Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by X-Chick, Feb 28, 2006.
Spock is that you?
Another thing to take into consideration, you might know you love your sibling (can't speak for everyone), and most people are *****. So you'd probably be saving at least three *****, at the loss of your sibling.
Sibling and I wouldnt even think about it.
If you were in the same situation, but with only one stranger and your beloved pet, who would you save?
If you don't have a pet, then its a friend or family members pet, or an adorable puppy or some animal you love.
So if there were five people that needed different organs to lead a normal life, but they'd die otherwise, we should be able to carve up a random person against his will? That's the path you go down when you endorse a purely utilitarian point of view.
I'm gonna go with the dick to cool person ratio with this again, and save the pet. Odds are I don't even like the stranger.
I like that explanation
This one would be harder for me. I love my dogs, Jack especially, but a human life is important....I think I would have to save the person. I love my dog like he's my child, but he's still just a dog and has a much shorter life than humans. Jack would want me to save the person too. I'd cry for years though.
Is it better to save someone who has a longer expected lifespan?
What about someone disabled who won't enjoy the same quality of life as a normal person
Should they be treated as a lower priority?
The stranger...I mean it's a frickin animal for christ's sake. I own a dog but no way am I taking the life of an animal over a human being's. I eat the damn things every day (not dogs. animals).
I would call the fire department and get everyone saved if the fire department got their in time. But if thats not an option I would save my sister. Are the strangers unable to move or trapped?
This is just for an average, healthy person. Not someone who is disabled or a child.
that's an insane choice.
It's a no win situation.. if you save a relative, 5 people died. If you save the 5 people.. you let a family member die.
I guess if it were 5 kids.... I'd have to save them. I'd save them and hope my family would understand.
Yeah, for the sake of keeping the extenuating circumstances to a minimum, nobody can get out without the help of you.
Also, I have to add that I dig your sn. Lex is the ****.
My dad's disabled, I would save him over anyone
I'd save the person; I'm not involving myself in the complication of what type of person they are. I would choose them over an animal.
For your first question, I'm an only child, but I have a couple of friends who are like siblings. I would definitely save one of them first. I couldn't look their respective families in the eye if I opted to save five strangers over one of their lives.
Hard choice to make but not too hard. I choose to save my sibling. Sorry, strangers.
In that case if we are talking basic survival split second choice..... my sister every time, while trying to urinate on the way out to put out the flames. Sorry for the low brow humour there.
Thank you, I was suprised that LexCorp was not taken by now....as I am new.
Depends which sibling If it was my brother, I'm pretty sure he could save himself since he's a volunteer fireman... either sister I would save over strangers though.
We're assuming nobody can save theirself and for those of you who have more than one sibling, its the oldest.
I don't think anyone would mind & most people would be able to live with themself if they saved their sibling first whatever else. After that if there's time (which we know there won't be) you can start thinking about others.
i'd save the attractive women and leave the rest inside to cook
Question 1 - My sibling.
Question 2 - My dog.
I think a better question would be; Would you save your sibling or a person that is good for the world like Martin Luther King or someone like that.