Will you let random strangers die so your loved one can live?

[Dr. Zaus]

Did you miss the words "more than I expected"? Does that not imply to you that I was referring to a number that had to be 12 or larger?

Or are you another one of those "selective readers"?

Well, that's about 12 more quality people than I expected to find here.

So you expected to find about 4 'quality' people?

 

[sixone]

So you expected to find about 4 'quality' people?

Go you!!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Go you!!

Except that wasn't implied in what you said; There's no good reason to think that you would have expected that number of people to click what they did. Indeed, the general usage of the term implies an expectation of zero, so much so that any deviation from this expectation requires explicit notation or obvious conversational connotation.

Clearly you've presented a post-hoc explanation for your inability to read the chart properly. So you're one of those "I'm never wrong; you just misunderstood me as saying exactly what I said" types.

I get ya.

 

[sixone]

Except that wasn't implied in what you said; There's no good reason to think that you would have expected that number of people to click what they did. Indeed, the general usage of the term implies an expectation of zero, so much so that any deviation from this expectation requires explicit notation or obvious conversational connotation.

Clearly you've presented a post-hoc explanation for your inability to read the chart properly. So you're one of those "I'm never wrong; you just misunderstood me as saying exactly what I said" types.

I get ya.

The number of people expected wasn't relevant, but the "12 more than I expected" should have been a better clue as to which group I was referring to.

Clearly, you've presented a post-hoc explanation for your inability to read my post. But I'm glad you finally figured it out, in any case.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Why do they think this WG?

I tried trough varies social ways to help them, talked to them. I have been very patient. Tried to solve it, come to an understanding. It is impossible, they are insane.

The guy is suspected to be an autist but unfortunately for him and all his neighbours the type that is a slow to no learner and paranoid. The whole world is shit and against him for some reason... 🙄 Cannot hold a job thus he became a taxi driver. The woman is a paranoid delusional person on medication who hears things and blames other people. She even told me that she must harass and attack other people because in her mind she thinks other people will do it to her.
She blames her past and her parents but i already am aware that it is the other way around. She IMHO is born that way as a paranoid delusional person.
The kind of that listen in and tracks the people around her the whole day and of course does not have a job.
For a while they have assumed that i was responsible for all their problems, simply because i complained that they are anti social. They both have a violent nature and the woman to an extreme.
She has a tendency to make a lot of noise at night and then lie about it.
When i confront him for making noise at night he lies about it as well.
They even accused me for making noise above them on the attic while i was not at home or was not at the attic. But that is standard for them.

In the past i had to ask and check what was going after they where breaking down the house in the evening or in the middle of the night. Recently they still have done it. They harassed in the recent past another neighbour who is a woman alone with a baby(Now a 3 year old toddler in the tantrum phase). The crazy neighbour has threatened the woman with the baby before to beat her up simply because her bike was in the way.
The crazy neighbour is an attention whore, had 2 attempts to suicide that both where deemed to fail. They guy is an egoistic idiot. They have two kids that they do not bring up the right way. It is as if 2 children are trying to bring up children. And at least one of the kids is claimed by the parents to be an autistic as well. But it seems to me the kids are fed up with their crazy parents at times and start to rebel.
Did i mention they also are fond of knives ?

The neigbours both blamed me for the fact that his family is pissed on them because they do not know how to bring up their own children.

I have for months already taken several steps the official way through the housing corporation and the police to solve this. And because i have done this she thinks i am the devil in person. Now you know.


EDIT:
I almost forgot, if for example i would loose my balance because of my back, then the resulting noise because i am trying to regain my balance is for them a justification to make as much noise as possible.
I should also mention that they both justify their actions because it is always someone else who causes all the problems. The whole world is crazy and they are fine...🙄

 

[irishScott]

Random strangers? Sure. Wouldn't be with an easy conscious, but my loved ones are all valuable people in their way, aside from being important to me. 10 strangers picked randomly out of 7 billion could be 10 people with terminal illnesses for all I know. 10 specific people would be a different story.

 

[Emos]

Interesting Tragedy of the Commons experiment, since it appears that most people would jump at this without a second thought: What if this special ability was also granted to everyone else in the world (or even place it at 25% of the population)?
1. Would we go extinct within 24 hours due to untold millions of these wishes being granted?
2. Would people hold off because THEY selfishly don't want to become one of the random strangers liquidated? I'm betting that we would die out 😛

 

[Jaskalas]

17% of OT are my peers... the rest of you are evil.

Can't say I expected those odds, but at least I'm aware of them now. Tells me society is f'ed when you all get the wish to cannibalize each other.

 

[Ricochet]

You can't possibly be considered a morally sound person if you answered 'yes'.

BTW, the majority of you would be dead if you answered this way. Everyone is a stranger or random person to somebody else. You just assumed this deal is just offered to you (and nobody else).

If your loved one is moral, he/she would not let you do this. If this Devil is real then so is God and the reason your loved one is dying is because God has a plan. Taking the Devil's offer to divert God's plan.....hmmmm...

