Question of your moral judgement

[Orochimaruofthesound]

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.

since you chose the man do you think you could tell the childs parrents that The mans life was more important than their child

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

how are we heartless this man could saves many many lives were heartless because we want to save more than 1 person lol ok

the point being long term how much can the millions buy

 

[Barrath]

It's also worth noting that if the man had a clear intention of donating the money to the hospital, it can still be acquired either through legal means or if the man had family who knew his intentions and received his money.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

It's also worth noting that if the man had a clear intention of donating the money to the hospital, it can still be acquired either through legal means or if the man had family who knew his intentions and received his money.

This is true

 

[Calpal]

how are we heartless this man could saves many many lives were heartless because we want to save more than 1 person lol ok

but hasnt put pen to paper. you get the chance to save a young human life. orrr posssssibly get a couple more machines and shit..? use your brain dipshit

 

[Germanicus]

since you chose the man do you think you could tell the childs parrents that The mans life was more important than their child

Again, the lot of you seem to miss what I'm saying.

Youth doesn't equal a moral obligation. I'm still not seeing exactly why the man deserves to be sacrificed in order to save the boy. "Because he's a child" is not sufficient. Details are important.

And yes I could. If it were my job, I would do it.
Your question is completely illogical anyway, as a doctor would never be asked to make this kind of decision.

 

[Barrath]

Again, the lot of you seem to miss what I'm saying.

Youth doesn't equal a moral obligation. I'm still not seeing exactly why the man deserves to be sacrificed in order to save the boy. "Because he's a child" is not sufficient. Details are important.

And yes I could. If it were my job, I would do it.
Your question is completely illogical anyway, as a doctor would never be asked to make this kind of decision.

Adress my response to that bro I'd like to know what you think about my points.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

Again, the lot of you seem to miss what I'm saying.

Youth doesn't equal a moral obligation. I'm still not seeing exactly why the man deserves to be sacrificed in order to save the boy. "Because he's a child" is not sufficient. Details are important.

And yes I could. If it were my job, I would do it.
Your question is completely illogical anyway, as a doctor would never be asked to make this kind of decision.

Because he was a child is more than enough reason to save him

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Again, the lot of you seem to miss what I'm saying.

Youth doesn't equal a moral obligation. I'm still not seeing exactly why the man deserves to be sacrificed in order to save the boy. "Because he's a child" is not sufficient. Details are important.

And yes I could. If it were my job, I would do it.
Your question is completely illogical anyway, as a doctor would never be asked to make this kind of decision.

The old man lived long enough and obviously the young kid hasn't. OP has also mentioned that the pen hasn't been put to paper.

 

[Pervy Wrath]

Well, whatever you choose, it's morally wrong. Choosing someone over someone else in these types of circumstances are. But I would obviously save the boy. There are many other who can fund the hospital.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

millions can be used for any things let's say a rich man was shot and brought to the hospital and saved then he donates millions and saves another 100 people then so on.

point being you'd sacrifice the life of an innocent child for money that wont even last a year

 

[Germanicus]

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.

Life isn't defined by the number of years on a person's belt. I'm not sacrificing a man for a child just because the man has had longer to live. That's asinine. Nobody should move on the assumption that just because someone hasn't experienced life that their life is automatically above that of someone who has already lived. Because that's false; there is no good answer to this question unless you move on the assumption that, A, the old man will fulfill his commitment, or B, the kid turns out to be an extremely significant figure in the future. Neither has a guaranteed quality of life if you were to choose to save them. Either one could die from unfortunate circumstance the week after, for no good reason.

No reason has been given that would put either one of their lives on a different moral scale from the other. Youth is not a moral virtue.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

Life isn't defined by the number of years on a person's belt. I'm not sacrificing a man for a child just because the man has had longer to live. That's asinine. Nobody should move on the assumption that just because someone hasn't experienced life that their life is automatically above that of someone who has already lived. Because that's false; there is no good answer to this question unless you move on the assumption that, A, the old man will fulfill his commitment, or B, the kid turns out to be an extremely significant figure in the future. Neither has a guaranteed quality of life if you were to choose to save them. Either one could die from unfortunate circumstance the week after, for no good reason.

No reason has been given that would put either one of their lives on a different moral scale from the other. Youth is not a moral virtue.

You sir seem to have it in your head that its an innocent child and innocence isnt a virtue think what the kid could be

 

[Germanicus]

You sir seem to have it in your head that its an innocent child and innocence isnt a virtue think what the kid could be

But you didn't say 'innocent child'. You just said 'child.' They are not synonymous. As I said foremost, you left too many blank spaces. If you had said 'innocent child', I might have had reason to pause.

I was just operating on the criteria that you gave me to work with. Nothing more.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

But you didn't say 'innocent child'. You just said 'child.' They are not synonymous. As I said foremost, you left too many blank spaces. If you had said 'innocent child', I might have had reason to pause.

I was just operating on the criteria that you gave me to work with. Nothing more.

innocent is implied as i said the child hasnt had the chance to live

 

[Germanicus]

innocent is implied as i said the child hasnt had the chance to live

And once more, there are many ways one can interpret that. Some people hold the belief that being alive for a period of time isn't the same as living. Life is defined by experience, not years. A matter you seem very quick to brush over, every time I bring it up.

 

[Barrath]

Life isn't defined by the number of years on a person's belt. I'm not sacrificing a man for a child just because the man has had longer to live. That's asinine. Nobody should move on the assumption that just because someone hasn't experienced life that their life is automatically above that of someone who has already lived. Because that's false; there is no good answer to this question unless you move on the assumption that, A, the old man will fulfill his commitment, or B, the kid turns out to be an extremely significant figure in the future. Neither has a guaranteed quality of life if you were to choose to save them. Either one could die from unfortunate circumstance the week after, for no good reason.

No reason has been given that would put either one of their lives on a different moral scale from the other. Youth is not a moral virtue.

...I'm done arguing with you. Your moral compass is evidently off.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

And once more, there are many ways one can interpret that. Some people hold the belief that being alive for a period of time isn't the same as living. Life is defined by experience, not years. A matter you seem very quick to brush over, every time I bring it up.

Even with that statement (which contradicts itself) The young life should be important

 

[Germanicus]

Even with that statement (which contradicts itself) The young life should be important

No, it really doesn't, as experience in a life doesn't equal the time.

And yeah, I'm done arguing with the lot of you children as well. When you're done reading you're bed time stories and learn to stop seeing in black and white, ready to condemn a man for having lived a long period of time, maybe than we can talk.

 

[Orochimaruofthesound]

No, it really doesn't, as experience in a life doesn't equal the time.

And yeah, I'm done arguing with the lot of you children as well. When you're done reading you're bed time stories and learn to stop seeing in black and white, ready to condemn a man for having lived a long period of time, maybe than we can talk.

i guarentee im older than you child