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

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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next (showing 101-125 of 221)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:54:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
Is inaction to help another not inaction to help another if you did not have to witness them suffer your innaction?
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:55:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
Sure, but I still think that you can't constantly compare yourself to the Mother Theresa types.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:56:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
Like I said, it really comes down to what it is reasonable to expect from someone. You can't help everyone, and ultimately, it is better for people if they learn to help themselves.

But still, I see where you're coming from.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 5:56:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
I agree again. I however still think it's a double standard to judge that person who actually is going to do good through his inaction when one has through inaction mostly benefitted only themselves most of their life overall.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:09:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
I understand wolf_boy perfectly, and it is a cop-out to claim he would save the baby (the right thing) then try to create some greater good involving the money. I don't give a sh*t how many babies you could theoretically save with a billion dollars; you save them one at a time, and you start with the one in front of you at the f*cking volcano.
I see where you're coming from, and it's a terrible place.

And quit your whining about some double-standard: "Oh, no, while I was eating pizza and attending a soccer game with my daughter, 3 other kids died! Oh, no, I feel so terrible! I'm such an awful person!" Your preference to allow a saveable baby to die in exchange for money for any purpose is ignorant and self-righteous. Throwing the billion $ at a problem wouldn't solve it, so you must have some plan to put it to good use over a period of time, and you'd probably take a little of the top for meal money along the way, so the only difference between you and your "double-

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:10:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
standard" guy is that he isn't so heartless as to allow a baby to die right in front of him.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:14:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't see how it's such a terrible place, surely you could pretty much guarantee the lives of a few hundred babies by putting that money into a special baby unit at a hospital or something.

It does seem like the right decision for, as Wolfboy said, a Vulcan rather than a human!

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:17:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
i will follow the selfish evolutionary dogma of natural selection and save my own ass.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:18:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
my preference? I'm stating which is more logical in terms of causing the most overall good, not which I prever.

Saving the baby helps one person. I'll will always end up helping that one person, except in situations like the A-bomb example. However saving that one person DOES not have a greater effect on making the world a better place.

I also never said, you're awful for going to the baseball game with your kids. I'm saying your awful cause you can't recognize the double standard in yourself.

The guy did not throw the kid off the cliff anymore than you caused those kids to starve to death with no hope at a future. Both of you did nothing to prevent it. Neither of you are responsible for the plight of either people. You are identicle. The ONLY difference is YOU don't have to watch the person your inaction did not save die.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:22:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
Actually let me rephraze that I'm not even saying you're awful. You are the only one that's actually said anyone was awful.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:29:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
I mean sh*t Uncle, I open up a discussion on abstract concepts, you know to work my brain muscles and the brain muscles of others, and for simply being able to conceptualize such things and consider the possibility that we may have it wrong you practically try to demonize me.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:33:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah, I "practically try to demonize" you because your suggestion is demonic. Trade your billion dollars for the actual cure for cancer and I see the gray area; a billion dollars is nothing but the potential to save lives; a baby is such a life.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:36:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also you should pay more attention to word. I said I was using COLD HARD LOGIC.

Cold being the opposite of warm, warm going with warm hearted.

1: An empathic emotional person with lot's of overwhelming compassion could not watch the baby die.

2: A coldly logical person, however could and if they had the desire to improve the state of the world and peoples well being, more people would be saved and the world would be more greatly improved by them.

I am closer to number one, however I have the mental capacity to conceptualize and toy with the ideas, principles and thoughts of number 2.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:39:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's cold, but I again insist that it is not logic. You save the life you absolutely can, and that's the baby. The billion dollars translates to nothing guaranteed, or else your question should ask whether we'd save one baby or hundreds, and when you are dealing with lives, you take the guarantee.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:39:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
A billion dollars is only the "potential" to save lives in the hands of a selfish ass or an idiot. If you honestly think someone CAN'T save lives with a billion dollars you really are an idiot.

Only way they'd fail is if they were killed before they did it.

18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:41:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also there's no gaurentee the baby doesn't die tomarrow while you're not there to save it. Neither a gaurenteed.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:43:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
Then why isn't your question whether we would save one baby or a thousand?
Logic says go with the guarantee. Gambling says you go with the hypothetical reward.
It's so clear you are a childless and heartless little f*cking punk playing a game where you have no business.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:46:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
Go f*ck yourself Uncle!!! I'd die to protect my loved ones and I almost got myself killed once running out to save someone's child!!! I've put my life at risk for others well being and I'd do it again!
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:47:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
I spend a lot of time looking at things from different angles, seeing many many different points of veiw. Learning to understand different people, how they feel and why they do the things they do.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:49:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
Please do it right now. We wouldn't even need to worry about what fate awaits your nonexistant soul.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:49:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
Sometimes it's nice to discuss these things with other intellectual people, who are willing to look outside themselves and their own moral veiws and ideals. To actually discuss things, and why one idea is better, to argue the two ideas.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:52:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
Did and done, and your position is bullsh*t. You incorrectly consider it "logic" and then weasel out of it by claiming you would do the sweet thing instead.
People shouldn't look outside their own moral views if all that is out there is immorality.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:53:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Gotta love Uncles world. Can't discuss morality, we must simply follow what has been laid out for us blindly without ever discussing it.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:54:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
If we never thought outside what were always taught was correct we'd still be in the dark ages.
18 yrs ago - Monday 9/13/04 - 6:56:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
Yawn. Nothing blind about my "world." Big of you to talk of it, with your squirmingly confused morality. I think you're just jealous and intimidated that people actually have morals, so you try to rationalize all the crap you have in your f*cked up little pea-brain as just as good as anything else out there. Go bark up another tree, puppy. I'm not hearing you.

Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next (showing 101-125 of 221)

You need to be logged in to post a reply

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


10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Is the first or last bite of a good meal the best?

2 Pixies or Sonic Youth?

3 Do you have a brook near your house?

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

5 Are you more ashamed of your past, or proud of it?

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

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

8 How important is winning to you?

9 Have you ever gone out with someone online?

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

More Questions