Yep, once again, OT failed a morality test. Doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

[IronWing]

You can't possibly be considered a morally sound person if you answered 'yes'.

BTW, the majority of you would be dead if you answered this way. Everyone is a stranger or random person to somebody else. You just assumed this deal is just offered to you (and nobody else).

If your loved one is moral, he/she would not let you do this. If this Devil is real then so is God and the reason your loved one is dying is because God has a plan. Taking the Devil's offer to divert God's plan.....hmmmm...

Yep, once again, OT failed a morality test. Doesn't surprise me anymore.

The presence of a devil in the story is a plot device to offer the choice to the listener. A devil isn't necessary to the question, merely a widely recognized cliche in western cultures. The OP could have as easily said "a Republican", a "NASCAR fan", or a "country singer" offered you the choice. No devil nor god is necessary.

The flip side of the OP's question is "Would you allow your loved one to die so that ten random strangers might live?"

As to a god's "plan", this presupposes a god has a plan to off a loved one or to off ten random strangers and then it is postulated that interfering with such a plan would be immoral. That isn't a moral position I'm interested in holding.

 

[NetWareHead]

I lost a great aunt who I was very close to and considered her to be another grandmother to me. I'd push the nuke button on a metropolis to have her again in my life.

 

[Sonikku]

If Hollywood cliches are any indication, by the time the devil makes you this deal your family is already screwed. Even if you choose family over strangers, it's a deal by the devil. So you can be sure he would ensure one of those 10 people would be the person or doctor or whatever that was there to save you or your families life at a later point. In other words, your family is lost and nothing you do will change it. At least picking the 10 strangers there is a chance "some" people will make it out of this intact.

 

[Ricochet]

The presence of a devil in the story is a plot device to offer the choice to the listener. A devil isn't necessary to the question, merely a widely recognized cliche in western cultures. The OP could have as easily said "a Republican", a "NASCAR fan", or a "country singer" offered you the choice. No devil nor god is necessary.

The flip side of the OP's question is "Would you allow your loved one to die so that ten random strangers might live?"

As to a god's "plan", this presupposes a god has a plan to off a loved one or to off ten random strangers and then it is postulated that interfering with such a plan would be immoral. That isn't a moral position I'm interested in holding.

No, you're right. A Devil isn't necessary in this. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a religious man. It still holds true (to me) that sacrificing 10 random strangers lives for the sake of one, even your loved ones, would not be a morally sound choice. It is a selfish decision.

That said, whoever put you in that position is evil. Better that you're not in any position to be directly responsible for making that decision.

In the movie the Dark Knight, one of the inmates tossed the detonator overboard to prevent any of the others from using it, leaving their fate out of their hands. They had an opportunity to explode another boat to save their own lives. One boat full of normal citizens vs their boat full of inmates: each have the opportunity to explode the other to save their own.

 

[SlitheryDee]

You can't possibly be considered a morally sound person if you answered 'yes'.

BTW, the majority of you would be dead if you answered this way. Everyone is a stranger or random person to somebody else. You just assumed this deal is just offered to you (and nobody else).

If your loved one is moral, he/she would not let you do this. If this Devil is real then so is God and the reason your loved one is dying is because God has a plan. Taking the Devil's offer to divert God's plan.....hmmmm...

Yep, once again, OT failed a morality test. Doesn't surprise me anymore.

I disagree. I could not logically expect anyone to choose 10 random people over their loved one. A person who is able to disregard those closest to them is a person who must not be able to form strong emotional attachments, at least not to the degree that I can. I would not trust that person with any decision requiring moral judgement because they are obviously sociopathic to some degree.

 

[Emos]

I disagree. I could not logically expect anyone to choose 10 random people over their loved one. A person who is able to disregard those closest to them is a person who must not be able to form strong emotional attachments, at least not to the degree that I can. I would not trust that person with any decision requiring moral judgement because they are obviously sociopathic to some degree.

Personally I think it's sociopathic to throw away 10 innocent lives for the sake of one that you know...
If someone decided to "save" me from a terminal illness in exchange for 10 people that otherwise had their lives ahead of them I would probably suicide from the guilt 🙁

 

[CurseTheSky]

It's very situational.

If the Devil appeared before me and said, "I will save the life of your dying <insert family member here> and cure them of the cancer that is killing them, but in return, I'm going to take the lives of ten people you don't know," I wouldn't do it. First and foremost, I wouldn't make a deal with the Devil. There's always fine print or an asterisk in there somewhere. Second, it's not fair to take the lives of ten random people just to save someone whose time has come, even if I wish it weren't so. I'd be completely devastated either way, but I don't want someone else's blood on my hands.

