This is purely a question to see what the populus would be in majority of. There is not necessarily a right answer.
Ok, so you're in a long corridor, filled with choking black smoke, the building is on fire. You hear a group of people yelling for help down one end of the hall. You narrow your eyes and peer down only to see 10 people trapped in a lift thats barely opened, not enough for them to escape. Just as you are about to help them you hear another cry down the other far end of the corridor. One that sends a chill down your spine. You recognise that voice and as you turn around, your fears have been realised. Its your nearest and dearest loved one. Also trapped, encircled in a firey blaze with no way of escape by themself. Time is short. You can only choose one path, which is it? The ten strangers. Or the one you love.
Bare in mind so as not to alter choices the 10 strangers are not children or elderly. They are all middle aged.
So what is your morally hard decision?
2006-07-20 01:06:42 · 11 answers · asked by Game Guy 5 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
I would try to save all 11. Run to the person surrounded by fire and get them to help me open the lift, and if we all end up dying.. we'll be going to a better place, and I would be able to go knowing that I tried to help everyone.
2006-07-20 01:11:44 · answer #1 · answered by Imani 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The loved one obviously. The deepest obligations you owe are too your children first, your spouse second, friends and extended family, aquintences/co-workers, strangers, enemies.
There are exceptions. If thousands will die then you have re-order. A dozen people are not enough in my opinion to tip the scales.
Last I'd probably die going back and trying to save the others after getting my loved one to safety or my woman and I would both die trying to rescue the others after I rescued her. The words give up do not come easily to me. There's always a way, it's just is it worth the risk/effort to achieve the goal and when other people's lives are at stake very high risks and expenditure are in order.
2006-07-20 08:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by draciron 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the question it ain't hard. Nobody would chose 10 strangers over the one they love. No-one. Not even a 100, or a 1000 or a million. Too bad for them - I would always save my baby.
2006-07-20 08:59:05 · answer #3 · answered by Big E 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morally this is not difficult. I would save my loved one. This is ethically more challenging. (most people do not know the difference between ethics and morals.)
Ethically it would be proper to save the 10, I however admit to my selfishness, my somewhat low opinion of the masses, and know that I would still, save the loved one. It is a matter of choosing my duty to my morals, which is the personal, and denying the ethics, which is the social.
2006-07-20 08:15:43 · answer #4 · answered by Silvatungfox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately my heart rather than my head would rule and I would save my loved one. A choice I'm sure would haunt me the rest of my life.
2006-07-20 08:11:37 · answer #5 · answered by Si 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I would pick my loved one. Just cause I've probably been with my "loved one" more than 10 strangers. One would probably feel more inclined to help your loved one.
~El-Matto
2006-07-20 08:12:11 · answer #6 · answered by El-Matto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would definitely choose the loved one.
2006-07-20 08:11:12 · answer #7 · answered by StaLynnCey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd go for my dearest loved one. No hesitation whatosever
2006-07-20 09:16:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
logically the ten of course, unless the ten were all criminals or low-life
but when push comes to shove, naturally would be my loved one...
2006-07-20 08:11:23 · answer #9 · answered by KingRichard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would save my loved one.
if ten adults can not figure out a way to save themselves, they deserve to burn!
LOL
2006-07-20 08:38:17 · answer #10 · answered by electronics,weights,firearms 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