By the way if you save the billion dollars it's yours. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

2,524 hits 3.0 (1 vote) Share Favorite | Flag 18 years ago by wolf_boy

A billion dollars and a baby are about to fall into a volcano. You can only save one of them. Which do you save?
By the way if you save the billion dollars it`s yours.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next (showing 26-50 of 221)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:43:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
Instinct is right in this case. It is one thing to theorize about the worth of a life; it is another thing to claim it would be remotely justifiable to deliberately and directly throw away a life for the hypothetical of saving different lives.
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:48:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
See if I somehow got a billion dollars randomly tomarrow I'd only keep like 10 million of it. The other 990,000,000 would go to helping people and making the world a better place. I don't need 1,000,000,000 dollars and I don't want it. I'd rather help others with that money.

Unfortunately my desire to help others is so overwhelming I could not, not help that one person that needed me then and there, even if it would mean I could help many more in the future if I didn't.

If I were a vulcan, bye bye baby. The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the one and all that sh*t.

18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:49:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
imagine if you saw a man actually save the money and donate it to a hospital or something. It would take some tough bastard but would it be immoral?

18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:50:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
thing is there is no hypothetical saving of different lives. It's gaurenteed unless you are an idiot or a selfish ass. There's nothing hypothetical about it. It's a gaurentee. You would have the power.
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:52:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
guarantee
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:53:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also, why is living life better off at the expense of others while turning a blind eye to your doing so resulting in such, acceptable, while helping many others directly at the expense of one other person is not?
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:55:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
Oh sh*t I've got to go to bed!
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 7:59:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
On this one, I agree with wolf-boy. One billion dollars could save many, many lives if used wisely.

One life vrs. many lives.

But it would still be hard not to grab the baby.

18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 8:03:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
bet you couldn't let him drop!
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 8:06:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well in a perfect world this is what happens:
I save the baby of a billionare, & as a reward, the billionare gives me a billion $'s.

& even if I wanted to grab the billion $'s.The weight would probably pull me in.

18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 8:19:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
Ahh damn... I guess the baby
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 9:04:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
Is this even an option. You have to choose the baby. A human life doesn't have a price tag!
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 9:07:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
read page one
18 yrs ago - Sunday 9/12/04 - 10:07:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
The baby! The baby!
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:23:27 AM EST (GMT-5)
Ok before I go to work. How much money do you all spend on entertainment every year?

I'll assume about a minumum of 2000 dollars. Do you know what that money could do for someone in a third world country?

It could drastically alter even save their lives. Through your action you could save a small child. Yet through your innaction a small child dies. They don't fall into a valcano right in front of your eyes, but they die through inaction none the less.

We all go to the movies, get drunk, have parties, buy computers and sit on our asses, while meanwhile others are dying because almost no one is taking that step to save them.

Yet even though this is all true we consider the one who saves the money and uses it to do more good in his life than is done by millions of your average people is considered immoral while the people who live at the expense of others for simply their own entertainment, which is far less than a billion dollars used for others...

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:24:44 AM EST (GMT-5)
Baby.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:28:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
time well spent Wolfboy!!!
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:29:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
saves the baby because the baby is conveniently (or inconveniently) there and they can't turn a blind eye to it's suffering are the norm and aren't considered immoral.

One saved and helped millions through his innaction to help another and the other gets entertained every year through his inaction to save another.

We poo on the one that helps others, and pat ourselves on the back for saving the baby ignoring that we make the same decision every day by turning a blind eye for far lesser selfish reasons.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:34:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
okay, okay i'll go back and put my change in the little box in the supermarket!!!!
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:35:03 AM EST (GMT-5)
There is a problem though, the troubles of 3. world nations cannot be solved by throwing money at it.

What they need is a less corrupt infrastructure that will actually put incoming money to work, including less corrupt politicians and police. Second to that they need better education, that can only really happen after the infrastructure is fixed.

The trouble is that even if we could send food and aid without corrupt politicians or local warlords trying to get a piece of it, sending food is only a very short term solution, cold as it may be to think like that, it will only enable the people there to reproduce more, making more people whom we need to send food to, it isn't sustainable.

These countries need to become self-sustaining, and the change needs to come largely from inside.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:37:51 AM EST (GMT-5)
.....with the help of a bit of money.

There can be intelligent donations if you look into what the charity does with its money and what programs it supports.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:38:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
This happened to me just yesterday. I chose the baby out of instinct. At the time, I felt very noble but I was pretty pissed off this morning when I didn't have enough cash to pay for parking and the attendant refused to accept the child, even in part exchange. I'm now thinking of trying to get *some* return by harvesting its organs on the black market.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:40:05 AM EST (GMT-5)
Now if you had really long arms, like one of my friends (freaky really) you might be able to go for both.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 3:40:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
are you serious?
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 7:42:52 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, he has got long arms, nothing to go in the book of world records maybe, but my friends and I always thought it was mildly weird.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next (showing 26-50 of 221)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Pixies or Sonic Youth?

2 Is the first or last bite of a good meal the best?

3 When the aliens come to rescue us from the pole shift on December 21st, will they only take world leaders and their families?

4 Do you think there is a certain age when women are `ready` to have a baby?

5 Which is harder, waking up in the morning or going to sleep at night?

6 Would you make love with your clone?

7 Will you play a game of spades with me, please?

8 Do you have a NalgeneĀ® bottle?

9 Do you have a brook near your house?

10 What is the most times you`ve seen the same movie in a theatre: more or less than 5 times?

More Questions
 
Edit