First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
If you could save your life..?
9634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Georgia - GA
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
:



Thanks for fleshing that out a bit. So my decision will kill some random 21 year old at some point in the future that I have absolutely no ties to, either now or in the future. Would still probably choose personal survival due to instincts.

Ha i laugh at people who tie us down to instincts. What do you think seperates us from animals if we were tied down by instincts do you think we would have the right to call ourselfs intelligent? Why do you think heros exist? is it not because they go against instincts? Like i asked in another of my topics "Why do humans feel they can justify death?"


Because despite our sentience and our high society we are all animals at the end of the day. That is how I can say that, especially when it comes down to your personal survival, instinct plays a major part in our mental processes. We can overcome our instincts to a degree due to the fact that we are self aware, however we can't entirely get away from them.
Who is a hero? Is it the EMT/Medic coming to help you or your loved one? The Firefighter who battles the raging inferno? The Police officer trying to keep the law of the land intact? Or the Soldier who is there to defend the nation against foreign aggression? So how do you define "Hero," is it the selfless sacrifice of your own life for the betterment of a cause or the protection of family? Is it championing something worthy of being fought for or is it simply doing good kind deeds for others when they are in need?

Also what do you mean by Justify Death? Do you mean Death in the sense of taking a life whether by suicide or homicide or just the fact that living things die? I don't recall seeing that thread off hand.

A hero is different for all of us that is why i asked you what do you think a hero is. For me personally giving up your own life for someone else regardless if they were the worst person on earth is being a hero. And i mean death as a whole death is death and the scenario does not change what it is. Your questions are really not necessary for you are meant to answer those yourselves. You say that at the end of the day we are animals but here is the definition of animal from websters dictionary and i quote "a living thing that is not a human being or plant" NOT a human being. We are not animals for we are clearly distinguished by animals by what we are able to do by the simple fact that we are alive by simply knowing that we are alive we are able to turn away from being an animal into what some would say "being a god" for as some would put it we were created in the image of GOD so in fact some would call us gods as the greeks did but you might not believe this however the fact remains that we are simply above the realm of an animal.



Just for the record you never actually asked me what I think a hero is, you said, "Why do you think heroes exist?" Therefore I wanted to ask what you felt a hero was to establish a frame of reference for our discussion. So what I believe a hero is is someone that attempts to create change by following their ideals. So someone who stands up for what they believe is right over what they feel is unjust or unacceptable. Making the ultimate sacrifice for another is a heroic act. But I don't believe that martyrs are necessarily heroes. Would it not be better to save a life and then continue living to save even more lives if it were possible? Yes a "hero" overcomes his/her instincts/emotions in order to accomplish their goals. However do they do this because they are "heroes" or because they simply want to succeed at their task?

That is true, our ability to be self aware does put us over the living beings on this planet that are not self aware. But we still require nourishment and rest like any other mammal. Perhaps we have evolved to a point both biologically and technologically that relying on our instincts may not be the most logical course of action. From my perspective it could be argued that emotions and morals are a form of higher instincts that we use to guide ourselves. So instead of saying that we have the instinct of self preservation it is our fear of death that drives us to do whatever we have to to survive. To counter your definition of animal, aren't Homo Sapiens listed as a species of mammal within the animal kingdom?

Okay so since you're simply talking about death as a whole, therefore the "act" of dying itself, humans can justify death as being a natural occurrence that befalls all living things during the passage of time. Some simply pass on before others whether that's due to that Being being killed by another Being or the Being succumbing to natural causes. Death is unavoidable. Death really doesn't need to be justified because it happens of its own accord. In retrospect because I feel you may bring this point up; if by Death you meant humans killing one another or themselves the question becomes trickier to answer. For one human killing another human in "Cold Blood" The rationale falls down to a mixture of the emotions fear and anger. You are afraid of being hurt/killed by another and this fear can make you feel helpless. This helplessness infuriates you and so you attempt to help yourself by removing what you are afraid of. Therefore you now have a "justification" for killing someone. Not a perfect model of course but somewhat logical at least. Now when it comes to suicide I suppose you could use that helplessness idea again. You feel so helpless that by removing the thing that is helpless solves the problem by doing away with the feeling of helplessness. Although I personally cannot rationalise suicide other than accepting that people believe it is a valid option.

