Would You Die For People You've Never Met? - Page 23

Wouldn't really be based on the number, but rather what I feel like it would accomplish. Sounds kind of weird since most people would probably consider saving lives an accomplish in itself, but.. I have other priorities.

now run into the setting sun, and suffer, but don't mess up your hair.

Tasaio Japan. May 28 2012 20:49. Posts 47

On May 28 2012 16:46 RavenLoud wrote:

The role you play in it is actually extremely similar. You decide whether to live at the cost of 5 other people or to die for the good of 5 other people. Thus, it makes your responsibility in the matter exactly the same.

This thread is based on a empty concept that makes them indistinguishable. Everyone will imagine a different scenario for themselves. This just further demonstrates the absurdity of it.

I would say that the role you play is completely different. In the case of Scenario B the sole man responsible for the deaths is the guy making the threat. I would call the one choosing to live innocent and couldn't blame him. I'm also sure he wouldn't be guilty of any crime.

As for me, I don't live my life for the good of mankind or for some greater good, I live my life for myself and my loved ones. I don't think I have a responsibility to give up my life for people I have never met. I would probably choose my own life and the life of my loved ones over many other lives. Though, I don't really know where that number is... When it comes to thousands of people, it's just a stupid scenario.

Though, I do think I would risk my life for other people. There is a big difference there.

Also, I would never kill someone innocent to live.

Ghostcom Denmark. May 28 2012 21:16. Posts 2494

On May 28 2012 20:34 Fus wrote:
I'm pretty sure that 98% would not take their life for less than 100000 Africans. If there was no guilty to live with 0% would take their life. The two reasons one would take his life for another is because he can't stand the emotions comming from his descision or because he is religios and think he will have a better life the next one.

There are more than 2 reasons.

AceLight New Zealand. May 28 2012 21:26. Posts 199

Why can't we all agree to disagree? People here are verbally attacking people due to difference in opinion. When it comes down to it, everyone is capable of making their own decisions and forming their own opinions. There is no "right" and "wrong" and all this arguing achieves is pointless malice.

DarkPlasmaBall United States. May 28 2012 21:32. Posts 19998

On May 28 2012 21:26 AceLight wrote:
Why can't we all agree to disagree? People here are verbally attacking people due to difference in opinion. When it comes down to it, everyone is capable of making their own decisions and forming their own opinions. There is no "right" and "wrong" and all this arguing achieves is pointless malice.

Because then we'd never have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate ever

I agree with you that ad hominem arguments are terrible, of course.

"Those who can, teach. Those who can't, whine about teachers." ~Me

nkr Sweden. May 28 2012 21:33. Posts 2809

If I got to know who these people are first, then maybe 2.

Worst player to never win a Code S Championship | Mascot of mYinsanity

radscorpion9 Canada. May 28 2012 21:44. Posts 1328

On May 27 2012 18:22 Silvertine wrote:

I already responded to this, in the very post that you're quoting. Helping impoverished people in Africa is obviously a very worthy cause. But how is it to be expected of someone simply because they would rather die than have tons of other people killed? It simply doesn't logically follow. You are claiming hypocrisy in a case where there is absolutely no connection. It's like going up to someone who you just saw give $20 to a homeless person and saying "Oh you think you're so fucking great, huh? Why don't you go to Haiti and help the people there? Fucking hypocrite."

Had to dredge up this old post

What about the case where people would rather die than see 1-6 others die? If that's the case, they should be morally obliged to do things which are less challenging than that scenario. Currently there are many impoverished children who are dying in Africa from water and food. Why not go spend your life there helping to till the soil and carry water from their wells placed tens of kilometres away? Its not quite like a kidney transplant, because you can't just put it off for later and still save someone's life.

In your example you're expecting more of the person who donated a small amount of money; that certainly isn't an example of hypocrisy. But for the people who say they're willing to go to Haiti and spend all their time and money to help strangers there, then they should be more than willing to give $20 to a homeless person (if they somehow happen across that money). So its a similar case here. If people are willing to *die* for 1-6 others, then they should be willing to do considerably less, such as living overseas to help dozens if not hundreds of children in impoverished communities have a better chance at life (I'm sure they'll save the lives of at least 1-6). To do otherwise is hypocritical.

edit: trying to fix lousy non-functioning quote brackets...there we go!

Last edit: 2012-05-28 21:49:51

Kaitlin United States. May 28 2012 23:31. Posts 2201

On May 28 2012 20:10 bartus88 wrote:
This poll surprises me a lot, I didn't expect so many people to be this selfish. Though I'm pretty sure the reason behind this is immaturity.

Yes, probably your immaturity. It's clear you have no children, or know nothing about the responsibilities that mature adults have to people who depend on them. When you mature, as part of the process, you will understand other perspectives and no longer make comments basing others' perspectives to be 'selfish' and out of 'immaturity'.

Silvertine United States. May 29 2012 00:24. Posts 509

On May 28 2012 13:27 naux wrote:

Are you one of those people who said would give up there lives for 1-6 people? Do you even understand the question? It's killing yourself RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW to save 1-6 people. Please to the 100+ people who said they would do it i bet MY LIFE there is a 0% chance any one does it, just to save 1-6 people.

I see you completely dropped the argument you came in here with, that's good.

Your guarantee that those people wouldn't follow through is absolutely baseless. Also, it's interesting that you're willing to die by losing a totally illogical bet but not to save fellow human beings. It goes to show how twisted your priorities are.

On May 28 2012 15:48 Grobyc wrote:
The human race is a disgusting race then. What can I say? I am who I am. That's how much I value my life.

This started with you saying "Who are you to call my decision disgusting?" and then all throughout this post you seem to freely admit that morality isn't even a consideration in your decision. I don't know why you challenged my use of the word in the first place. I appreciate your honesty though.

