Sacrifice

[data_link]

A terrible natural disaster is about to claim the lives of one thousand people. You can stop it, but only at the cost of your own life. No one else knows you are in a position to stop it, so you need not worry about being judged.

The question before the house is: Do you sacrifice yourself to save the thousand others?

Honest answers, please.

[Dargos]

Sacrificieing yourself to save a thousand people...hmm. I think I would do it. But it would have to be a spur of the moment thing no time to think about it type situation.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Yes, I would. As has been pointed out in another thread, as a smoker, I'm dying anyway -- it might as well accomplish something. In this scenario, especially, my life to save a thousand others is worth it to me.

[Dargos]

Yes, I would. As has been pointed out in another thread, as a smoker, I'm dying anyway -- it might as well accomplish something. In this scenario, especially, my life to save a thousand others is worth it to me.

Hmm.....I guess only you and I are the only ones who would throw away our lives for others eh?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Yes, I would. As has been pointed out in another thread, as a smoker, I'm dying anyway -- it might as well accomplish something. In this scenario, especially, my life to save a thousand others is worth it to me.

Hmm.....I guess only you and I are the only ones who would throw away our lives for others eh?

And I'm sure society would mourn our loss. "Let's have a picosecond of silence for those who... okay, let's drink!" lol

[Zoink]

It depends on who. I can kill myself right now to save the lives of one, two, maybe three people by donating my organs. I'm not going to do it though. Making it 1 thousand people doesn't change it.

I would applaud anyone who gave their lives to save others, but I wouldn't scorn anyone who didn't. Birth and death is a natural process, its one thing that each and everyone of us will experience. One thousand people dying is not desirable, but my own life is as important as anyone elses.

However, one can choose to sacrfice themselves. For example: its in ones own interest to save the lives of their childeren at all costs.

[Dargos]

It depends on who. I can kill myself right now to save the lives of one, two, maybe three people by donating my organs. I'm not going to do it though. Making it 1 thousand people doesn't change it.

I would applaud anyone who gave their lives to save others, but I wouldn't scorn anyone who didn't. Birth and death is a natural process, its one thing that each and everyone of us will experience. One thousand people dying is not desirable, but my own life is as important as anyone elses.

However, one can choose to sacrfice themselves. For example: its in ones own interest to save the lives of their childeren at all costs.

Ok...I see your point of view, and I respect it. But may I ask a question?In the senerio above YOU are in the position to stop a disaster that would kill a thousand. Wouldn't the guilt of knowing that you are,in effect, responisble for the death of one thousand innocent individuals because you chose not to act be almost as bad as dieing in the first place?
I think it would be for me.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I think this question closely parallels the question in Star Trek of the "Prime Directive" as well as the question of "Why does God let bad things happen?"

I think if you see that something disastrous is going to happen to people, and you can prevent it, you have a responsibility to prevent it. Certainly not as direct a responsibility to those people as you would if you had somehow caused the event which would kill them, but a responsibility nonetheless, if only to your own conscience.

[Lagmonster]

Not a chance would I do it. I'm not interested in being a martyr or a saint when I don't have to be. A thousand people dying is a tragedy, yes, but I'm not going to fling myself in front of every earthquake and tornado in an attempt to be a hero. I'd rather be a survivor of a tragedy than a victim, even the only one.

I could probably have saved a life by mailing twenty bucks to some third-world charity, or so they claim. Did I? No. I could have probably saved a lot of lives if I'd become a doctor like my mother. Did I? No.

[Dargos]

Not a chance would I do it. I'm not interested in being a martyr or a saint when I don't have to be. A thousand people dying is a tragedy, yes, but I'm not going to fling myself in front of every earthquake and tornado in an attempt to be a hero. I'd rather be a survivor of a tragedy than a victim, even the only one.

I could probably have saved a life by mailing twenty bucks to some third-world charity, or so they claim. Did I? No. I could have probably saved a lot of lives if I'd become a doctor like my mother. Did I? No.

Well....at least your honest...i can respect that.

[data_link]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

[neoolong]

Well I guess it would depend on who I'm saving if I did it. If I cared yes, I would. If I didn't then no I wouldn't sacrifice myself.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

It would appear (and I do hope I'm wrong about this) to be the difference between ideology and sincerity. What you recommend someone do this? "Hell yes!" Would you do it? "Uhhh... "

[Lagmonster]

Well....at least your honest...i can respect that.

Honest, yes. But don't think of someone who chooses to save themselves as a bad person. Basically, the proposal is that someone is going to die. No way around that.

There are two possibilities here, really:

1) The disaster is immediate and you have no time to think. You're acting rashly and quickly. Some people blindly throw themselves into the fire, and others don't. At that point, I believe that you're observing the actions of instinct, not moral consideration and choice. See women throwing themselves in front of cars to protect their babies. I've been in split-second-decision positions before and I know that I am always the one who's trying to get out of the way and hoping that any other potential victims are doing the same. Why, I leave up to the psychologists.