I disagree that my questions are unnecessary. Yes I do need to find my own answers to them, however how can I find the answer if I don't understand the question?

I agree. We have instincts but perhaps your view of where our control of those instincts ends is different than mine and perhaps your views of what are instincts are different than mine. Also i am denying that we are animals in the sense i understood you were putting us in and it was not my definition by the way. Of course we are classified as a specie of animal biologically speaking but of course you arent ignorant enough to think that is what i was denying right? Also you say you do not understand my question but since i am talking about a universal topic which is "hero" and "death" your questions seemed unnecessary since things like these are taught to us in school and church and by our parents so to ask questions like these is to simply try to find something that i cannot answer for you since you have to answer them yourself. There is nothing to understand. While you say death does not need to be justified then why do people try to find out why we die? Where did this idea that we shouldent die come from?

Hmm, perhaps I hadn't given enough thought to your position on the matter of the human animal. However I can only react to what appears on my screen putting me at a distinct disadvantage to pick up on certain cues or tones that would have been apparent in a face to face conversation. No I didn't think you were outright denying that we are classified as animals but instead arguing that we weren't necessarily animals in the sense of not being sentient beings and therefore we have the ability to rise above our base animal traits.

Yes the topics are universal but you yourself said that everyone has their own definition of what a hero is to them. So if our views were different and we did not know where each other stood on the topic we wouldn't be able to accurately say what we wanted and have it understood correctly because of an information gap.
Death is also a universal topic but there are many facets to the discussion, so by simply discussing the topic of death in general might not be entirely helpful in the conversation when you want to talk about death in the case of say, myocardial infarction or heart attack. Also I wasn't saying I don't understand what you are asking, it was meant to convey the point I put forward in this part of my reply. That by addressing the broad topic of Death that I could entirely miss the specific facet of death that you wanted to talk about. Again it is harder to convey ques or tones through digital text that would easily be picked up in face to face conversation.

Again you bring up finding the answer "for myself." I have my answers and I can put them forth for you to see. However who says your answer doesn't make more sense? If it does would it make sense for me to not rethink my position on the matter? Even if I do not observing a separate point of view can help strengthen my own or perhaps add an explanation to a part of it that I hadn't thought of yet. I don't see why me asking you questions is an issue here. It should be expected in any conversation when someone wants clarification from another on something.

People want to know why we die because they are curious. People also wanted to know why an apple fell from a tree, or how the solar system works. Humans are curious creatures and science is how we try to sate our curiosity in an attempt to find the answers to our questions. You ask why I say people can't justify death. My answer is that we cannot prevent death. It can be prolonged but not prevented. Then again finding out why we die is different from trying to justify why we have to die. Finding out why we die is an easy enough subject. Air goes in and out. Blood goes around and around. If any of that changes or stops we die. Through medical science we have found ways to help restart this system, prevent it from happening and to keep it running. We don't have the drug for immortality yet if we ever can at all. And even if we are able to one day stop the biological aging process and keep our bodies in perfect equilibrium who's to say that we won't end up going insane after a certain amount of time with biological processors? Then again maybe we could go on indefinitely. The idea of immortality could simply come from the fear of death and what, if anything, comes after our bodies die. If you believe in the eternal soul then the self awareness of a person continues on after they've died and does whatever it is they do once they leave their husk. Perhaps it's a sort of "second birth" into a more complex level of existence or just oblivion. I don't have anything other than conjecture on where our lust for immortality comes from.

We are taught many things by teachers, parents and other relatives and spiritual teachers if you have any. You can teach something to someone but does that necessarily mean that they can only conform to what they have been told? Can they not branch out and perhaps look at the issue a different way and find a whole new area of it to explore? Find the answer themselves as you like to put it. There are some solid truths that will need to be accepted at some point. A math equation works the way it does. If you want to understand why it works that way you can research it yourself and come to same conclusions or you can just accept it as fact and never question why it works the way it does. The old adage, Catch a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll never be hungry again; can fall under what I'm trying to say. You show the man how to fish with some twine for the line, a branch for the rod, some form of hook and a worm as bait. Can the man only use that setup or should he look for even better materials and methods for catching fish?

