1 soul is not worth 3,000 souls, even if you don't know them intimately.

 

 

 

prove it?

 

 

 

Are you an idiot? Both of you have the same argument.

 

No they don't. They chose the same of the two choices, but for different reasons.

 

 

 

Don't call someone an idiot unless you're sure it'll be hella funny, or at the very least used properly.

1 soul is not worth 3,000 souls, even if you don't know them intimately.

 

 

 

That's your personal opinion and I respect that but writing that is like saying everybody loves ice cream more than vegetables. I believe you should take ownership of your personal beliefs to minimise offence in others.

 

 

 

See, if I rewrote that sentence to say something such as: "Keep your opinion to your self, you're wrong" you would probably feel a lot more offended if I didn't own my opinions.

 

 

 

To me personally and I don't mean to insult anybody here but I am an extremely protective person over the people I love and I personally feel that when you love someone, you put them before others.

3000 because that's what my loved one would want.

 

 

 

I mean how would they feel to be responsible for 3000 deaths?

 

 

 

prove it?

 

 

 

I think that's the winning argument right there. If you chose the loved one, you are going against the wishes of much more than 3 thousand people (those 3,000 plus everyone though know), as well as the very same person you love. The loved one (and possibly yourself if you have something resembling a soul) would feel terribly guilty.

 

 

 

It's definitely best to save the 3,000 people.

 

 

 

It is only in vanity that you would consider saving the one person. Ignorance allows you to feel no guilt. However, you are still guilty.

 

 

 

Can anyone please try to counter my argument?

I would save my loved one. 3,000 people is like nothing compared to the 6 billion people in the world. I would feel bad, but i would get over it.

 

 

 

Also if you dont like me cus of this, too bad :P

Think of it this way; when you watch the news and you see reports of 'a 100 people dead here and 200 people dead there' you might be shocked maybe even moved emotionally for a short time but it's still incomparable to the pain you'd feel if it was 'you mother was killed.'

 

 

 

Now you may not have the time to think all that through in a life or death situation but you'll still instinctively help a loved one first.

If I had to live with myself knowing that 3000 people died directly because of me, I'd probably kill myself. I would, on the other hand, be able to live with someone I love dying. Mind you, I've only had one family member die in my lifetime, and other people that I've known that have died, I haven't been that close with. But with all of those, I seriously didn't care. Makes me feel like a horrible person.

 

 

 

And in response to 1_man_army's post.. it's nothing like that. When they talk about people dying on the news, you have had nothign to do with their death. You may feel sympathy for their families, bu you won't feel guilt because you won't have done anything wrong. In this scenario, you are directly responsible for the deaths of all 3000 people.

If the situation were merely a choice that I had to make, but was not the cause of any of the factors leading up to it, I would choose a loved one. Choosing the loved one wouldn't be condemning the 3000 to death, it wouldn't be your responsibility, it wouldn't be your fault they died. The only thing you would be responsible for is saving one persons life.

 

truth.

 

 

 

 

 

@gonpost - consider this, if every of the 3,000 had the same choice as me, how many of them do you actually think would be killed? Seriously, I'm really only thinking single-figure percentage, like 5% or so.

 

 

 

There's no guilt in doing what the majority of loved ones for the other 3,000 would do when in your situation. People can what they want, but ultimately - like the would you kill 1,000 for money - no one is going to know till they have to make that choice.

I would save my loved one. 3,000 people is like nothing compared to the 6 billion people in the world.

 

 

 

Excellent point! By the way, that one loved one, is like 1 person compared to the 6 billion people in the world. Yeah, I know. Omg, right??

I'd save my loved one.

 

 

 

About the 3,000. I'll go to the funerals.

3000 because that's what my loved one would want.

 

 

 

I mean how would they feel to be responsible for 3000 deaths?

 

 

 

prove it?

 

 

 

I think that's the winning argument right there. If you chose the loved one, you are going against the wishes of much more than 3 thousand people (those 3,000 plus everyone though know), as well as the very same person you love. The loved one (and possibly yourself if you have something resembling a soul) would feel terribly guilty.

 

 

 

It's definitely best to save the 3,000 people.

