Which event would you prevent from happening?

NoviGlitzko

A moral choice question. There is no right answer, but I would love if people actually explained why they made their choice.

diomed

Option 4
"Bad threads"

Jawgap

I'd fly the plane into the car while it's driving through the Peruvian town.

D3V!L

None, absolutely nothing. The world we exist in today is as a result of events that took place before we existed, to change them would mean that we would never be here.

uch

Getting Married

Del2005

If I kill a butterfly here will that stop the earthquake in Peru?

Hammer89

I would say save my mate, given that the other two aren't that uncommon and I don't usually feel much when they do happen, but then again, how do you live with yourself knowing you swapped one man - a bit of a dickhead too all things considered - for hundreds or thousands of innocents?

I'd prevent my friend from dying and just block out the occasional guilty thoughts that I didn't save hundreds or thousands of strangers in his place. We indirectly cause harm, including death, to others around the world all the time by not giving every extra resource we own to them. In one sense we are showing that we value living with our continuously high living standards over providing much greater benefit to people we don't know, or at least we don't care enough to overcome the logistics involved with trying to divert our resources to them. That said, it is a very recent concept, in historical terms, to give a damn about people a few villages over, never mind continents away. I wonder also is it a particularly western concept - eg. do Chinese people care as much about the suffering of Europeans when something bad happens here?

RayM

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Every death diminishes me, etc, etc, and John Donne is right that I might not quite be an island (sorry, Simon & Garfunkel), but nor am I a continent or a world. If a friend or family member is ill, I am terrified that they will die. I don't want total strangers to die, but I can't honestly say that I live in fear of them dying. Fear is an inherently egoistic, self-regarding feeling, and I'm not sure it's possible to be genuinely afraid of something that won't directly affect either you or people you love. If we genuinely found the deaths of thousands of strangers as personally upsetting as the death of someone close to us, we wouldn't be able to cope with the emotional damage of watching the news every night.

So yeah, fuck 'em. Peruvian cunts.

retro:electro

I'd save my best friend obviously because the others (I assume) are strangers. It's that simple really. Not very altruistic but sure. \o/

sbsquarepants

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

I'd save my mate.

Strangers die all the time - doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just life (well, it's actually the opposite of life, but you know what I mean!)

DEFTLEFTHAND

anna080 wrote: »

I'd save my best friend obviously because the others (I assume) are strangers. It's that simple really. Not very altruistic but sure. \o/

It's what we'd all try to do. Human nature.

server down

My best friend is a prick so it’s Peru.

server down

I don’t see that option 2 & 3 are really options. I mean unless you are a Peruvianophobe it’s got to be 3, if it’s not 1.

Second Yellow

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Interesting choice Ismael, saving the plane from crashing.

nigel_wilson

I'd stop myself from being born, now that's a tragedy that unfortunately takes a lot to undo...

In all seriousness though, I would choose the first one simply because my best friend would most likely be the only true friend I and probably only one I will have which means I can't let them die because I'd need them to get through the terrible world. They'd be the only one I cared about

Thus two and three are definitely out because in all likeliness, statistics would obviously tell you that those hundreds or thousands would have people I absolutely detest, people who are the exact opposite of what my friend would be; These people would be the very things that would make my life miserable if I saved them in this 'amazing' event. I'd also be willing to bet that they'd be a size-able majority.

So in all honesty, My friend and I would feel better watch the plane crashing or the earthquake destroying the city knowing that although they may be 'innocent and kind people' who were victims, a lot would be detestable people in our eyes.

wakka12

Its hard not to pick my best friend over strangers I will never meet

NoviGlitzko

I'm surprised by the amount of people who've chosen option 1 over 3. I'd choose 3. I'm sure that's what my friend would want and vice-versa.

Pac1Man

I would send my friend on a flight to Peru.


"Nice knowing you buddy."

"What? I'll be back in two weeks."

"Right. Say hello to my granny for me."

archer22

Answer depends where I happened to be at the time.
If I was in the car, Number 1
If I was on the plane Number 2
If I was in Peru Number 3

iomusicdublin

option D : something else

I would have prevented the church from getting a foothold in Ireland

DivingDuck

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Save the friend.

