Lives Equilibrium

Personally, I did a report on something like this, and there's more to it. I'll come back and give you my short feedback later.

 

That'd be great. But no matter what I'm sticking to my opinion

 

true, but not mine

 

I see your point. I have to add that I'd save the low amount of people if the case was to save more. Say like, some crazy Cult. If they went to kill a few people, and they were a large group, I'd save the low amount cuz the Cult could move on to others

 

I like your thought process.

I'm personally one of those people who would save a majority over a minority (sorry the lonely 1,000 you might be missed.) Depending on the situation though might change my answer because if it seemed more essential to save the 1, 000 then of course I would. In general though I think helping more people is a lot better than helping less since, in my opinion, more people have more value to them. There would also be less grieving because instead of having 1 000 000 families feeling sorrow, you'd only have 1 000 or so.

I actually don't believe in killing someone who killed or is planing on killing another person. I don't like the idea of executing let's say 'gangs' or little mafia crews because you're never going to stop them from spreading, so why bother ? There's not enough prison space for them all because they grow at alarming rates and to kill them all would be a blood bath (let's face it) and I think you'd have to be a little sick to kill so many people, regardless if they were planning on doing harm to others. Gangs, however, would be a subject all to themselves so I'll have to leave that idea there.

I'll use a different situation. Say if Old Man Garry son decided to kill his father, for whatever reason, does that mean we should kill his son in order to prevent him from starting a psychotic path of killing the rest of his family ? I wouldn't kill him, but that might be because I was raised in Canada and we don't kill people who have killed others. In the States you still can right, like you inject something in them with a needle and it stops their heart or something, right ? I hope the electric chair isn't still used.

Anyways. my motto for this is,
Life isn't all lollipops and candy, it's cruel and can suck. Get over it.



---Now an interesting topic would be Guantanamo Bay. That's sick in my opinion but some higher ups in America have justified why it's useful.

 

^ You make a lot of sense. But for that last line, wtf even happens at Guantanamo Bay?

 

@keybladelegacy
First i have to find it.......its buried beneath all of my $#&@.

 

lol you don't have to bleep it. But please find it. I'm eager to read it. Hopefully it's on my side xD

 

@ADogX123
*laughs*......alright.....you know, personally, i cannot actually find it, but if i recall, i wrote something in the middle as in when the time arises you just can not choose. I'll try to keep looking...

 

=/ how am I a hippie?

 

agreed. That's exactly what I'm saying

 

If your a fool you dont save anybody to avoid having to make such a big choice.

Me, i would find a way to save them all if i could. There would have to be a way to save everyone, so i would look for that. If i could not find it then i would save the majority only because with more people it would be a bit easy to rebuild an reconstruct. More people to do different jobs an there would also be more people with different talents an skillz that might make it easier to live after whatever happened. With more i there would be some scared kids an people that would have sex an reproduce an then we would have that 1,000 back after a few years. With the majority there would be people that are scared an try to take command an mess things up an there would be alot of problems then with less but when it comes to skillz an abilities an the more knowledge an able hands it would make sense. Its a more logic choice. Its gonna suck but its survival. And i think everyone knows the Answer if it came to it would be to save more then less. With less it takes longer to grow big again but with more you grow even faster an in more numbers. You have to think about the future an the actions about it.

But i would always look for a way to save everyone 1st an i would always look as hard as i could up until the point i would have to make the choice.

 

depends on the situation, in my opinion (harsh as it may sound) some peoples lives are much more valuable than others.
Save 1 scientist or 10 people with down syndrome (once again I know I sound horrible) but I would save the scientist under the assumption he/she would make a bigger contribution to society.

 

Best example i can think of off the top of my head would be 2012 the newest end of the world movie. They build ships an only the rich an powerful as told about it an a few other people the world leaders found important an scientist an other way above average smarties. While everybody else is the world gets to die cuz they werent important enough an the world leaders knew they couldnt save them all. So they saved less over more so they could have a future.
An in that situation that makes sense.