Any idea why the Spoilers aren't working properly?

No idea mate. You have branched too far out with too many questions which i do not have the time to answer. You have deviated from my question and are now trying to cover issues of not only morality but scientific,spiritual,linguistic and heavens knows what else. U have said u will not die because of your instincts... fine i have said we are not bound by those "instincts"... you have said we are nothing more than animals i have said we are more... now i have said why do humans feel they can justify death and u say what kind of death so i say death in general.. you say death is as natural and inevitable as breathing... i say it is not. So is there a justification for death no do humans try to jistify it yes. As for all your other world play... well lets leave that for people who actually have time to answer all of your insignificant little questions cause i need to sleep mate. Night.
4371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 11/15/13 , edited 11/15/13
:



Thanks for fleshing that out a bit. So my decision will kill some random 21 year old at some point in the future that I have absolutely no ties to, either now or in the future. Would still probably choose personal survival due to instincts.

Ha i laugh at people who tie us down to instincts. What do you think seperates us from animals if we were tied down by instincts do you think we would have the right to call ourselfs intelligent? Why do you think heros exist? is it not because they go against instincts? Like i asked in another of my topics "Why do humans feel they can justify death?"


Because despite our sentience and our high society we are all animals at the end of the day. That is how I can say that, especially when it comes down to your personal survival, instinct plays a major part in our mental processes. We can overcome our instincts to a degree due to the fact that we are self aware, however we can't entirely get away from them.
Who is a hero? Is it the EMT/Medic coming to help you or your loved one? The Firefighter who battles the raging inferno? The Police officer trying to keep the law of the land intact? Or the Soldier who is there to defend the nation against foreign aggression? So how do you define "Hero," is it the selfless sacrifice of your own life for the betterment of a cause or the protection of family? Is it championing something worthy of being fought for or is it simply doing good kind deeds for others when they are in need?

Also what do you mean by Justify Death? Do you mean Death in the sense of taking a life whether by suicide or homicide or just the fact that living things die? I don't recall seeing that thread off hand.

A hero is different for all of us that is why i asked you what do you think a hero is. For me personally giving up your own life for someone else regardless if they were the worst person on earth is being a hero. And i mean death as a whole death is death and the scenario does not change what it is. Your questions are really not necessary for you are meant to answer those yourselves. You say that at the end of the day we are animals but here is the definition of animal from websters dictionary and i quote "a living thing that is not a human being or plant" NOT a human being. We are not animals for we are clearly distinguished by animals by what we are able to do by the simple fact that we are alive by simply knowing that we are alive we are able to turn away from being an animal into what some would say "being a god" for as some would put it we were created in the image of GOD so in fact some would call us gods as the greeks did but you might not believe this however the fact remains that we are simply above the realm of an animal.



Just for the record you never actually asked me what I think a hero is, you said, "Why do you think heroes exist?" Therefore I wanted to ask what you felt a hero was to establish a frame of reference for our discussion. So what I believe a hero is is someone that attempts to create change by following their ideals. So someone who stands up for what they believe is right over what they feel is unjust or unacceptable. Making the ultimate sacrifice for another is a heroic act. But I don't believe that martyrs are necessarily heroes. Would it not be better to save a life and then continue living to save even more lives if it were possible? Yes a "hero" overcomes his/her instincts/emotions in order to accomplish their goals. However do they do this because they are "heroes" or because they simply want to succeed at their task?

That is true, our ability to be self aware does put us over the living beings on this planet that are not self aware. But we still require nourishment and rest like any other mammal. Perhaps we have evolved to a point both biologically and technologically that relying on our instincts may not be the most logical course of action. From my perspective it could be argued that emotions and morals are a form of higher instincts that we use to guide ourselves. So instead of saying that we have the instinct of self preservation it is our fear of death that drives us to do whatever we have to to survive. To counter your definition of animal, aren't Homo Sapiens listed as a species of mammal within the animal kingdom?

