Social Question

poisonedantidote's avatar

Hypothetical: The boat is sinking, what do you save?

Asked by poisonedantidote (21648points) November 1st, 2010

The baby, the child, the doctor, or the water proof suit case with $10.000.000 in it.

no cheating, you can only save 1, none of them can save their self

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

iamthemob's avatar

I’m going to feel like shit no matter who I save because of those I left to die. I might as well feel like a rich shit.

The rest of them can try to save each other if they can’t save themselves. ;-) Either way, I’m taking the money.

Soubresaut's avatar

Can they save each other?
...say I save the doctor, who holds onto the baby and the child, and the child holds onto the suitcase of money that we’ll later divvy up?

CyanoticWasp's avatar

Save the boat. There are lots of ways. “Don’t give up the ship!”

poisonedantidote's avatar

@iamthemob props for being the first to answer, and props for being the first to admit they would take the money.

hehehe, i see you there “observing members” lurking in the shadows. you want the money dont you? even thoug its only hypothetical, and even though you know others expect you to save a person, muahahahaha

@DancingMind no, you are the only one who can save, and you can only save one. at least 2 people will die.

Ltryptophan's avatar

Feed the doctor the baby. You eat the child. If the doctor is rich you are set. The ten million can’t give you cpr.

Joybird's avatar

Hypothermia are going to take pretty quickly in a baby or a child. Since I already know this you can see I don’t need the doctor. I’m going to save the waterproof suitcase with the Money….why? Because it floats for one thing.

Cruiser's avatar

Kill the doc and let the kid use him as a floaty and put the baby on the waterproof suitcase, tie a line to them both and swim to shore. Then bribe the OP with some of the cash to let my answer stand! XD

perspicacious's avatar

I grab the baby and verbally give the child swimming/floating/hold onto the suitcase instructions. Sorry doc.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

I hate this question. And if it causes me to lose any sleep tonight, I’m not going to be a happy with you @poisonedantidote for asking it.

daytonamisticrip's avatar

I would save the baby. The baby hasn’t had a fare shot at life yet.

Ltryptophan's avatar

I think I see @poisonedantidote‘s point here, could it be the importance of doctors in our society? Theoretically at any moment the only thing standing between any number of people and their demise is a doctor’s care. That is, the doctor’s life is more important to save than anyone’s, because there is an untold number of lives that could potentially be saved by the doctor’s skill of healing.

If the doctor can potentially save more lives than the two children’s the most utilitarian argument seems to be to save the doctor if we are trying to save the most people in the end. The children could grow up to do anything, even potentially cure cancer. That is something unknown, and unlikely. What is known is that the doctor has already made it to the stage in life where saving other lives is a profitable reality.

The kids and the money…must die.

CaptainHarley's avatar

The doctor can swim, so I give him the baby to carry. I put the child on my own back and give him the suitcase to carry. We all swim to safety, share the loot and become rich and famous! : D

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Are any of the kids mine? I’d save mine.

poisonedantidote's avatar

The way I see it, in case anyone is interested, is I would save the child.

I would save the child because, A- 10 million bucks wont be fun to spend in a world where everyone hates you. B- The baby, you can probably argue that as a baby, they would not suffer as much as the child, simply because the child will have a concept of death, and this would provoke fear and psychological terror. The doctor while valuable to the world, has already lived a few years, and his acomplishments cant really be considered when a childs future acomplishments are still unknown.

Therefore, I pick the child.

InkyAnn's avatar

None, I’d die with them all. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself knowing I survived and Een though one other survived with me some didn’t…

ucme's avatar

Everyone! I’d be clutching the cash in the lifeboat whilst the doc tended to the baby.

mattbrowne's avatar

There are no easy answers for ethical dilemmas. Of course money in such a case is meaningless.

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – really? That $10,000,000 can be used to save millions of lives, literally. ;-)

That’s actually why I think it’s the most utilitarian choice, and the only way I could make up for anyone dying.

mattbrowne's avatar

@iamthemob – That money can be raised again, but we can’t resurrect dead people.

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – of course. But in one case, I save a person and feel like crap because I let two die. Period. In the other, I feel like crap because I let three people die, but can potentially save millions.

Rarely does one person have the ability to raise that kind of money…it would take years. Meanwhile, millions have died because I didn’t have the money right then. During that time I can also raise more money, thereby multiplying the beneficial effects.

mattbrowne's avatar

@iamthemob – Well, let’s save one person and then ask some divers to find the suitcase with all the wet money inside it. The bills will be replaced.

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – see, now we’re assuming facts not evidence. I’m pretty sure the intent of the OP was to determine the value judgments we made, as associated with how we would consider which to say. Therefore, we have to assume that in this case, that the money is just as dead as the people who we leave behind.

mattbrowne's avatar

@iamthemob – Even if the money never reappears I would rather save one person. But this is just my view. I understand that others see this differently. That’s normal when we deal with difficult ethical questions.

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – of course. And I get the decision. But why are you trying to debate my decision then? ;-)

mattbrowne's avatar

@iamthemob – Well, maybe I thought you get your money plus one human survivor. But you are right. Let’s just leave it at that ;-)

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – you know I will always leave it when it ends on the fact that “I’m right.” ;-)

douchebag alert on my part

SavoirFaire's avatar

The baby. Surely, it is worth much more than $10,000,000 to someone.

iamthemob's avatar

@SavoirFaire – I absolutely love the idea of a “market value of babies.”

SavoirFaire's avatar

@iamthemob Next up for auction: All-the-Market-Will-Bear Smith and Caveat-Emptor Jones! Do I hear an opening bid of $1 million each?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Gadzooks, quite a quandary, there are variables I don’t know such as is the ship sinking because there was an explosion? Are there other people who were there but made it off OK or had help? Am I way out in the ocean and would need to get to a deserted island or am I where the coast guard will eventually find me?

So, if it is out in the middle of nowhere, and there are other survivors beyond the child and the baby, and the ship is sinking due to an explosion or something I would save the doctor (his/her services maybe needed) If it is just us 4, I am taking the money. If it is in territory where the coast guard searches I would either save the baby or take the money, I guess it would depend on what bill came in the mail the day before. I will leave it up to doc to try and save the kid. If he goes for the money all bets are off.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther