Save the drowning child?

[Flyback]

How about option #3: MYOB on both accounts.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

What is the issue in front of me that I can see with my own eyes and not through a TV? I would save the child, forget the jacket!

 

[SilthDraeth]

You save the drowning child. Considering, you are not going to be asking yourself this retarded question if you see a child drowning in a pond.

"Hmm a kid is drowning, but if I save him, I will ruin my jacket that I can not take off because I am an illogical person. I can then go home and sit on my fat butt and Ebay my jacket and donate the money to charity to save some starving kids in India that refuse to eat cows because they believe it is their reincarnated ancestors.

Oh crud, while I sat here and pondered the implications of all of the above the kid drowned, and I really do love my jacket, though I was GOING to save the kid, I think I will keep my jacket, because I would be to depressed if I sold my $5000 jacket after watching a kid drown."

That question isn't a moral dilemma, it is retarded, illogical, and very simple to answer. You save the kid, and call whoever else an idiot for suggesting otherwise. The question also reeks of socialism bullcrud. Give up all your possessions to help as many less fortunate people as you. Either, you worked your butt off to afford the jacket, and therefore you deserve it, or you used a credit card and you are to stupid to realize it, or you would of used the money already to save the children in other countries etc, and wouldn't need to make a choice of whether you should save the drowning kid or not.

 

[Torghn]

The question is ridiculuos, please think of at least a semi-plausible hypothetical question next time. I'd take the jacket off, and I would never own a $5k jacket that can't get wet. Sure it might need dry cleaning, but come on.

 

[Flyback]

x

 

[Ronstang]

I would let them both die. Attempting to save a child these days is a loosing proposition for your own well being. If you try but cannot save the child you will just end up being sued. It is better to walk away humming a tune.

 

[Shadowknight]

I'd take the five seconds to throw the jacket off and kick off my shoes, to reduce the chances of drowning myself while I save the kid.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
I'd take the five seconds to throw the jacket off and kick off my shoes, to reduce the chances of drowning myself while I save the kid.

yes, i've taken a water safety class and thats what i was always told to do, take off your heavy clothing, and shoes then jump into the water to save whoever

this thread is stupid imo

 

[Trevelyan]

Wow that is the worst hypothetical situation I think I've ever heard of....

I think the better question is, if a mere $50 can save some child in a third world country, why are you spending $5000 on a jacket?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Since this is a wacky fantasy land where I spend $5K on a jacket instead of more VFINX . . .

I place forefinger to temple and levitate the child out of the water with awesome Mind Power!

Next I bow to the cheering throng in my $5K jacket, then fly home to my two wives, Alyson Hannigan and Scarlett Johansson.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Save the child, sell the "hero's jacket" on eBay for $10,000, then give $10,000 to charities to save 200 children.

 

[DrPizza]

That's a pretty crappy moral dilemna. Here's a better one: A bridge just got knocked out on a set of tracks. There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

 

[nanette1985]

Moral choice: you're reading an online forum and you find a thread that presents an illogical, slanted topic. Do you:

1. post an equally illogical, slanted reply?
2. point out the faulty logic and the bias involved?
3. ask for pix of the coat and/or kids?

 

[StageLeft]

Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
its just a damn jacket. these chick mags are insane.

He said Cosmopolitanism, not Cosmopolitan. Judging by the OP in which he says it is a book, I'm guessing he's talking about a book, not a magazine.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
That's a pretty crappy moral dilemna. Here's a better one: A bridge just got knocked out on a set of tracks. There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

Good one. I was just about to post that there are much better scenarios to portray the dilemma the OP is discussing.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Here's an interesting moral dilemma posed in the book Cosmopolitanism.

You see a child drowning in a pond but you are wearing a $5000 jacket. Do you save him and ruin your jacket or do you let him drown, sell your jacket, and save 100 kids in some third world country?

No you can't take the jacket off before saving the drowning child

well that's shenstastic, then

save the kid - you can always donate save X amount of kids using your money

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

Yeah, I guess an even better one would be that one of the workers inside is one of your close relatives.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
That question isn't a moral dilemma, it is retarded, illogical, and very simple to answer. You save the kid, and call whoever else an idiot for suggesting otherwise. The question also reeks of socialism bullcrud. Give up all your possessions to help as many less fortunate people as you.

Wow, thats not the point of the question at all. If you want a better question then look at Flyback's or DrPizza's

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

But then why not save the 100 kids instead of the single kid?

In case people are wondering, you can look up utilitarianism regarding saving the large groups.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Save the kid in front of me. You would, too, which is why you are still using the computer you could have sold to save some Nigerian kid.

There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is easy, save 50. They're all strangers to you anyway.

No, you do nothing. Any action by you means you have actually killed someone. Being passive in this case is the best choice.

 

[blackllotus]

Updated with the "better" dilemmas presented in this thread

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
That's a pretty crappy moral dilemna. Here's a better one: A bridge just got knocked out on a set of tracks. There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

That is an even worse dilemma to be faced with

I'd do nothing and let 50 go. Utilitarianism FTL.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Updated with the "better" dilemmas presented in this thread

:roll: You should have been a train conductor, seeing as how you're railroading this thread so much.

 

[SirStev0]

Save the drowning kid.
Divert the train.
Don't pay for the surgery.


Why?
I couldn't not go after the drowning kid... EMT/Lifeguard mentality
Diverting saves more people and gives the opportunity for search and rescue that may actually save more.
Though it may save the kid right than... I doubt it would cure him permanently or cause a future burden... also let it be know that there is absolutely no freaking way a life saving surgery would only cost $5000.