Okay so since you're simply talking about death as a whole, therefore the "act" of dying itself, humans can justify death as being a natural occurrence that befalls all living things during the passage of time. Some simply pass on before others whether that's due to that Being being killed by another Being or the Being succumbing to natural causes. Death is unavoidable. Death really doesn't need to be justified because it happens of its own accord. In retrospect because I feel you may bring this point up; if by Death you meant humans killing one another or themselves the question becomes trickier to answer. For one human killing another human in "Cold Blood" The rationale falls down to a mixture of the emotions fear and anger. You are afraid of being hurt/killed by another and this fear can make you feel helpless. This helplessness infuriates you and so you attempt to help yourself by removing what you are afraid of. Therefore you now have a "justification" for killing someone. Not a perfect model of course but somewhat logical at least. Now when it comes to suicide I suppose you could use that helplessness idea again. You feel so helpless that by removing the thing that is helpless solves the problem by doing away with the feeling of helplessness. Although I personally cannot rationalise suicide other than accepting that people believe it is a valid option.

I disagree that my questions are unnecessary. Yes I do need to find my own answers to them, however how can I find the answer if I don't understand the question?

I agree. We have instincts but perhaps your view of where our control of those instincts ends is different than mine and perhaps your views of what are instincts are different than mine. Also i am denying that we are animals in the sense i understood you were putting us in and it was not my definition by the way. Of course we are classified as a specie of animal biologically speaking but of course you arent ignorant enough to think that is what i was denying right? Also you say you do not understand my question but since i am talking about a universal topic which is "hero" and "death" your questions seemed unnecessary since things like these are taught to us in school and church and by our parents so to ask questions like these is to simply try to find something that i cannot answer for you since you have to answer them yourself. There is nothing to understand. While you say death does not need to be justified then why do people try to find out why we die? Where did this idea that we shouldent die come from?

Hmm, perhaps I hadn't given enough thought to your position on the matter of the human animal. However I can only react to what appears on my screen putting me at a distinct disadvantage to pick up on certain cues or tones that would have been apparent in a face to face conversation. No I didn't think you were outright denying that we are classified as animals but instead arguing that we weren't necessarily animals in the sense of not being sentient beings and therefore we have the ability to rise above our base animal traits.

Yes the topics are universal but you yourself said that everyone has their own definition of what a hero is to them. So if our views were different and we did not know where each other stood on the topic we wouldn't be able to accurately say what we wanted and have it understood correctly because of an information gap.
Death is also a universal topic but there are many facets to the discussion, so by simply discussing the topic of death in general might not be entirely helpful in the conversation when you want to talk about death in the case of say, myocardial infarction or heart attack. Also I wasn't saying I don't understand what you are asking, it was meant to convey the point I put forward in this part of my reply. That by addressing the broad topic of Death that I could entirely miss the specific facet of death that you wanted to talk about. Again it is harder to convey ques or tones through digital text that would easily be picked up in face to face conversation.

Again you bring up finding the answer "for myself." I have my answers and I can put them forth for you to see. However who says your answer doesn't make more sense? If it does would it make sense for me to not rethink my position on the matter? Even if I do not observing a separate point of view can help strengthen my own or perhaps add an explanation to a part of it that I hadn't thought of yet. I don't see why me asking you questions is an issue here. It should be expected in any conversation when someone wants clarification from another on something.

People want to know why we die because they are curious. People also wanted to know why an apple fell from a tree, or how the solar system works. Humans are curious creatures and science is how we try to sate our curiosity in an attempt to find the answers to our questions. You ask why I say people can't justify death. My answer is that we cannot prevent death. It can be prolonged but not prevented. Then again finding out why we die is different from trying to justify why we have to die. Finding out why we die is an easy enough subject. Air goes in and out. Blood goes around and around. If any of that changes or stops we die. Through medical science we have found ways to help restart this system, prevent it from happening and to keep it running. We don't have the drug for immortality yet if we ever can at all. And even if we are able to one day stop the biological aging process and keep our bodies in perfect equilibrium who's to say that we won't end up going insane after a certain amount of time with biological processors? Then again maybe we could go on indefinitely. The idea of immortality could simply come from the fear of death and what, if anything, comes after our bodies die. If you believe in the eternal soul then the self awareness of a person continues on after they've died and does whatever it is they do once they leave their husk. Perhaps it's a sort of "second birth" into a more complex level of existence or just oblivion. I don't have anything other than conjecture on where our lust for immortality comes from.

