**If you had to choose**?

Question

There is a building on fire and one of your siblings is trapped at one end of the building and there is a group of people trapped at the other end. You have time only to rescue one group leaving the others to die. Which group do you choose to rescue?

Your own flesh and blood but allowing many people to burn

-or-

A group of strangers, saving many lives but losing a loved one

Answer 1

I'd like to think I'd be altruistic enough to say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" but I'd be lying.

I'd rescue my sibling first.

Answer 2

The group, no question. In such a case, one cannot let emotion get in the way of cost-benefit analysis. Either way I'm risking my life to save other lives, therefore, I am risking one. Saving the group saves potentially more than just one.

Besides, I've known my sibling, and I can remember them and know that I've had the chance to learn from his/her life. The people in the group may be strangers I haven't had the chance to meet and I'd be remiss to knowingly sacrifice the chance to get to know them later so that their life stories too could enrich my own.

Answer 3

I love this question. All of the answers have been that you would choose the sibling over many people. Evolution says that we exist to pass on our DNA. Does it make sense that God would program us to let several people die while saving 1? I would think God would make us to save as many as possible. Since you share a lot of your brother or sister's DNA, you are going to want to save them so that they can have children and pass on their DNA (which is a lot of your DNA). This situation makes God seem very irrational. There are so many flaws that the outside observer can see with religions, but if a person is inside, they stop thinking about the validity of the argument and start thinking of ways they can try to refute it.

Answer 4

mine is not to choose but to react instinctively on the spur of moments
at the spur of moment if i'll be to save a group of strangers than my flesh and blood then no regrets it's just god's willing

eventhough how hard one tries to save anyone he can never will unless is fated to do so

ever heard of a doctor saying,
"we have done our very best ,let's hope and pray he'll......"
imagine with all the brags of scientific technologies, we're still not able to do anything when it's comes about saving a LIFE

Answer 5

My sibling, without a doubt. In cases like this, you don't use your brain, or have the time to weigh all possibilities. You just act on impulse. But then again, IF I had the time and calmness to decide, I'd still save my sibling.

Answer 6

Interesting question!! Theoretically, I would hope that I would choose the group of people. In a spur of the moment decision, I cannot say for sure what I would do.

Answer 7

both

but would no doubt go with flesh and blood

however if I save the group of people it first it may make saving my flesh and blood easier

Its too hard to choose, ill just let them both burn that way I cant fail.

Answer 8

Own flesh and blood. Isn't my fault fire started and I will have saved someone, doing my part.

Answer 9

I would like to say the group because I know that both of my sisters are saved and going to heaven when they die, but to be honest I wold probably save my family first.

Answer 10

Sorry, I go with my sibling, probably because I HAVE lost him and would never willingly choose for that to happen. Both choices are sh*t, so I would have to live with myself one way or another. I would rather live with myself with my saved sibling to help me through it.