<p>INVENIAMVIAM</p>
<p>Yes in fact I do donate over $200 a year to charity. I may not be rich, but there are plenty of others out there less fortunate than I am. The least I can do is donate a portion of my earnings.</p>
<p>^Well for every 100 dollars that you DIDN'T donate, you killed someone.
And fine, maybe you do donate stuff, but I can guarantee that most of these people do not. And nope, I sure don't give to charity, but then again, I answered that I'd keep my money and not save the person, soooo.</p>
<p>Yes. If I went bankrupt and I was on my last $100 I would still do it. I couldn't live with the thought that I chose to keep 100 bucks over saving someone's life. I would want people to do the same for me of course, and my family members.</p>
<p>i wouldn't. there are consequences to this kind of thing. not everyone dies of old age(even though it is ideal).</p>
<p>Now let's try another scenario -- imagine that you're walking along the side of a lake and you see a small child drowning a few dozen yards out. Assume you know how to swim. You are wearing underwear whose net worth is $100, and there's no time to strip, or else the child will die. If you go swimming the underwear will be ruined, and this is underwear that can't be ruined at all, because you're an underwear model and you need it for work.</p>
<p>So, do you save the drowning child?</p>
<p>I'm a horrible swimmer, so whether I go or not, the child would die.</p>
<p>
LOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLL</p>
<p>
<p>So, do you save the drowning child?
Aahahaha, I love you for this post, if nothing else. lol</p>
<p>edit - btw, in this situation, I'd do it. Totally different from the first scenario.</p>
<p>But invenviam would if they only lasted one more second after that lolzers, it would be a waste of undies!!!!!</p>
<p>Yeah, but if I spent 100 dollars on underwear, I clearly don't have any brain at all! So I might as well waste it on the kid! And this scenario is much more personal - you know who the person you're saving is, you know that it's a kid and not a billion year old man, or a felon [probably, anyway, lololol]. In the first question, the 100 dollars could be, say, your last 100 dollars, or 100 dollars that you REALLY do need for something else - if you've already spent it on underwear [although, yeah, you are an underwear model, but I gather that you wouldn't be modelling the same pair of underwear over and over and over, sooooo], you've practically already wasted it, so you might as well try to save the kid.
Lol, whatever though, I'm clearly heartless, and flighty too.</p>
<p>edit - AND my name is not invenviam... lol</p>
<p>You guys are kind of heartless..............</p>
<p>I would end up drowning too</p>
<p>
[quote]
edit - btw, in this situation, I'd do it. Totally different from the first scenario.
[/quote]
But it's not different. It has the exact same impact and result - you lose $100, save a life. It's just that the first has a nice detachment to it that makes it easier to rationalize out of doing it. People respond more strongly when they feel more personally involved...</p>
<p>It reminds me of this classic question: 3 people are trapped in the middle of a railroad track and the train is coming their way. They're behind a fork in the tracks - and the other fork has 1 person on it who is not in the line of impact. You're standing next to the switch for the fork and you can choose to divert the train from the fork with 3 people and save 3 lives but have 1 killed. Or you can leave it alone and let 3 die and 1 live.</p>
<p>Almost all people given this choice say "Duhhr, I would let 1 person die to save 3!" But say we change the situation slightly... There are still 3 people in danger of being run over by the train, but the other 1 person is not on the tracks but near the tracks a distance ahead taking a walk. If you push him onto the tracks, his body will stop the train before it hits the other 3 people (you're not heavy enough to sacrifice yourself). Would you go ahead this time? Most people don't, even though it's essentially the same as the other train-moral-dilemma. You kill 1 person to save 3. Only this time you're getting up close, so it "feels" more wrong.</p>
<p>This kind of thing has always made me wonder how the Milgram experiment would have changed if the subjects had, say, given a club and told "Give the sucker a nice bash on the head!" instead of sitting down in another room punishing them in a more impersonal way, with a mere push a button. Or having them electrocute the subjects with a subject with a close-range taser instead of a simple switch as they did. It's so, so much easier to push a button than to walk up to a person, see the fear on their faces.</p>
<p>edit: this</a> site explains it more eloquently than me</p>
<p>Ok fine, if the situations are "not different" at all, then I've changed my mind, and now I won't save either of them. You just caused me to kill a kid. Thanks.</p>
<p>No, I wouldn't donate the $100. MAYBE I would save the child... I am not sure. And yes, I know the result is pretty much the same and the difference is that the person in the other state is some abstract entity while the child would be something I could see, making him/her more "real," but still.</p>
<p>referring to the train question...Allowing people to die isn't against the law. killing one person is murder.it doesn't matter how many people were saved as a result. it's still murder.</p>
<p>If I had the extra money, I would. I wouldn't save others to a point of self-sacrifice though.</p>