On May 28 2012 21:44 radscorpion9 wrote:

Had to dredge up this old post

Does it make any difference to you that the person who presented that argument said it was stupid and dropped it?

What about the case where people would rather die than see 1-6 others die? If that's the case, they should be morally obliged to do things which are less challenging than that scenario.

No, that doesn't logically follow at all. You could take the most moral person to have ever lived and find "less challenging" acts of charity than ones they took part in. According to your logic that would prove that they are a hypocrite. Really, think about what you are saying here. You're speaking as if someone doing one act of kindness and not another is damning of them. The only way a person could be spared of that judgement would be if they were to take part in every act of charity and selflessness imaginable. That, of course, is impossible.

Also, remember that the choice was forced by way of ultimatum. Someone has to die, there is no escaping that in the hypothetical given. You're comparing a forced decision to an open ended life choice.

Currently there are many impoverished children who are dying in Africa from water and food. Why not go spend your life there helping to till the soil and carry water from their wells placed tens of kilometres away?

Like many others in this thread you've chosen a very poor example to make your point. Your average American would be of far greater use giving money or organizing a donation drive. There is no shortage of people already there to do such manual labour so it would be of very little benefit.

raf3776 United States. May 29 2012 01:47. Posts 1861

Does the poll mean everyone that says NO, wouldnt fight in the army?

WWJD (What Would Jaedong Do)

Fus Sweden. May 29 2012 01:51. Posts 955

I have a pretty dark view on the world. For every baby that is born some animal or another human has to die. Humans will keep using the planeraty resources untill they dont exist and humans will grow in numbers untill enough humans dies from diesese or starvation to keep up to the ammount of babies that are born then we will once again have survival of the fitest across the world.

With my view on the world it would be kinda wasted to sacrifice myself for another person. I don't belive that there is another world after this one where i will be treated better because of what i do. The only issue for me would be the emotions coming from indirectly killing a million people or so.

NaNiwa | MinChul | Stephano | MVP ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

HopLight Sweden. May 29 2012 01:57. Posts 858

Sacrificing yourself to save a few random lives is noble but pretty stupid. Donate 100$ to charity and you'll save way more. Do you really value your life at less than 100$?

Flash, Hoejja, JangBi

Kaitlin United States. May 29 2012 04:21. Posts 2201

On May 29 2012 01:47 raf3776 wrote:
Does the poll mean everyone that says NO, wouldnt fight in the army?

No, it does not.

Soulstice United States. May 29 2012 04:28. Posts 183

if i had a painless death, id say 1-6

Living the liefe

MountainDewJunkie United States. May 29 2012 04:29. Posts 9328

This thread is living 22 pages longer than I thought, so I will play along again.

Creepier question: how many innocent people would you let die to save one person that you loved?

Scenario: picture a bad cop movie, or superhero movie, or to be safe, picture yourself as Bruce Willis. You are incapacitated, and the boss has on his left your one true love, or your mother, or whatever. On the right is some schmuck you don't know. And the bossman says, "choose." You choose, and you and the other person live. Now imagine a new scenario, where there are 2 strangers instead of one. Then one with 3 strangers, and so on. How many strangers would you send to their death to save the person you loved the most? This question seems a little more fun because some people have someone they would do anything for, and others are kind of alone, others have broken families where the word "love" is inapplicable. No weaseling out: you can't say, "Take me instead!"

[21:07] <Shock710> whats wrong with her face [20:50] <dAPhREAk> i beat it the day after it came out | <BLinD-RawR> esports is a giant vagina

Gobe May 29 2012 04:45. Posts 210

On May 28 2012 14:34 Cel.erity wrote:

It is extremely different.

Scenario A: I come down with cancer, diagnosed to live one month. I can consume the life spirit of 5 random people on this planet to become a lich and survive 60 more years until I die a normal death. In this scenario, the natural conclusion is for me to die young, and it would be my choice to do something immoral to interrupt it.

Scenario B: I am healthy and reading TL when some guy comes up to me and says he's either going to kill me, or 5 random people. This scenario is completely different because here, the natural conclusion was for me to live a healthy life, but it's already being interrupted by a third party. I can choose to live, which is the path I was headed on anyway, and somebody else will do something immoral.

In scenario A, no murder takes place, everything happens as it should (or as God wants it to, if you're a religious type). In scenario B, you have a lunatic coming in and murdering someone one way or the other. Sure, I may have a choice in the outcome, but I would prefer to choose neither.

But in both cases, you are the one choosing, and even though you don't commit the murders in Scenario B, you allow them to happen to preserve yourself. Same as Scenario A.

Tabbris Bangladesh. May 29 2012 05:09. Posts 2681

On May 29 2012 04:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
This thread is living 22 pages longer than I thought, so I will play along again.

Creepier question: how many innocent people would you let die to save one person that you loved?

Scenario: picture a bad cop movie, or superhero movie, or to be safe, picture yourself as Bruce Willis. You are incapacitated, and the boss has on his left your one true love, or your mother, or whatever. On the right is some schmuck you don't know. And the bossman says, "choose." You choose, and you and the other person live. Now imagine a new scenario, where there are 2 strangers instead of one. Then one with 3 strangers, and so on. How many strangers would you send to their death to save the person you loved the most? This question seems a little more fun because some people have someone they would do anything for, and others are kind of alone, others have broken families where the word "love" is inapplicable. No weaseling out: you can't say, "Take me instead!"

I would save the person I love unless there was like 100+ Ppl.

As for how many lives would it take for me to kill my self or w/e. 2 or more. Tho if that situation would ever arise i admit i have no idea what i would do

CCitrus Canada. May 29 2012 05:42. Posts 162