This was inspired by an episode of house md (best show ever, btw).
If you had a pair of twins, 17 years old and full of potential, who you love very very much and they got sick, would you let one kid die - to guarantee the other kid will live normally - or would you risk both kids to a chance of 50-50 (50% chance of either both kids live normally or both kids die)? why or why not?
again, imagine if you loved them very very much. no questions, this is all that is allowed in the scenario.
2007-09-03 01:18:20 · 13 answers · asked by v00mee 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
"...GUARANTEE THE OTHER KID WILL LIVE NORMALLY..."
2007-09-03 17:50:35 · update #1
i've decided. please don't feel offended by the thumbs down. most of them are from me. not to say i hated your answer, all of you were serious about it but i just needed a way to filter out the answers that will definitely not work.
-those include answers that avoided...answering;
-those that took the situation too lightly (50% chance of losing both is VERY serious, as it was in house, you are losing EVERYTHING, the world to some);
-those that said "its not fair" but never said why and how (only nothingtodo explained why/how and remained on key, it may not be right for you to chose but that's what this question is about);
-and those that missed the point
regardless, thank you all for answering. it really was informative as an asker. but what i required was an answer from someone who really had a sense of the dilema at hand. some gave reasons but i saw it as excuses...
2007-09-03 22:38:19 · update #2
i'd try and save both. because i can't prefer one... I can't lose one for the other... even at the risk of losing both.. because there is nothing else i could have done.
2007-09-03 02:23:30 · answer #1 · answered by Onega 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Firstly, if i had a pair of twins that would actually mean that i have 4 kids =D
now on to the question.
i think that i would choose the 50-50 route.
i dont think it's possible for me to choose one of them to live while the other dies. i also dont think it's fair to me or to them if im the one who had to make that kind of decision.
it also doesnt make sense mathematically. if i chose one over the other, one would definitely have to die. the other choice makes more sense since there would be a 50% chance that both of them will live.
although there would be a chance that both might die, id much rather think more optimistically.
i guess id want my twins to stand by each other as well (hence letting them live/die together), and not have one wanting the other to die so he/she may live.
also, if i could choose who lives and who dies, would choosing the one who had to die be tantamount to murdering them? thus, the decision shouldnt be left to me.
overall, if i really did love them as much i say i do, i dont think it's possible for me to purposefully allow one to die.
2007-09-03 01:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by rhapsodicmoment 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would pick 50-50. Both children deserve a chance in living. Its unfair to the other if I choose to save one and abandon the other. Love has no boundaries, and since a parent's love for his/her children is limitless. They will want to choose the best for every child they've got. Every parent wants the best for their kid. So if they love their children, they would both give themselves AND their children another chance.
2007-09-03 02:36:26 · answer #3 · answered by nothingtodo007 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i also would go with the 50/50, as i dont think i could make a choice between them, plus twins are so bonded, i cant imagine one living "normally" if they lost the other, and knew the other was lost to let them live
2007-09-03 01:28:08 · answer #4 · answered by dlin333 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd do the 50-50 thereby giving each one the same chance of living.
2007-09-03 01:24:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would choose 50 50 because couldn't choose one over another it wouldn't be fair and if i did i couldn't face living with the guilt of choosing between them.
2007-09-03 01:29:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think I'd risk both. I can't see choosing one over the other. Not only would choosing one be hard for a parent, but also it isn't our place.
2007-09-03 03:01:45 · answer #7 · answered by kcchaplain 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would risk both children.
I would want them both to have an equal chance...one would not be less important to me than the other.
2007-09-03 01:26:11 · answer #8 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its really hard! may be sacrifice one and guarantee other one live normally, but which one would u sacrifice.
again, its a hupothetical question, don't know what would i do if it were happening to me...
no one can tell for sure, no decision is right decision in this case..
2007-09-03 01:26:20 · answer #9 · answered by jennifer 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
50-50!!
I wouldn't want to show favouritism to any of them or else the other kid would be very sad ='(
2007-09-03 01:42:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