like a villain.

Ethics are more important then emotion. Emotion says if you needed to order the torture and murder of millions of strangers to save your own child, then torture and murder millions.

Ethics says better to let your own child die.

In this case Ethics is uncertain, is the experience of life more important or life itself. Sometime in the future I'm going to ask that question more directly.

[japanpimp]

You said you would not save either of them because you have no idea what they would do when they grow up, you made no other supposition. You did not mention ethics at all. Therefore yes by your (stated) logic if you would not save two because you are unsure of their future, then there is no reason you would save one.

@ The rest of what you said.

You just showed that your understanding of logic is no better then Star Trek's, and your understanding of why people liked it even less.

Spock was not logical, to ignore a factor (emotion and often ethics) because of a personal dislike of it, is illogical. Ethics and emotions exist so ignoring them was illogical. Your entire argument is flawed.

Spock was a proponent of what one might call mechanical reasoning. Bones said whatever was the opposite of what Spock, whether his argument was in favor of Ethics, Emotion or sometimes even better mechanical reasoning.

Kirk chose whatever fit with the writer's opinions which was almost always idealistic and often extremely irresponsible. The odds are against him and failure result consequences far worst then if he had just done nothing. If the writers were to hit a spinner with the odds set accurately, Kirk would look like a villain.

Ethics are more important then emotion. Emotion says if you needed to order the torture and murder of millions of strangers to save your own child, then torture and murder millions.

Ethics says better to let your own child die.

In this case Ethics is uncertain, is the experience of life more important or life itself. Sometime in the future I'm going to ask that question more directly.

Well, at this point I think you are just trying to keep this debate/argument/discussion going. I clearly did not say that I would not save either of them. I think you have me confused with another poster. I clearly said that I would save the 5 year old. So I have no idea why you started your post by saying I said something which I did not.
And now you are arguing that Spock was a character who was NOT logical. Well, I guess anything can be argued. But I am not here to argue with you. You asked us who we would save and why and many of us answered. Now you want to argue the answers. It's cool to argue and play devils advocate. But there comes a point when it starts to deteriorate into sillyness... and this is deteriorating into sillyness quickly.

[wpack10]

Save the old man, Push the Button.