• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Ruin an expensive suit to save a drowning child?

Would you ruin an expensive suit to save a drowning child?

  • Yes

    Votes: 210 90.5%

  • No

    Votes: 22 9.5%
  • Total voters
    232
S

srfhrd1

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
168
Location
San Francisco
I would like to pose a question that everyone should answer truthfully (mods, if you could make it a poll that would be sweet). Hopefully we can make some progress in finding an answer to the question of a universal ethical code's existence.

If you are wearing an extremely expensive suit and come upon a child drowning in a lake, would you ruin the suit in order to save the child? (For the purposes of this experiment, YOU are the only hope that this child has for survival and that if you save the child the suit will be ruined). Annnnd GO!
 
Last edited:
i would ruin the suit. i don't think i could just walk away from something like that, and not feel guilty.
 
There ya go.

I'd do it.
Keeping in mind of course that the best ways of saving a drowning person don't typically involve the helper getting immersed. /wiseass
 
I would quickly take the suit off first. Not only would I keep my nice suit, and save the child, but you can swim a lot faster with out a bunch of clothes weighing you down.
I'm not a strong swimmer to begin with, and the amount of time sacrificed taking off the suit vs. the extra time added swimming with heavy clothing on would be more beneficial than jumping in with the suit.


Now would I jump in front of a bullet to save a small child with that suit on? Hell no, but catch me on a day when I'm wearing something a little more casual and I'm all for heroism. :)
 
Not ruining the suit doesn't assure not saving the child. One could also possibly save the child without ruining the suit or ruin the suit without saving the child.

If you just bought the suit, why would you be wearing it? It would still be in the bag.

If the question was, "if there was situation where the only way to save the child would involve ruining the suit", then of course I would ruin the suit.

But as it stands. I would save the child - ruining the suit would depend on the circumstances.
 
jam uh weezy said:
I would quickly take the suit off first. Not only would I keep my nice suit, and save the child, but you can swim a lot faster with out a bunch of clothes weighing you down.
I'm not a strong swimmer to begin with, and the amount of time sacrificed taking off the suit vs. the extra time added swimming with heavy clothing on would be more beneficial than jumping in with the suit.)
Click to expand...

Ah, now i must define my hypothetical to prevent such particularizations. To save the child you must ruin the suit. No life rings or quick-strips in this question.
 
I never wear expensive suits to the beach. I voted no because I can't swim for shit myself... But if I could somehow use the suit to collect the child from the water without getting in, then sure, I guess ;)
 
^ then actually you WOULD ruin the suit to save the child

anyone who votes no and means it is a sociopath...

are you going to surprise us with an article where someone justified not jumping in a lake to save a child because of their expensive suit?

and then talk about the differences between ethical decision making "on the spot" and "pre-thought out" referencing some very interesting social science studies?

yeah i've got your type all figured out, damn science-evangelism "spread the empirical data" people ( :P )
 
passionate me would leap, but logical me would desire to know why. i mean, what obligation do i have to the child? if i didn't force them into the situation, then none. rather, their predicament is forcing ME into an undesirable situation. basically, the demand is suddenly being made of me to surrender the value of the suit to public charity.

but if i wouldn't normally go out of my way to be charitable and instead spent my monies on purchasing armani suits, then surely the act of saving the child would be a selfish act done to bolster my reputation rather than a selfless act. in that case, i'm weighing the value of my reputation against the value of the suit.

money comes and goes, but what people think of you lasts forever. even logic supports saving the child. but... what bearing does my motivation have if the outcome is the same? i feel your question fails to investigate that, and remains rather shallow and insulting as a result.
 
hell yeah i would cuz wen the child grew up and turn 18, i would make them my personal slave for the rest of their life.
 
^why not just join the catholic church and save yourself a nice suit?

Oh wait, you wanted kids over 18.

I voted yes, I agree with qwe about the sociopaths.
 
Rated E said:
If the question was, "if there was situation where the only way to save the child would involve ruining the suit", then of course I would ruin the suit.
Click to expand...
agreed. it's hard for me to imagine any other answer but, if there are people who, given that choice, would choose to preserve the suit, i would love to hear the reasoning?

if it were somebody i didn't like very much and i had to ruin the suit to save their life, i would.

alasdair
 
Yes without a doubt, however a few problems are of note one being that I have never and will never wear one of those horrible contraptions known as the "Suit" and two, that I wouldn't be wearing an expensive one if I happened to be actually suit-clad. Which I wouldn't be.

I don't get his question. All it would reveal is whether someones is a sociopath or not; I highly doubt many people will honestly say they would not ruin a suit to save a life....I'm sure many people would think of their suit first; why wouldn't you? Either way, most humans re tuned enough to the distress of the young to respond innately to such a dilemma, and humans that don't- have lost what makes them human, and so don't count- that is, I don't expect a babboon to value what I do, and so assess them (baboons) accordingly...
 
^ awesome question. what value does a suit have to have before you won't ruin it to save the life of a child?

you'll ruin a $25,000 suit but you won't ruin a suit that costs $25,001?

:)

alasdair
 
^Indeed

If the suit had a value of several hundred thousand you could ignore the child, sell the suit, and save hundreds of children with your money in order to relieve your immense guilt at not saving the child in front of your face.
 
Ataraxis5 said:
^Indeed

If the suit had a value of several hundred thousand you could ignore the child, sell the suit, and save hundreds of children with your money in order to relieve your immense guilt at not saving the child in front of your face.
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking I could ignore the child, keep the suit, and maintain my social status.

Think about the damage to my wardrobe. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top