POLL: Who would you save?

Remove all ads!

This question came up while I was talking with my friends and I think it's pretty interesting, so here is the scenario:

There are two guys/girls trapped in a room that is on fire. Both guys/girls like you but you only like one of them. You only have time to save one. Who do you save? The one you like or the one you don't like?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 29 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Who would you save? (29 votes.)

Who would you save? (Choose 1)
* The one I like - 66% (19)
* The one I don't like - 0% (0)
* Don't know/ Other - 34% (10)

 

The Firefighter's Code: You save the one closest to the exit and then die trying to save the other one.

 

Er, okay, just imagine that they're both somehow *equally* close to the exit and they are of equal distance from you. And both equally in mortal danger.

 

I'm with Fel on this, irrespective of likes/dislikes whichever is closest to exit, if on the other hand we accept the hypothetical equidistant from me, then whichever is the heaviest first, you're going to have less energy on your return.

 

I would try to save both, but if it was a choice between dubya, and anyone else, I am sure you can guess who I would choose

 

Okay, this is not the 'perfect' question so this kind of thing most probably would never happen, but! Just pretend that, say they are identical, okay? It just happens to be that you like one more than the other. It's just a simple question and quite obviously does not hold up to close deconstruction or analysis, so don't read too deep into it please~~

C'mon, if I had really intended it to be foolproof I would've written a longer description.

 

If I disliked the one person enough then I would choose the one I liked but I would still do everything in my power to save them both. As for a straight up answer: the one that I liked.

 

The one I like - it would be silly to save the one I don't while there's someone I'd prefer to be alive there to save instead...

 

Given all other factors are the same, and you can only save one, I don't see why anyone would choose to save the person they didn't over the person they did.

Still interested to hear if anyone disagrees with me.

 

I'm going to stay with my original answer, the reason being, that I'd like to think in that sort of situation, I'd be above such petty concerns as to which I liked or not, becasue I'm going to have enough guilt to deal with supposing I survive it.

 

Good answer DS but Shadow Lurker set the rules....given all things equal....though it sounds crappy, I think Rotku is right.

Clarification: Rotku, your answer isn't crappy just the reality of the situation

 

I'd die trying to save both at the same time (people have TWO shoulders you know?) because I don't think I'd know if I didn't have enough time to save two people.

 

In all the panic and terror I would sirely don't hae time to think about who to save so I'll gess that I would just grab the person clososest to me and save/try to save her/him.

 

I noticed that save nobody wasn't an option. I'm curious how many people would run into a burning room.

 

@The Great Snook: Well, you could possibly be in there to begin with. Besides, some of us do silly things while acting the hero (myself included).

@Stardust: There is a link to a Spell-checker at the top of the page.

For my answer I'm the same as Abomination- I'd end up trying to save both and probably get myself killed. I'd have trouble living with myself if I didn't try to.

 

I've been in a similar situation -- there's always one person easier to get to. You save the first one you find and then go back. The smoke is so heavy in a fire you'll never recognize who your choices are and you'll only really find one at a time.

 

I really can't say if I'd be able to save anyone from a burning room let alone think in such a situation. If I'd be up to it I'd probably prefer saving the one I like.

@Rotku: It could be thought of as being a nobler deed if you'd save the one you dislike as it would be acting against your personal preferences. If there's no other factor that separates these two people the act of saving the one you don't like could be considered as self-sacrifice.

Could this self sacrifice ease your guilt about not being able to save both of them? It's possible that for some people it might. After all it would be a selfless act, of which we have a long tradition that emphasizes the importance of altruistic behaviour and perhaps justly so.

 

I think this is an awful question, since it so heavily suggests that one human life is worth more than another just because you happen to "like" (whatever that means) the former life more.

I would say whichever one I could best save, but in such a situation I would probably panic and flip out, so it's hard to say.

(For the record, I am also tired of people giving sure, confident answers to questions involving life or death. In situations of life or death, I imagine most people piss their pants, go crazy with adrenaline, and maybe go into a sense of self-preservation. Just my thoughts.)

 

The one I like. It's only natural you save the one you like first.

 

The worth of life depends upon how valuable the life is to the person who is saving it. All other things being equal the life that is more valuable to you is the one you appreciate the most. It's not heartless, it's just the way things are.