Part 3 is up. Please complete part 1 and 2 if you have time as well.
Part 1: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070319074903AAkxvF6
Part 2: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070319082549AAUu2Oy
Please, if you cannot allow yourself to actually think and consider the pros and cons, do not answer these questions. Also, if you cannot choose one or the other, do not bother answering, as you are not correct.
And now, Part 3:
The love of your life has invited you to a cabin in the woods. Upon arriving, he/she tells you that she has contracted a deadly virus that will become active within 3 hours if he/she is not killed. His/her religious beliefs prevent him/her from suicide, so they have asked you to do the "honors".
If left unchecked, the virus could kill many, many people (between 50 and 100,000), but the initial 10 carriers will be immune as the virus matures. There is no cure and quarantine is impossible. What do you do?
2007-03-19 06:57:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Psychology
I would not be able to bring myself to kill him. I know that it would mean the sacrifice of others and possibly myself but i could never kill someone else. Besides if there were ten survivors then eventually blood lines would carry on and those immune would pass that trait on and in the end possible save many if the disease ever spread again.
2007-03-22 12:32:05 · answer #1 · answered by Firefly 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would keep him alive. I mean, think about it. Yes, 50 to 100,000 people could die, but if he were to become immune to it (let's say he was one of the first 10 carriers), he could help scientists come up with a vaccine to prevent future spreading. After all, he would obviously have something in his system that keeps his body immune to it. Yes, many people would die, but think of how many more could be saved! Plus, if those people originally infected did not choose the option of killing themselves, others would become infected from them anyways. So it could either be a win-lose situation (him staying alive to help with a vaccine while people die), or a lose-lose situation (your lover dies, and more people die with no one inventing a vaccine). I choose the former.
2007-03-21 14:27:14 · answer #2 · answered by chicyuna 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would answer with "Well baby, looks like we both have a problem, you see If you have it then well I have it too so lets go out in style" I would hold her as I jump off a cliff. I will make sure we don't live by choosing a huge cliff with nothing but rock at the bottom.
2007-03-19 14:32:59 · answer #3 · answered by omvg1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The decision is clear although there would be much crying and I would find it very hard to do. I would do as my love asked and kill them to save not only other lives but the lives of our children too.
2007-03-19 14:42:30 · answer #4 · answered by silentheartwhispers 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've just done one and two in order and now I'm on three, I must say they are too easy, (the options not the actions) give us a hard one. I would kill him, it would be hard, but I'd do it.
2007-03-21 14:31:01 · answer #5 · answered by Kam 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would kill him. How could I not? One life as opposed to many thousands...the choice is obvious.
2007-03-19 14:29:35 · answer #6 · answered by cyranothe2nd 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what a cute movie , u good writer lolol
2007-03-21 14:07:34 · answer #7 · answered by micho 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You've watched too many movies dude!
Javy
:-)
http://360.yahoo.com/javypeds
2007-03-19 14:15:48 · answer #8 · answered by nowhere 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