View Single Post
  #18  
Unread 05-03-2013, 06:03 PM
NOBLE
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,105
Mentioned: 3633 Post(s)
Tagged: 76 Thread(s)
Estimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
4 Won / 0 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
30 Won / 8 Lost
Exclusive Text Record
1 Won / 1 Lost
Default

I can see myself risking my life for a total stranger depending on the situation. I guess what's at the heart of the question is would you save someone who has more personal value to you (friend) or more value to society (savior)? Someone who's willing to risk their lives for others (depending on the situation) is more valuable to society to me. But there's no telling that the friend wouldn't have done the same thing if given the opportunity either. What made my decision was the fact that you said the savior had been shot 20 minutes earlier. So I could save him and he still ends up dying from the wound, now we have two dead people rather than just one. In crisis situations like that where you can only save one person or a handful, I've always thought its better to try saving the ones who will have the best chances of surviving afterwards...otherwise you might have wasted your efforts.
Reply With Quote
Unread 05-03-2013, 06:03 PM   #18
 
NOBLE
Estimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Audio: 7.05/10 stars
Ranked Audio Record
4 Won / 0 Lost
Estimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.05/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 starsEstimated Skill in Text: 7.71/10 stars
Ranked Text Record
30 Won / 8 Lost
Exclusive Text Record
1 Won / 1 Lost
 
Join Date: May 2011
Voted: 408 audio / 1061 text
Posts: 6,105
Mentioned: 3633 Post(s)
Tagged: 76 Thread(s)


Default

I can see myself risking my life for a total stranger depending on the situation. I guess what's at the heart of the question is would you save someone who has more personal value to you (friend) or more value to society (savior)? Someone who's willing to risk their lives for others (depending on the situation) is more valuable to society to me. But there's no telling that the friend wouldn't have done the same thing if given the opportunity either. What made my decision was the fact that you said the savior had been shot 20 minutes earlier. So I could save him and he still ends up dying from the wound, now we have two dead people rather than just one. In crisis situations like that where you can only save one person or a handful, I've always thought its better to try saving the ones who will have the best chances of surviving afterwards...otherwise you might have wasted your efforts.
Offline   Reply With Quote