On the other hand, if it was a different scenario, let's say a train that was about the crash in a fiery explosion and I had time to open the car door and save my <insert family member here>, or another car door and save ten random people, my first instinct would be to save the loved one. Then, I'd probably die in the fiery explosion trying my damnedest to save the ten others. I don't think I could live with myself having not at least tried.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Personally I think it's sociopathic to throw away 10 innocent lives for the sake of one that you know...
If someone decided to "save" me from a terminal illness in exchange for 10 people that otherwise had their lives ahead of them I would probably suicide from the guilt 🙁

Of course you could never tell the person in question what you did for them. Any guilt is yours to bear. I believe that if I were the person who needed saving and it were another who decided to sacrifice 10 lives to save me, I would definitely feel horrible about it, even though it was none of my doing. In a way, I find it far easier to part with my own life than the lives of those I love.

For instance, if I had to be one of the 10 lives sacrificed, I would still make the decision to save several people I know. Loving someone that much is not sociopathic, not loving anyone that much is.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, that's about 12 more quality people than I expected to find here.

I always knew you were an evolutionary anomaly.

suspicions confirmed

🙂

 

[zinfamous]

I lost a great aunt who I was very close to and considered her to be another grandmother to me. I'd push the nuke button on a metropolis to have her again in my life.

seriously. I can think of 10, and I'm sure there's well over a hundred worthless, deadbeat, dick-fuck fathers out there, providing absolutely no service to anyone, that I would off just to have my brother back so he can raise the son that he loved (nephew was 3 when my brother died) and continue devoting his life to healing patients.

 

[irishScott]

You can't possibly be considered a morally sound person if you answered 'yes'.

BTW, the majority of you would be dead if you answered this way. Everyone is a stranger or random person to somebody else. You just assumed this deal is just offered to you (and nobody else).

If your loved one is moral, he/she would not let you do this. If this Devil is real then so is God and the reason your loved one is dying is because God has a plan. Taking the Devil's offer to divert God's plan.....hmmmm...

Yep, once again, OT failed a morality test. Doesn't surprise me anymore.

And you can't possibly be considered all that intelligent if you stand by that post.

Say my loved one was the President of a 3rd world country, and his/her death would send said country into civil war and kill thousands. Then the 10 random strangers would be well worth it. Or say he/she was a doctor who would save more than 10 people over the course of their career.

The OP is too abstract for anyone to properly answer, as well as too abstract for people such as yourself to judge. But then again you seem to be the religious type, which have a long-instilled habit of judging based on abstractions.

 

[pandemonium]

No way I'd take some arbitrary deal like this.

A "stranger" is one step away from being an acquaintance. An "acquiantance" is one step away from being a friend. And a "friend" is one step away from being a loved one. Why take the chance to let a possible "loved one" die just to save a certain known loved one?

As hippy as it sounds, all people have the chance at being a loved one, so why distinguish the difference? You never know how you'll get along with a stranger, much less a loved one. In 10 years your relationships could change and you could answer no to this question if you answered yes originally, then you're basically nullifying your entire argument as to why you chose yes in the first place.

 

[zanosi]

The results of this poll are ridiculous.

As many posters have already pointed out, making a vague deal with an evil being that is infinitely smarter than you and set on screwing you and the rest of humanity over is a bad idea.

Let's put that small complication aside and assume that you can take the deal at face value: sacrifice 10 totally random strangers to save your loved one. If you take that deal(provided that your loved one isn't someone who is absolutely more beneficial to humanity and won't be missed more than 10 random strangers- they probably aren't) you are a selfish bastard. You can be a selfish bastard but remember that you are one before you judge anyone else. Bernie Madoff? He screwed over thousands of faceless strangers so he could provide a better life for his loved ones. Only the people you care about matter right? Fuck everyone else. Same goes for every corrupt politician that embezzled money from some nobodies so his family could live without worries. These guys are saints compared to someone that would be willing to "nuke a metropolis" to save a loved one.

And for the people that would be willing to give up the whole world to save a love one? You guys are truly fucking idiots. Let's assume that giving up the whole world doesn't mean leaving your loved one alone on a barren wasteland of a planet. We'll even spare you and let you live out the rest of your existence on an abandoned earth with your loved one. They won't miss any of the other people in their life that were given up in this deal and neither will you right? You can both just scavenge the planet together with nobody else until one of you gets sick and dies because all of the antibiotics are expired(that's right, the devil was nice enough to leave all of the food and supplies intact so he could watch you both eek out a few miserable years of life).

 

[JTsyo]

I actually say no, only exception would be for my kids. Though I wouldn't be willing to let other 10 kids die.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I cause the deaths of random strangers all the time. Having a loved one live as a result would be an unexpected bonus.

 

[sixone]

First and foremost, I wouldn't make a deal with the Devil. There's always fine print or an asterisk in there somewhere.

What the Devil doesn't tell you is that some reporter is going to find out that you chose to let those ten people die, put your face on every newspaper, magazine, and TV channel, so that you're the most hated person in America. You can never again leave your home without kevlar and guards.

Ten families are taking you to court for the wrongful death of their loved ones, so everything you've earned will be taken from you. Eventually, you won't be able to pay for your own security, so you'll be shot down on the street.

But hey, you saved yourself from the grief that those ten families are suffering. Go you.