Email:
Password:

178

You are leading 100 people whose lives are in danger and you must choose between two courses of action. One would save only 90 people; the other would have a 50 percent chance of saving everyone but were it to fail everyone would die. Which one would you choose? Why?
Chats Views 214 By AlexINTJ on 1-19-08 Refresh Page


Please Login to post comments

At 11:56 pm crazy5ninja Said :
+1  

lmao
Offine crazy5ninja's Profile crazy5ninja's Website
Reply Spam | Block User
In response to october1015 At 11:36 pm AlexINTJ Said :
+2  

I feel better now. I go with OR! haha
Online AlexINTJ's Profile AlexINTJ's Website AlexINTJ's AIM
Reply Spam | Block User
At 11:32 pm october1015 Said :
+3  

OR!!!!!! You can grow wings, and huge claws and fly away with the people.
Online october1015's Profile
Reply Spam | Block User
In response to AlexINTJ At 11:19 pm crazy5ninja Said :
+2  

not offended. i just wanted to keep on pressing to see what full answer u would give. nice answer.
Offine crazy5ninja's Profile crazy5ninja's Website
Reply Spam | Block User
In response to crazy5ninja At 11:14 pm AlexINTJ Said :
0  

I'm not sure why you're so offended with the decision. You lose or risk in either case. As an authority your job is to make the best and most logical choice in favor of the rest. That does not in any case mean that one life isn't worth as much as the next. It's difficult since there is no black and white. To me, saving 90 people instead of possibly losing all is a wiser course of action. That's all. I'm not trying to insinuate anything sinister or state that I wouldn’t care about the 10. I would probably feel guilt for the rest of my life if I made such a decision. If I were acting selfishly, I’d choose the first, since I wouldn’t have to live with the responsibility of being the judge, jury, and executioner…if everyone lived, then I’d be left in peace; if everyone died including myself I wouldn’t have to live with consequences.
Online AlexINTJ's Profile AlexINTJ's Website AlexINTJ's AIM
Reply Spam | Block User
At 11:00 pm crazy5ninja Said :
0  

i knew u were gonna say that. thats like saying the other 10 who ever that is in the whole 100 isnt as good as the 90. so just leave them to die. plus it still isnt clear what the danger is
Offine crazy5ninja's Profile crazy5ninja's Website
Reply Spam | Block User
In response to crazy5ninja At 10:56 pm AlexINTJ Said :
+2  

And as for choosing who lives and dies---that depends on the circumstances. Is this question an analysis on some uncontrollable disaster where people would end up dead without our control or say? Or is this an environment where you have to sacrifice others to guarantee the rest's survival? It's generalized with no particulars. Perhaps an answer would change with more details but it's a matter on logical risk.
Online AlexINTJ's Profile AlexINTJ's Website AlexINTJ's AIM
Reply Spam | Block User
In response to crazy5ninja At 10:55 pm AlexINTJ Said :
+2  

When you decide to treat a patient for cancer you don't have to take into account other people perishing. That choice has only to do with one particular individual. There are no outside risks or potential casualties.
Online AlexINTJ's Profile AlexINTJ's Website AlexINTJ's AIM
Reply Spam | Block User
At 10:49 pm october1015 Said :
+2  

No wait wait I'd stay home and watch movies.
Online october1015's Profile
Reply Spam | Block User
At 10:48 pm crazy5ninja Said :
+1  

movie stunt? so your gonna leave 10 to die. even though they have slim chance. thats like when someone has cancer and has 50 % chance u dont try anyway.
Offine crazy5ninja's Profile crazy5ninja's Website
Reply Spam | Block User