Question of your moral judgement

[Orochimaruofthesound]

If you were a doctor and your advisor (boss idk) told you you had to save the life of a man that promised to fund the hospital millions of dollars (but hasnt put pen to paper. and a young boy is dragged in to the er who has bullet wounds in the head and hasnt had the chance to live. You are the only one who can save either of them.

 

[Ldude]

You'd save the first one of which you were notified if it's an immediate requirement...

If we were notified of both at the same time, I'd save The Boy Who Lived.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

You'd save the first one of which you were notified if it's an immediate requirement...

If we were notified of both at the same time, I'd save The Boy Who Lived.

its not a professional question its a moral question

 

[Sephy100]

Save the man. The money could be put to use. Spending it on supplies, salaries, better medication, hiring better staff, renovations to make the hospital better, etc... I know the boy's life is sacred but the man has more to contribute in the now.

 

[Germanicus]

You'd save the first one of which you were notified if it's an immediate requirement...

This. This is kind of a bad moral question. You don't really give a reason as to why one might to live more than the other. One guy offers to donate money and the other's a kid? That's not enough man. Both of them deserve to live at that point, from just that information. Nothing moral about it.

 

[The Necromancer]

On paper, I want to say the man because his money will end up saving more lives. But in practice i would probably choose to save the child.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

The man who will fund the hospital is the subject of Utilitarianism, and the boy is a subject of...something. I'm going for man who will fund the hospital, because he has more Utility.

 

[Hypemaster]

I'd save the child regardless of the consequences.

 

[Ldude]

Huh... I'd save neither and quit my job from guilt.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

This. This is kind of a bad moral question. You don't really give a reason as to why one might to live more than the other. One guy offers to donate money and the other's a kid? That's not enough man. Both of them deserve to live at that point, from just that information. Nothing moral about it.

it has everything about morals. the child hasnt had a chance to live would you tell his parents you saved the man because he was more important

 

[Hypemaster]

The man who will fund the hospital is the subject of Utilitarianism, and the boy is a subject of...something. I'm going for man who will fund the hospital, because he has more Utility.

You damn utilitarian lol. Always thinking about the whole, but never the individual.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

You damn utilitarian lol. Always thinking about the whole, but never the individual.

they dont get it

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You damn utilitarian lol. Always think about the whole, but never the individual.

But the choice has the most chance of helping further the legacy of the human raaaace :Q

 

[Calpal]

On paper, I want to say the man because his money will end up saving more lives. But in practice i would probably choose to save the child.

this guy^ lol you all are kinda heartless..

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

for thos of you who save the man he may not even keep his word

 

[Hypemaster]

But the choice has the most chance of helping further the legacy of the human raaaace :Q

Yeah I know haha, I just have a hatred for that kind of moral thinking because I got screwed on a essay question about it in my ethics class

 

[Germanicus]

it has everything about morals. the child hasnt had a chance to live would you tell his parents you saved the man because he was more important

Your logic is one is young and the other is rich.
One hasn't lived yet and the other is bribing you.

Obviously from the pragmatic standpoint the rich guy is who you save.
But just because the kid is a kid, why is he morally above the older man? What makes him worth saving over the old man? Is the old man bad? Is the kid bad? How old is the kid, and what are the backgrounds of both?

You leave too many blank spaces for this question to actually be of any use.

 

[Barrath]

I vote for the boy because realistically 'millions' can't buy all the much medical equipment anymore. Aside from that, there are other sources to get money without it costing a young life. That's my opinion though.

 

[Hypemaster]

Your logic is one is young and the other is rich.
One hasn't lived yet and the other is bribing you.

Obviously from the pragmatic standpoint the rich guy is who you save.
But just because the kid is a kid, why is he morally above the older man? What makes him worth saving over the old man? Is the old man bad? Is the kid bad? How old is the kid, and what are the backgrounds of both?

You leave too many blank spaces for this question to actually be of any use.

For f&$k sake it's a kid lol. Just that fact alone is enough for moral questioning. There is a great weight of value invested in the future generation

 

[Barrath]

Your logic is one is young and the other is rich.
One hasn't lived yet and the other is bribing you.

Obviously from the pragmatic standpoint the rich guy is who you save.
But just because the kid is a kid, why is he morally above the older man? What makes him worth saving over the old man? Is the old man bad? Is the kid bad? How old is the kid, and what are the backgrounds of both?

You leave too many blank spaces for this question to actually be of any use.

To explain it simply, you are theoretically taking more years from the boy should he die than you would take the man. They boy has not had the chance to live hardly any of his life while a millionaire has likely already had his taste of it at the least. Older individuals represent the past and present, however, younger individuals represent the present and future.