2) The disaster has a timeframe. At that point, NO ONE plans to be there to hurl themselves in the way. Everybody at that point is on the horn calling the authorities and warning every living soul they can get within shouting distance of. At that point, you're observing people making a decision about the most efficient and logical course of action, based on the moral presumption that they have to save innocent lives.

[neoolong]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

Well, put it like this. Would you rather save 1000 children or 1000 criminals on death row?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

Well, put it like this. Would you rather save 1000 children or 1000 criminals on death row?

Death row criminals are not typically subject to natural disasters -- and were they so, there would be little chance that any of us would be in a position to help them.

[Lagmonster]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

A woman throws herself in front of a speeding bus in a split second, *WITHOUT THINKING*, because she instinctively may want to save the child at any expense. The same woman watching a stranger step off the curb is more likely to yell out a warning, because her instinct to preserve him does not exist as strongly.

You're assuming that we can analyze situations for moral and logical choices in a split second, or matter of moments, during a crisis. We can't. And if we have time to DO the consideration, it's not a crisis. And there are always more intelligent choices that do not involve vainly heroic suicide runs.

[neoolong]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

Well, put it like this. Would you rather save 1000 children or 1000 criminals on death row?

Death row criminals are not typically subject to natural disasters -- and were they so, there would be little chance that any of us would be in a position to help them.

It's a hypothetical situation. I'm just saying if there would be a difference of choice when the only difference is who the people are. Just assume they are in the same situation.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are. Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

A woman throws herself in front of a speeding bus in a split second, *WITHOUT THINKING*, because she instinctively may want to save the child at any expense. The same woman watching a stranger step off the curb is more likely to yell out a warning, because her instinct to preserve him does not exist as strongly.

You're assuming that we can analyze situations for moral and logical choices in a split second, or matter of moments, during a crisis. We can't. And if we have time to DO the consideration, it's not a crisis. And there are always more intelligent choices that do not involve vainly heroic suicide runs.

I've been in a couple of situations similar to this, and I can attest to reaction without consideration -- but i wouldn't call it by instinct, but by reflex. And reflexes can be learned. For example, when suddenly confronted with a physical threat of harm, I reflexively attack, because it's the opposite of what an attacker expects. When confronted with another dangerous situation, I reflexively become aggressive. I analyze potential threats and decide on my course of action before consideration is impossible.

[Lagmonster]

I've been in a couple of situations similar to this, and I can attest to reaction without consideration -- but i wouldn't call it by instinct, but by reflex. And reflexes can be learned.

True, but people don't train on how to condition themselves to die heroically as a reflex action to a crisis. The average person isn't responding to training. The Secret Service is responding to god knows what conditioning to actively get shot to save the president. Joe Charlie on the street doesn't work like that.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I've been in a couple of situations similar to this, and I can attest to reaction without consideration -- but i wouldn't call it by instinct, but by reflex. And reflexes can be learned.

True, but people don't train on how to condition themselves to die heroically as a reflex action to a crisis. The average person isn't responding to training. The Secret Service is responding to god knows what conditioning to actively get shot to save the president. Joe Charlie on the street doesn't work like that.

Not to brag or anything, man, but as one Joe Charlie to another; this one does. And the sad thing is, it used to be slightly more common.

[data_link]

Some clarification may be nessecary here - this is a situation where you have time to consider your course of action logically. You have sufficient foreknowledge of the disaster to prevent it, but the action nessecary will involve your certain death - you do, however, have time to think about it.

Hopefully that will clear things up.

[Zoink]

In the senerio above YOU are in the position to stop a disaster that would kill a thousand. Wouldn't the guilt of knowing that you are,in effect, responisble for the death of one thousand innocent individuals because you chose not to act be almost as bad as dieing in the first place?
I think it would be for me.

In that scenerio, I wouldn't feel guilt because I am not responsable for the disaster. I would wish that there was something I could do, but acknowledge the fact that my own life is too high a cost.

I would understand if someone else made the same descision while I (or someone I cared about) was a victim of this disaster.

I am only acknowledging reality, such as the example I gave about organ donation. You can kill yourself right now to save the lives of others... but nobody does.

Likewise, the money you're spending for internet access could instead used to buy basic necessities for some poor third world family. Does that make you immoral? I don't think so. If everyone stopped buying non-essential items, the economy that gave you that money wouldn't exist.

At some point you have to draw a line and acknowledge your own self worth.

What amazes me is that for so many people the result depends on who the potential victims are . Given how insistent people were in other threads that people's lives are still worth the same regardless of who they are, why is this situation any different?

People's lives do have the same worth. However, I may make the conscious decision to sacrifice my own life to save another. I would base this decision on who was in need, because its my life to give. I am not *required* to sacrifice my life simply because its a particular person.

[Uraniun235]

Depends on if the people in the thousand are close to me or not.

data_link: I'll freely admit that there are people in this world who are worth far more to me than the lives of others. There are a very few who are worth more to me than I am to myself.

[Shinova]

I chose no.