We are taught many things by teachers, parents and other relatives and spiritual teachers if you have any. You can teach something to someone but does that necessarily mean that they can only conform to what they have been told? Can they not branch out and perhaps look at the issue a different way and find a whole new area of it to explore? Find the answer themselves as you like to put it. There are some solid truths that will need to be accepted at some point. A math equation works the way it does. If you want to understand why it works that way you can research it yourself and come to same conclusions or you can just accept it as fact and never question why it works the way it does. The old adage, Catch a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll never be hungry again; can fall under what I'm trying to say. You show the man how to fish with some twine for the line, a branch for the rod, some form of hook and a worm as bait. Can the man only use that setup or should he look for even better materials and methods for catching fish?

Any idea why the Spoilers aren't working properly?


No idea mate. You have branched too far out with too many questions which i do not have the time to answer. You have deviated from my question and are now trying to cover issues of not only morality but scientific,spiritual,linguistic and heavens knows what else. U have said u will not die because of your instincts... fine i have said we are not bound by those "instincts"... you have said we are nothing more than animals i have said we are more... now i have said why do humans feel they can justify death and u say what kind of death so i say death in general.. you say death is as natural and inevitable as breathing... i say it is not. So is there a justification for death no do humans try to jistify it yes. As for all your other world play... well lets leave that for people who actually have time to answer all of your insignificant little questions cause i need to sleep mate. Night.



Fair enough. I'm at that point too. Sleep calls. I thought it was fun though, I thought anyway. One final thing for you to see tomorrow though. Don't feel you need to answer me. Don't conversations naturally progress into multiple realms as they progress? Goodnight
4371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
Sorry about the giant walls of text everyone... and for the double post...
Posted 11/15/13 , edited 11/15/13
Like right now at this moment, I don't care if I cease to exist.

But if you were to ask me this last week, I would have said "Yes", since I was so happy.



Happiness is such a fleeting emotion, *sigh*
8577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Whale Island
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
This question is so evil ,would I sacrifice someone else's life to save my own....If I was really in that situation then yes I'd probably save myself, this would most likely haunt me for the rest of my life but I'm pretty sure the stranger would do the same,maybe.
30952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Iowa
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
Of course. It's a matter of survival. There is no honor in dying. It's an illusion.
42405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
I don't know.
36347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / West Coast
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
Without question, that button would be pressed to kill the other person without a second thought if it was someone I would never meet or know or had any connection to. I would feel no remorse as it was not I who killed them, but someone / thing else. If I chose to kill myself then its suicide and I dont believe suicide is the answer to pretty much anything AND also, How do you know this person will live long anyway? How do you know if this person will be a good person and not turn into a killer / rapist? Cant use the Jesus statement on me either as that was something No one has done since that people know of or will do again that we know of now. And that just because I or anyone else wouldn't follow the same road does not mean we are not good people for not saving someone else that we never met. To judge someone simply based on this answer is not correct and can simply mean, YOU are not the good person here.
Instincts are there for a reason. Its to help you stay alive under normal / stressful means. Sometimes people push past their instincts through emotion which is why people are people and not just animals. So Going by instinct is not meaning you are unintelligent, its part of survival and without it, we would have died long ago.
Different story now if you brought in a loved one.
Posted 11/15/13
I'd treat it as a chance at the expense of this person
20074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/13 , edited 11/15/13
I would make sure I almost saved me but not quite lulz
37906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/13 , edited 11/15/13

ZenZaku wrote:

Well I suppose this could be in the vein with the thread asking about which button you'd push, the one that let's you go but kills someone else or you kill yourself to save this other person. Of course they're in another identical room facing the same choice if I remember right.

Anyvey...

Personally I don't think I'm selfless enough to worry about someone who isn't even on this plane of existence yet. After all every single one of us is going to die at some point, that's the curse of living, so when it's something that's inevitable does it really matter if I choose to continue my existence by condemning a future possibility? They'd die one way or the other whether I choose to save myself or sacrifice myself. How is it decided who will be killed in the future? I'm interested. Also when are they killed in the future? Like how many life experiences are they allowed before the chopping block for my own survival?

