There are two burning buildings, one of the buildings has 100 people while the o

Question:members and you could only save one building from burning, which one will it be?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: members and you could only save one building from burning, which one will it be?

In all honesty - At the moment of the fire I'd be so caught up in emotion and fear that instinct would obviously tell me to go after my sister or mother or father or loved one first- I think that's everyone's initial gut feeling/reaction but given this stumps me and if I had to think about it before I reacted I would have to say the building with 100 ppl because of the fact that those 100 ppl are probably just as important and loved to someone out there as my loved one is to me in the other building and to have someone else go through that would be selfish- so it's all about being selfless and selfish which is a pretty difficult thing to do ESPECIALLY in a predicament like the one you proposed-! Hope that helps!

I would depend on the family member - some of them I can do without.

Depends if I'm on duty or not.

family.

family

That's not fair or even real..that could only happen in the movies...or if you were held at gun point by some maniac who was holding every one hostage..try that question again.

well my mind is in conflict now to answer ur question i really dont know............i love my family but killing 100 for my family is selfish...............if i kill my family for 100 they did a lot to me and they would do anything to save me and letting them off would be irresponsible...............god what a question i still dont know the answer...........

Obvious things to consider:
1) Rationally: 100 > 1
2) Personally: 1 family member could be worth more than 1000 strangers' lives to you personally.

Why you still might save 100?...
1) How much guilt would you have for having decided to let 100 people die? Enough to kill yourself?
2) How much guild would your family member have for getting to live and let 100 people die? Enough for them to kill themselves?
3) How honorable would it be to your family member to die for the sake of 100 people? Enough to save the 100 instead?
4) How honorable would you appear to others for having sacrified someone so close to you to save 100 strangers? Enough to save 100 instead?

The answer really depends on how much compassion you have for your fellow man and how you personally think you could deal with personal sacrifice.

Personally, if its my own child, I'd save my family member. But only because I believe in a parents personal responsilibity to his/her child. Anyone else-mother, father, grandparents, brothers & sisters, I know would rather I make the more honorable choice of saving the 100.

It would depend on the situation. How could one ever know that the other people would not be saved?

What do you think? Actually, it depends which family member. Some of them don't matter. just kidding.

The 100 people have families too. It would be unfair to them, because they have lives, hopes, dreams, and plans for their future. The family member matters, but the other people matter just as much, and there's one hundred of them.

the one next to me.

i know it sounds horrible BUT.. in all honesty.. i'd pick the family member.... cause they can't be replaced no matter who they are. family comes first. the building with 100 people, each person has 99 other people that could help them, their chances are already higher. and what would those people do in my shoes?? would they save their one family member or me?
and why would i leave my one family member to die, by themselves.. and not even give them the option of having someone help them... cause they sure don't have the other 99 people to help them. know what i mean??

"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions."

"It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one's power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life)."

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. "

[e.g., his child constitutes his "life" in that it is a value he has created with his wife, raised and nurtured; and while it is sad that others had to die to save his own son, no one but an immoral masochistic altruist would consider other people to be more important than his own son. That man has the right not to give others a dime, let alone give them the life of his child.]

but superman!! you're faster than a speeding bullet.......(or at least that's what she said... HA!!! jk

personally, I'm aiming to be part of the remaining 10% after the technological singularity, so I'd probably let both buildings burn

Naw, Just Kidding.......... or am I?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBRI3iHmL...

roflmao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGjwfLVv...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxMkj2QPo...

I'd probably save my family first for selfish pride , but I belive all things are possible through faith so I belive I would save the other building as well, or die trying.....

I only have two close family members, the rest have died off over the years. So I would choose to save my daughter and/or grandson. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but it's the truth and how I feel.

Can I trade places with any of them and burn in their place? I would do that but if I can't then I'd have to go with the 100, I would hope my family member would understand why. Each of those people probably had a family too. Even though I lost one I couldn't imagine making the others lose 1 too. But I seriously would rather burn myself and save them all including my family member.

I would personally set all 100 people on fire to save my kids so I am going with the family building.