POLL: Your Life vs the Life of a Random Person

Remove all ads!

Choosing to die is pointless. Like Chevalier pointed out, the madman's probably mad enough to kill other people, even if you'd choose to be the one who dies first. With madmen there's absolutely no guarantee that they will hold on to their word.

So I think that I might choose a person sitting right on the other side of the room and try to tackle the looney when she turns her back. Of course trying to talk her out of it might still be the best option.

It still might make no difference, I still might die, but at least I've tried to stop her. The chance of succeding is worth taking if the result is that nobody gets killed by this person.

 

After giving further thought I realise that selecting 'they die' is possibly the best choice for both parties.

You need to think about what their choice would have been being given the same choice. If they would have chosen to kill you then well all's fair since it was going to be either anyway. However if they would have chosen to die themselves then the point is moot since both parties got what they want

 

All of them die. I don't think i have the strenght to sacrifice myself.
Especialy when im full of the thought:

Every day hundreds or thousands die because they have nothing (food, water, whatever) and they could be saved by simply lowering my (ok, everyones) life standards down to: a small car instead of a big one. 2 rooms instead of four. No more ciggarets. Going to cinema only once a month, lending a dvd instead of buying it. Eat less expensive stuff (ironicly, that also would be healthier...). Give money i don't have spend to the red cross and stuff instead of saving it up for a bigger car, a bigger tv or stuff like that.


Basicly im already sentencing random persons to death everyday.
Would the knowledge that im doing it because im asked to change the outcome? Unlikely.
Im used to my life. I even like it at times. So... sorry random persons, you have to perish.

 

I figure if someone's going to just gun one of us down at a word, I'd rather not bother answering. They're going to do what they're going to do, regardless, and I'm not going to sacrifice principles for their sake. Of course, I'd probably just sacrifice the redshirt (I mean random person) out of fear.

That's assuming I had no time to talk to them and no time to ascertain anything else. Of course, if someone has the ability to create that situation, they're going to force a choice.

For ten/a hundred/a thousand... well, I had a good run. Every one of them could/will have a partner, children, family, and friends. What's one life worth against all of that?

 

They die, as long as I get to live to stay enjoying

 

Presuming that someone WILL die and ther is no way to stop it and I have to make a choice:
I will die.
I'm pretty much convinced that I will spend eternity in a nice place. I'm not sure that Random Persons will.

This is what I say right now. I might as well point to the other while I piss my pants if this would actually happen.

Edit:

Or it might be someone to point out to both of you how selfish humans are and shoot none of the 2.

Edit 2:
Seems I simply agree with NOG.

 

they die, i value my life over most other peoples, survival you know...

 

Foolproof method! Unless, of course, you are not a very vengeful person, or if you feel that you are more deserving to die than the other person.


About the nihlist thingy; why would they choose to kill the other person if nothing has any meaning. I would have though that they would just kill themselves (perhaps as soon as they converted to nihlism). I mean, there is more things to do in life that has no meaning than in death, at least to our knowledge.

 

For a nihilist, just because life has no meaning doesn't mean they want to die. Because of their lack of morality and when taken to an extreme, a lack of decency, they do whatever pleases them the most. Essencially since life has no meaning, their actions can have no meaning so it doesn't matter what they do, which generally leads to the actions that bring the most pleasure. Nihilism still contains the Irrational value of strength to take what one wants, but denies even the subjective morality that Irrationalism has. A nihilist may not fear death for he knows his life is meaningless, but he doesn't want to loose out on the pleasures of life before he has to, for he knows that there is nothing after death, one merely ceases to exist.

 

I agree. That's why a nihilist can operate in the frame of the contemporary morality, if she chooses to do so. A nihilist shouldn't be confused with a simple hedonist who tries to pursue that which gives the most immediate pleasure. But of course pleasure is a prime motivator for a nihilist, and she might think that it is the prime motivator for everyone. Even so this pursue of pleasure is not something that has complete, or even the most control over nihilists actions. The prime motivator for a nihilist is her power of will, which might even give some power over lesser people, such as simple hedonists.

