I'm inclined to pick the first one b/c of the effect on other people (the three children). In the first scenario, it's four lives affected versus three in the second scenario.
If it were a mother of two, I would probably still choose to stop that scenario.
Hmm, interesting. My inclination is to prevent the first one. This is based on a lot of assumptions, e.g. the 3 kids are better off with her than w/o her, that more people will be affected by her death, that she may have a job/career where she is doing something that benefits others. Of course, none of these things may be true, and the "homeless men" could just be three unfortunate guys living in their vans because they were turfed out of their apartments to make way for the Olympics and despite being employed they can't afford the rent anywhere else. But w/o further information, I guess it seems more likely that more potential would be lost in the first scenario than in the second.
3 comments:
I'm inclined to pick the first one b/c of the effect on other people (the three children). In the first scenario, it's four lives affected versus three in the second scenario.
If it were a mother of two, I would probably still choose to stop that scenario.
I'd stop the first one also using Eden's reasoning.
Hmm, interesting. My inclination is to prevent the first one. This is based on a lot of assumptions, e.g. the 3 kids are better off with her than w/o her, that more people will be affected by her death, that she may have a job/career where she is doing something that benefits others. Of course, none of these things may be true, and the "homeless men" could just be three unfortunate guys living in their vans because they were turfed out of their apartments to make way for the Olympics and despite being employed they can't afford the rent anywhere else. But w/o further information, I guess it seems more likely that more potential would be lost in the first scenario than in the second.
Post a Comment