It would want to be a big, big number of people before I'd put strangers before the friend.

buried

Could not be arsed doing any of them. Go to funeral and do the funeral smalltalk "Jayzus that was a bad plane crash the other day wasn't it? And that Peruvian town going wallop the same day? And that lad lying in there to go with it. Shockin. Ya never know whats around the corner do ya?"

indioblack

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

A moral choice question. There is no right answer, but I would love if people actually explained why they made their choice.

If I choose one option and that option is what happens, then I would question the morality of the intelligent power that forced me to make a choice.
I'm assuming that all three options can be made to happen and that the two I don't choose result in the deaths of those involved.
I doubt that this is a moral choice OP.

Avatar MIA

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

D3V!L wrote: »

None, absolutely nothing.

We'll they do say accidents happen in three's, so wouldn't want to be the one to break that.

It would want to be serious numbers before I'd not save my best friend (he owes me money :P )

But, may as well add option four 7 billion Zogs from Planet Squeeshy from a 100 mile wide asteroid. They mean nothing to me compared to my financially challenged friend.

bluewizard

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

It's a matter of caring. I do care about my best friend. I don't care about others, it doesn't matter how many - I just don't give a toss.

cantdecide

I'd save a tari from the jaguar.

Pithythefool

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I'm surprised by the amount of people who've chosen option 1 over 3. I'd choose 3. I'm sure that's what my friend would want and vice-versa.

Yeah, I'm sure he'd be thrilled!

DivingDuck

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure he'd be thrilled!

He's just got nicer friends than the rest of us.

Pithythefool

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

DivingDuck wrote: »

He's just got nicer friends than the rest of us.

Yeeeah...if one of my "friends" wouldn't even bother to save my life, I 'd find it hard to call him a good friend.

He should tell his "nice" friend what his choice would be, it would be an interesting thought process in his mates head for sure.

DivingDuck

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Yeeeah...if one of my "friends" wouldn't even bother to save my life, I 'd find it hard to call him a good friend.

He should tell his "nice" friend what his choice would be, it would be an interesting thought process in his mates head for sure.

I can see the logic. Would you want to live knowing that for you to live, hundreds or thousands had to die? I probably would, but I'm a bit of a selfish prick.

A more moral person might find that hard to live with— or at the very least, feel like it was a hell of a lot of pressure to live a good life and have been "worth" saving.

Pithythefool

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

DivingDuck wrote: »

I can see the logic. Would you want to live knowing that for you to live, hundreds or thousands had to die? I probably would, but I'm a bit of a selfish prick.

A more moral person might find that hard to live with— or at the very least, feel like it was a hell of a lot of pressure to live a good life and have been "worth" saving.

I'd have no problem at all, it might even make me feel a bit more cherished

Do you feel guilty about living in a first world country, knowing you could rescue someone from a dehumanising life in some despicable part of the world by swapping places? All you have to do is buy a ticket, land somewhere, pick the most pathetic person you can find and sign everything over to them.

More or less the same, meh

RobbingBandit

I'd swap World War 2 era Stalin with Rasputin, make him dawn of Soviet era leader would be pretty ****ed up.

DivingDuck

Save an airplane of a few hundred people from crashing in the ocean.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Do you feel guilty about living in a first world country, knowing you could rescue someone from a dehumanising life in some despicable part of the world by swapping places? All you have to do is buy a ticket, land somewhere, pick the most pathetic person you can find and sign everything over to them.

I do a bit, but not enough to do that! (Bit of a prick, as advertised.)

It's hypocritical of us in the Western World that we wouldn't all sacrifice the many random strangers for the solo friend since that's what we're all doing just by living our lives, but human brains are a funny thing.

There's huge cognitive dissonance around the whole area of "I could make things better for someone else by undertaking this course of action" versus "I have made things worse for someone else by undertaking this course of action". They basically amount to the same thing, but you'll find most people feel worse about taking action than not taking action, because they feel more "responsible" if they directly intervene.

It's a bit like the Trolley Problem. The whole area of moral psychology is quite fascinating, actually.

Here we go

I think it's a saying in the U.K. news industry 1 British life is worth 5 French lives who are worth 50 middle eastern lives talking news worthiness to there local readership/viewership

server down

You guys need ****tier friends. That solves this moral dilemma.

ToddyDoody

My best friend is a cat so I won't be choosing that option.