 

 

 

It is only in vanity that you would consider saving the one person. Ignorance allows you to feel no guilt. However, you are still guilty.

 

 

 

Can anyone please try to counter my argument?

 

 

 

Honestly, with that post alone my mind was changed.

 

 

 

That put me from definately saving the loved one to being right on the fence. Suicide maybe?

I think that's the winning argument right there. If you chose the loved one, you are going against the wishes of much more than 3 thousand people (those 3,000 plus everyone though know), as well as the very same person you love. The loved one (and possibly yourself if you have something resembling a soul) would feel terribly guilty.

 

 

 

It's definitely best to save the 3,000 people.

 

 

 

It is only in vanity that you would consider saving the one person. Ignorance allows you to feel no guilt. However, you are still guilty.

 

 

 

Can anyone please try to counter my argument?

 

It depends whether or not the death of the 3,000 is active or passive murder (or the death of the loved one), and whether or not the loved one knows that they're being chosen over 3,000 people.

 

 

 

A good example of this scenario would be (one that was suggested earlier): would you save the people who died in 9/11 if given the chance, if it meant your dearest loved one died on that day instead? You're not responsible for their deaths (technically); in this scenario you're moreso choosing who to save than who to kill.

 

 

 

It really depends on the circumstances, but I can see your point being effective for most (if not nearly all) scenarios.

Damn. This is harder than the '1000 people's lives or millions of dollars' thread. In that one I'd save the people every time but this one... Damn.

 

 

 

I'm a human being and I have compassion for both the loved one and the 3000... Screw it, I'll be selfish on this one and choose the loved one. :P

 

 

 

I think it's safe to say that no one here would ever want to make such a choice, though.

If the situation were merely a choice that I had to make, but was not the cause of any of the factors leading up to it, I would choose a loved one. Choosing the loved one wouldn't be condemning the 3000 to death, it wouldn't be your responsibility, it wouldn't be your fault they died. The only thing you would be responsible for is saving one persons life.

 

truth.

 

 

 

Seconded.

 

 

 

Say it was a madman who was holding both groups of people hostage and forcing you to make the choice. I'd choose the loved one, but that wouldn't make me responsible for the deaths of the 3000, that would still be the responsibility of the psycho.

 

 

 

Nor would the responsibility lie with the loved one who was saved, they shouldn't feel guilty for the deaths of the others, they were merely saved, they had no choice in the matter.

My loved one.

I would have saved someone i love. :shame:

my loved one

Loved one every time.

There are two variations mentioned here.

 

 

 

The first, as to who you would save first.

 

 

 

The second as to whether you would actively murder 3000 to save someone you love.

 

 

 

The first, I would go for the loved one. It would not be your fault, and 3000 is just that - a number.

 

 

 

The second, I don't know. Its impossible to tell without being in that position.

 

 

 

 

 

To everyone thats answered, whichever way, is there a magic number at which you would change your mind?

I would choose the 3000 people. I would feel sad for losing my loved one, but not guilty, and I'd continue living my life knowing that I did the right thing. You can't compare 1 person to 3000 people. Each one of those 3000 people is the loved one of many people.

 

 

 

Choosing the 3000 people over your loved one is an act of sacrifice, you sacrifice a part of your happiness so that 3000 families don't have to suffer the same pain as you. That's a sacrifice I'm ready to make.

I'd probably choose the loved one. Mainly because this person would be a lot more important to me than the 3000 strangers. It seems very greedy but that's just my personality. :|

3000 because that's what my loved one would want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

exactly what i would do...i guess religion comes into play a bit..because i would know were my parents were going when they died, and i would be happy for them.

that "loved one" will probably break up with you later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id save the 3000 people.

Save my beloved one, my gf to be more exact, I dont know those 3000 family's, why would I care? :twisted:

There is a huge difference between the two threads (the one about the price). In that thread, I said there had to be a huge payment that is impossible for me to get paid (my price was peace forever) and i would do it. In this, im not killing anyone technically therefore i dont require a price nor do i care if they die. Killing someone and letting someone die are two different things.

 

 

 

Therefore I would save a loved one.

I don't have a loved one (excluding family) so i'd pick the 3000 people. But if I had to pick someone in my family I would pick them.