I'd feel like an accessory to manslaughter if I left the person there to die. Also, I know from the OP that this person and I would become great friends. I wouldn't be friends with a scumbag, so the guy must be worth saving. I'd save the poor dying fellow.
VigilanteArtist
My thoughts exactly. And I'm kinda shocked to see the poll here. You people are sick. Next time I see people getting outraged on people's lack of morals on this site I'm just gonna post a link to this thread.
Money does not equal happiness. Having friends and a content life does though. In such a situation, with the $100,000,000 sitting, I wouldn't even consider it. I'd go and save the person.
take the 100 mil... ill be doing the dying person a favorIRunNewYork
Wait, wait. How are you doing them a favor, by letting them die at the roadside? I think I know what you're getting at, by letting them into Heaven, but still. Would you rather die right now, or live for another, say, 60 years? I'd go for the 60 personally. The Poll results shock me as well - honestly, I never thought anyone would take money over a human life and admit it.
"A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality". Winston Churchill
[QUOTE="uhoh_hotdogs"]I'd take the $100 million. With that amount of money I would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.Deathxcore
This. But I'd still feel about about the dying guy. So you will live the rest of your life knowing that you could have saved the person in front of you speaking his/her last breath "help" die?
The person dying obviously did something stupid to land themselves in that situation in the first place. Survival of the fittest and all that jazz.
akuma_od3
This is not true. You are referring to a bum. Anyone could get beat up and robbed at anywhere at anytime and then shot or stabbed. What would you do then?
Never be able to forgive myself, I dont care how many lives i could save with that money it would only be to fill that endless pit of guilt i would have inside of me.
Inherit $100 million of course. I could use that money for charity projects and that would save more than just 1 person. Its called "Sacrifice the few to save the many".
I'd save the guy. At first I thought maybe I'd take the money and help more people, but let's face it, people are selfish and I'm no exception. I'd blow it all on material things and when the money would be all gone I'd be left with nothing but the knowledge that my actions lead to the death of a (potentially) innocent person.
[QUOTE="tok1879"]Depends if i actually care about the person. If i don't, a 100 million is a lot of money that could both enrich you and give you the opportunity to save a lot of other lives. Unless it is someone you know, the logical solution is to take the money and do good for more people.CaptainSchwamm
But if you could just let someone die like that I doubt you'd actually be compassionate enough to donate the money. Life is about tough choices sometimes. It doesn't mean the person who has to make the choice is a bad person. Sometimes in some situations, doctors make critical decisions that could involve sacrificing one life for many others. Another example would be suppose you were the president at the period of 9/11. Assuming fighter jets had been scrambled before the disaster happened. Would you not give the orders to shoot down the planes with innocent people in it to save countless other lives?
In situations of despair and uncertainty, emotion overrules logic, so my first reaction would be to save the dying person
flordeceres
This. I thought i'ld have taken the money like logic dictates but i pictured a scenario where i had to quickly grab one of two falling things on a really high ledge, a stranger or a bag of money, i'ld most likely grab the person. But with that said, if i had time to think about it, i'ld probably go for the money.
Not because I'm super-selfless and humanitarian or anything, because really I'm quite selfish, but I value friends more than money. I derive very little pleasure from money. I'm not the sort of person who has fun just by having very expensive things in my house. I use money for videogames, maybe some interior decorating to give my house a more artistic appearnace to it, but I just don't have much use for $100,000,000.
A friend, however, I need those. I get pretty much all my joy in life from knowing that there are people around me to whom I bring joy in their life. So a guarantee of a new best friend would be more valuable to me than a large sum of money.
I'd take the $100 million. With that amount of money I would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.uhoh_hotdogs
But what would seperate that money from, say, gang money in thirld world countries that was used to aid those in need. The money is tainted. The same reason they are getting that money is most likely the same reason they are in the situation they are already in. Though statistically it might seem like the right thing to do, morally it is not. What if everyone was able to make this decision? Should we all live in fear that we will be exterminated so that a larger group of people can live? This decision could no doubt start a cycle or a state of mind for a lot of people due to the lives save, however, this state of mind would eventually begin to work against us and reverse all the progress we had made from the initial money.