A nihilist thinks that there are no absolute rules that bind everyone and that even truth is only term that is used for purposes to gain power over other people. This does not mean that a nihilist wouldn't have any rules for herself. Only that even these rules are arbitrary.

 

The other person would go the way to the proverbial "Star Trek" ensign...I would rationalize my decision later.

 

well i must say this is a very thought-provoking topic, for me at least. ok, so would i die to save 1, 10, or more people?
If it's 1 person: then i'd say it depends on the person, how old they are, what they are like, etc.

but if its 10, 100, or 1000 people then i would choose for me to die. no question about it.

objectively, how is it possible that one life is worth more than 10, or 100??

So i would die. I don't think it's my choice to sentence other people to death, i can only choose my own fate. And since we all die eventually, whats it to me if i die a bit sooner for the good of others??

So is there any good reason that's not totally selfish to choose to kill the other people instead? the only one i can think of is: that you are afraid of death.
seriously... think about it.

are you afraid to die?

 

Of course I'm afraid to die. My aspirations are so huge that it'd be a waste not to accomplish them.

If I'd know that in the long run my life would be worthless then it'd be a totally different matter.

I want to make a difference, and it's possible for me to make a big difference in this world. I can't see how I'd make any difference if I'd die at this moment. Narcissistic? Probably, but as an western person with an education, and much possibilities, the potential for good outweighs any selfless considerations about giving one's life for other people.

Now I'd have to know who those other people were, and what their eventual worth for humanity, nature, and the planet would be for me to make any considerations about giving my life to save theirs. Of course they have the same potential as I do, but I'm farely sure that the majority of them do not have the will to try to achieve their potential.

Luckily the described situation, or anything like it will most probably never come to pass. If it would however, the decision I would make would be made there and then. Whatever musing I'd have before would have little effect on my decision then. I like to think I'd try something heroic, but just dying for other people is not that heroic in my books. However, if my death would achieve something great, and I could be certain of it, then, maybe I'd give my life away.

[ July 30, 2006, 14:16: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

It all depends on the situation. If it was a senseless act like someone pointing a death ray at me and saying you or them. I'd pick me. I know me, I like me, I'd like to keep going a little while longer, thank you very much.

If it were a war or something, and if I were, say, invading Normandy to get to Nazi Germany, and I had to sacrifice myself, or a squad of men so the army could continue to advance, possibly saving thousands...I'd probably do it.

Again it all depends on the circumstances. Sometime the greater good will win out, sometimes it won't.

 

Meh let 'em burn. Why do I need to die for some random sods?? Doesn't make any sense...

Of course, if this was for a purpose, then I'd THINK about it...and probably still let 'em burn..

Neutral Evil Alignment you see...

 

Haha, well said.

Chaotic evil here.

So, I reiterate my point... die, random person. I don't care.

 

Recently I realized that this thread (as well as the variation I made some time ago) is pretty inane. I've never had my life in danger, nor have I been responsible for someone else's life.

I figure if I let someone die I'd freak out a lot. If I were in the above situation, I'd also freak out a lot. I'd bet you would too, unless you're a soldier or a psychopath or a ninja or something.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the I-am-X-alignment thing is silly? I mean, you're not a D&D character (nor is anyone else), why delineate people along those lines?

 

You're completely right, you know. I don't think anyone could anticipate how they would react in such a situation, and that's myself included.

 

You're a spoilsport, Oaz.

To some extent, D&D alignments reflects who we are as person - i.e I am a chaotic evil in D&D terms, in RL terms I am selfish, individualist with self-centered tendencies, and some other "vices".

As for my life VS that of a random person, I place very little value on my own life, but sacrifice myself for someone else, be it one, ten, thousand or a million people? No way. I place little value on my own life, but I will keep it, thank you very much. And if the psycho wants to death laser us both, then just ****ing do it and be done with it.

 

i agree with oaz. its interesting to think of what your alignment would be in d&d terms but i don't think it you can classify yourself or other people that easily in real life.

I don't see what difference it possibly makes. Whether or not you're invading normandy, it is still the same issue: sacrificing yourself to save other people's lives. Why choose to do it in one situation and not another, if the same amount of lives are at stake? It's still the same thing, just in a different context...