However to be that guy, let's take the idea of Schrodinger's Cat into this hypothetical. Say I choose to save myself on this plane of existence. On another plane my "other" self would choose to sacrifice themself for this other person. Therefore regardless of my own personal choice this future person will still live on some plane of existence. (If I misused Schrodinger's Cat in place of a different theory I'd like to be corrected on it)


Schrodinger's Cat isn't about another plane of existence doing something other than what you are doing...It is about the uncertainty principle in which it is not decided yet whether or not one thing happened before it is observed, but after it is observed.


To answer the question, I would die. It matters not if you know them or not. It is the same thing, someone else is dying. Others know them, their whole future is ahead of them.
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 11/15/13 , edited 11/15/13
*presses button*... What? It's not like I will know the guy anyway all that matters is I'm still alive.
50394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Balmer, Murlin
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
I... I don't know, honestly. On one hand, I'm not doing anything important in my life. The person I would be killing, however, might be doing a lot of good. They could be a leader, an activist, or just your everyday hero, like a cop or fireman. I have no right to sacrifice someone like that for myself. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't want to devastate my loved ones with my own death. It isn't far to them if I throw my life away when I could save it. So... I really don't know. Tough question. Hmm.
4371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / Rainbow Factory
Offline
Posted 11/15/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:


ZenZaku wrote:

Well I suppose this could be in the vein with the thread asking about which button you'd push, the one that let's you go but kills someone else or you kill yourself to save this other person. Of course they're in another identical room facing the same choice if I remember right.

Anyvey...

Personally I don't think I'm selfless enough to worry about someone who isn't even on this plane of existence yet. After all every single one of us is going to die at some point, that's the curse of living, so when it's something that's inevitable does it really matter if I choose to continue my existence by condemning a future possibility? They'd die one way or the other whether I choose to save myself or sacrifice myself. How is it decided who will be killed in the future? I'm interested. Also when are they killed in the future? Like how many life experiences are they allowed before the chopping block for my own survival?

However to be that guy, let's take the idea of Schrodinger's Cat into this hypothetical. Say I choose to save myself on this plane of existence. On another plane my "other" self would choose to sacrifice themself for this other person. Therefore regardless of my own personal choice this future person will still live on some plane of existence. (If I misused Schrodinger's Cat in place of a different theory I'd like to be corrected on it)


Schrodinger's Cat isn't about another plane of existence doing something other than what you are doing...It is about the uncertainty principle in which it is not decided yet whether or not one thing happened before it is observed, but after it is observed.


To answer the question, I would die. It matters not if you know them or not. It is the same thing, someone else is dying. Others know them, their whole future is ahead of them.


Thanks for explaining it. I had the suspicion I was using it wrong. So would it be more proper to say that I used the Multi Universe theory?
35284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/13
There was a thread similar to this; it basically presented a situation where two strangers each have a button they can press to kill the other. They could also not press their button, and thus if both refuse to push the button, both live. While based off an event in a movie, the basic idea is not too dissimilar to the Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma).

Anyway, this is, as stated, similar; the difference is that here there is no chance of both people surviving, and only one person gets to make a choice. The other major difference is that while the choice in the other situation depends on how much one is willing to trust a stranger with their life, the choice here comes down to one's own values and perhaps how much one is willing to trust a stranger with what they value.

What is most important to you? Is it your life? (I think I'm sounding kind of like that one guy in Code Geass with that line...ugh)
Or is there something you value more? If you value your life above all else, there is only one choice to make.

Otherwise, the question comes down to, what are the odds that sacrificing your life is going to be better for whatever it is you value more than your life, than sacrificing the other life would be? Then you have to think long and hard about the qualities of a random human being compared to yourself, and just what your life is worth.

It's best not to think too long and hard about this though; in an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion. (http://hhgproject.org/entries/totalperspectivevortex.html)

For what it's worth, I believe I would choose to save myself; I rather like living, and while it may be arrogant, I am of the opinion that there are decent odds I have more to offer than the average person.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.