[QUOTE="uhoh_hotdogs"]I'd take the $100 million. With that amount of money I would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.metalpower08
But what would seperate that money from, say, gang money in thirld world countries that was used to aid those in need. The money is tainted. The same reason they are getting that money is most likely the same reason they are in the situation they are already in. Though statistically it might seem like the right thing to do, morally it is not. What if everyone was able to make this decision? Should we all live in fear that we will be exterminated so that a larger group of people can live? This decision could no doubt start a cycle or a state of mind for a lot of people due to the lives save, however, this state of mind would eventually begin to work against us and reverse all the progress we had made from the initial money. You're reading too much into the situation. It's a hypothetical situation, not a bleak reality. Money's money, and whether it's 'tainted' or not, it will still have the same value.
[QUOTE="metalpower08"][QUOTE="uhoh_hotdogs"]I'd take the $100 million. With that amount of money I would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.the_kidisblack
But what would seperate that money from, say, gang money in thirld world countries that was used to aid those in need. The money is tainted. The same reason they are getting that money is most likely the same reason they are in the situation they are already in. Though statistically it might seem like the right thing to do, morally it is not. What if everyone was able to make this decision? Should we all live in fear that we will be exterminated so that a larger group of people can live? This decision could no doubt start a cycle or a state of mind for a lot of people due to the lives save, however, this state of mind would eventually begin to work against us and reverse all the progress we had made from the initial money. You're reading too much into the situation. It's a hypothetical situation, not a bleak reality. Money's money, and whether it's 'tainted' or not, it will still have the same value. So you're saying we shouldn't at least try to awnser this question as in "real life"? I understand that the possibility of this happening is like, zero, haha. But I guess I should awnser this question thinking "this is my awnser set in reality, but I guess I will post my Gamespot awnser."
[QUOTE="the_kidisblack"][QUOTE="metalpower08"] But what would seperate that money from, say, gang money in thirld world countries that was used to aid those in need. The money is tainted. The same reason they are getting that money is most likely the same reason they are in the situation they are already in. Though statistically it might seem like the right thing to do, morally it is not. What if everyone was able to make this decision? Should we all live in fear that we will be exterminated so that a larger group of people can live? This decision could no doubt start a cycle or a state of mind for a lot of people due to the lives save, however, this state of mind would eventually begin to work against us and reverse all the progress we had made from the initial money.metalpower08
You're reading too much into the situation. It's a hypothetical situation, not a bleak reality. Money's money, and whether it's 'tainted' or not, it will still have the same value. So you're saying we shouldn't at least try to awnser this question as in "real life"? I understand that the possibility of this happening is like, zero, haha. But I guess I should awnser this question thinking "this is my awnser set in reality, but I guess I will post my Gamespot awnser." By gamespot answer, meaning a realistic, non-hypothetical answer, then yes.
lol @ the fact that everyone values the money over the persons life. Then they defend their statement by saying "oh it'll save lives"....yea right, we all know you guys wouldn't be saving any lives with that money lmao
[QUOTE="uhoh_hotdogs"]I'd take the $100 million. With that amount of money I would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.metalpower08
But what would seperate that money from, say, gang money in thirld world countries that was used to aid those in need. The money is tainted. The same reason they are getting that money is most likely the same reason they are in the situation they are already in. Though statistically it might seem like the right thing to do, morally it is not. What if everyone was able to make this decision? Should we all live in fear that we will be exterminated so that a larger group of people can live? This decision could no doubt start a cycle or a state of mind for a lot of people due to the lives save, however, this state of mind would eventually begin to work against us and reverse all the progress we had made from the initial money.
1.) The money is likely tainted but what has been done has already taken place. Should I simply leave the money in the hands of these people who will likely use it to further their likely illegal operations or for materialistic purposes, or should I take it and at least try to help others (I understand that not all of the money will actually benefit others due to corruption, but even a small fraction of $100,000,000 will. That is why I said hundreds, if not thousands of lives, instead of saying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands like the full amount of money is theoretically capable of accomplishing).
2.) Morality is subjective.
3.) Not everyone is able to make this decision. In the crazy hypothetical situation YOU are offered the choices, not you and five of your friends. It is my choice and I made it.
Log in to comment