POLL: Your Life vs the Life of a Random Person

Remove all ads!

But the context is everything. It's crucial in answering questions such as this. That's why I'd choose the other guy, since the chances are that the other guy's going to be less significant for the world's and humanity's well being than me.

If it'd be me against say, a thousand scientists, I'd be toast.

 

Interesting topic...

I didn't vote because I'm still thinking...so I guess it's safe to say that I'd be hesitating for a *very* long time...Although if it was me vs. more than one person then I'd choose to die I suppose.

I agree with Iku-Turso, the context is important. For example my decision would depend on, say, what type of person they are (even if you don't know anything about the random person you can still learn a little about who they are just by observing them) etc...

 

The random people dies no question about it. I like myself and I would never get likked/die if I din't get any credit for it.

A person dies from famine every three second and are you moved do you really care?
I feel sorry for those whoo die too young but I can't say that I get moved by it or anything like that, perhaps upset but not moved.

 

I die, I couldn't live knowing somebody died because I choosed that to happen,I'd shoot myself probably and two->thousand dead bodies is worse than one.

 

Well of course you're not going to be moved every three seconds because some poor starved person dies, but wouldn't you feel something if a person standing right in front of you died because you said so?

If I couldn't decide at the time I would tell the other person to choose.

 

What if the person who appeared was the person who was about to come inside with the laser? Then what would happen?

Anyway, I'd have to let the other person die.

 

Eh? I don't get it...

 

I think the reaction of the second person would have some impact on our decision as well. It's always been never impossible for me to act in relatively selfish manner one someone starts crying; once the other person starts to humanize themselves, most people's "super ego" starts going and without underlying ideology it's hard to not rationalize their humanity as well.

Now assuming we couldn't put a human face or feelings to that person, the matter becomes easier.

I can't imagine blurting out "kill them" while the person next to me is sobbing "don't kill me, please don't kill me.". I know myself well enough to know that I key in on the feelings of others and I assume most others have some degree of empathy as well, maybe not morally "Good" levels of empathy, but I don't think the choice to wax the next person would be as biological as we tend to think humans act in such situations.

 

Again, the choice isn't 'do you want to kill this person?' but a mixture of that and 'do you want to die?'.

The fact that they are another person is as always a sad thing but the end result is that somebody is going to die no matter what. The rational approach is that one person will die, the ego says "it might as well not be me". The compassionate approach is what could tip people over to killing themselves but I honestly doubt the majority would make that decision.

 

Nice topic.

Being as I'm the first person I've seen here to admit they have caused the death of another (my high-school sweetheart breathed her last in my arms because I "failed to pay due attention while operating a motor vehicle"), it's interesting to see that I'm one of the few people sitting on the fence.

I honesty don't know what I'd choose.

The big factor in the favour of choosing the other person isn't MY life, but the lives of those people I'm important to; I couldn't bear the though of my wife going through the same long dark funk I went through after the car accident.

But then, on the other side of the scales, what about the lives that this other person is important to? Their parents/children/spouse/lover/so on?



I really can't say what I'd say....except maybe "I can't make up my mind - ask him/her." *points to the other random person*


EDIT: Okay, after skimming through the discussion here, I'm swayed very slightly towards self-preservation in this specific situation with no further info provided.

But it's extremely close; I'd say even my mood at the time of the 'trial' could make me choose a different answer.

Oh, and as for the other questions? Surprisingly, still me. Indeed, I find condemming larger groups of random people easier, by virtue of the fact that a group is less human and individual than a...well, individual; you dehumanize someone by throwing them into a group, even slightly. It's no longer "Joe, the garbageman that digs Brittney Spears and writes gothic poetry in his spare time" but "ten garbage collectors" or "ten random men with widely varying backgrounds and personalities that they cannot be as easily concieved in one's mind as a single person."

So probably me over them...maybe...if I wasn't feeling depressed and self-loathing that day...or had an argument with the wife and might wish to die to spite her.

Have I said how interesting, fascinating and yes - a little unsettling - this topic is? Thanks!

[ September 21, 2006, 18:41: Message edited by: jaded empath ]