• 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
Isn't the question a failure? I'm sure a real life situation of this sort is a lot more complex. It proves nothing. Even someone with a poor sense of the value of life may be compelled to save someone based on group dynamic or may not based on the danger it poses to them despite high morals. I still argue that the situation itself causes one to do nothing.
 
I voted yes. Needless to say, this truly says nothing as to the moral superiority of saving a child's life over preserving pricey apparel, hence the basic perversity of the question to which many have understandably objected. The rather bland but nevertheless important question to ask in this case, as Jamshyd glibly alluded, is: What clear value does a child's (or anyone's) life have at all? And, by extension, why is it taken for granted that the de facto ethical decision in this case is necessarily the 'heroic' one? Furthermore, why is life so boldly assumed to bear essential positive value for all those to whom it has been bestowed? For many in the world, I would confidently argue that it does not. What if the child were to have horribly abusive legal guardians (not exactly a far-fetched scenario), and would be subjected to further torment upon rescue? What if they were committing suicide? Do they have a right to die, or is this something that you would deny them?

Of course, no one could possibly be certain about any of these things were the child to be a complete stranger, as suggested. Thus, I would save the child, but not without some reservation and momentary contemplation - presumably in stark contrast to many who have posted in this thread. Does this make me morally/ethically obtuse?

Its nice to see most of us would save the kid
Click to expand...

Why? [rhetorical]
 
wat. there are many fucked up things i would do...but ruining a suit to save a child? this isn't even a debate for me...save the kid.
 
P A said:
I voted yes. Needless to say, this truly says nothing as to the moral superiority of saving a child's life over preserving pricey apparel, hence the basic perversity of the question to which many have understandably objected. The rather bland but nevertheless important question to ask in this case, as Jamshyd glibly alluded, is: What clear value does a child's (or anyone's) life have at all? And, by extension, why is it taken for granted that the de facto ethical decision in this case is necessarily the 'heroic' one? Furthermore, why is life so boldly assumed to bear essential positive value for all those to whom it has been bestowed? For many in the world, I would confidently argue that it does not. What if the child were to have horribly abusive legal guardians (not exactly a far-fetched scenario), and would be subjected to further torment upon rescue? What if they were committing suicide? Do they have a right to die, or is this something that you would deny them?

Of course, no one could possibly be certain about any of these things were the child to be a complete stranger, as suggested. Thus, I would save the child, but not without some reservation and momentary contemplation - presumably in stark contrast to many who have posted in this thread. Does this make me morally/ethically obtuse?
Click to expand...

Obviously you can throw a bunch of variables into the equation to complicate the issue. I think the basic point of the question is, "there's a child who is dying and doesn't want to, and you can save him, but at a personal cost that you might not recoup. Would you do it?"

You're introducing a bunch of variables that I don't think should be part of the discussion. In general, I think people should try to save other people. Obviously there are some people who might have a shitty life and might suffer hardship by continuing to live, but I don't really see what that has to do with the discussion.
 
Obviously you can throw a bunch of variables into the equation to complicate the issue. I think the basic point of the question is, "there's a child who is dying and doesn't want to, and you can save him, but at a personal cost that you might not recoup. Would you do it?"
Click to expand...

I mean, yeah. I know. My first sentence was, "I voted yes."

"there's a child who is dying and doesn't want to, and you can save him, but at a personal cost that you might not recoup. Would you do it?"
Click to expand...

The words "doesn't want to" have been inserted after the fact by you, though I guess their inclusion does better to shield the OP's question from complication and ambiguity.

My intentions in including the variables weren't based strictly upon a desire to complicate the hypothetical dilemma as it was posed. I was just trying to extend my thoughts beyond the reach of the original either/or question and speculate as to the many moral confounds inherent to the noble idea of 'saving a life' in the first place; and to address exactly why everyone assumes that saving the life of a child is a de facto moral imperative, an issue that's been raised elsewhere in the thread. I see this as highly relevant. If our purpose here is to simply enter the thread, vote, and leave, I would hardly call this a discussion. New thread, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Yo, the mental health unit at prison classified ME as a sociopath, but I would ruin a suit in an instant to save a child, and whoever says they wouldn't should be burnt into flames slowly and chopped up while they are burning until the ashes are burnt again even after burning, and put them into a box and then burn that....
 
thats a tough one!! i must say. im probably going to have alot of people dislike me, not to mention im probably going to be blowing all chances for someone to adopt me, as well. id have to say that it would really depend on the child. if it were an animal, id think nothing of the suit, but a child hmmmmm....................... its a big catch 22 for me because i absolutley loathe scumbags who prey upon children and sexually assualt and kill them, however im sitting here really debating my answer to this question. now a days children are so fucking obnoxious and rude that some of them would be better off not getting saved. it totally, fucking bewilders me, in these days and times the way children speak to thier parents. they boss the parents around, they swear, and they basically run the show, and the fucking parents think its cute and funny. i find it absolutley appauling. can the parents and the child be up for getting saved or not? id say let them all diminish. we can save our lavish expensive suits, and get on with life. it would be 1 less smart mouthed kid and 2 less stupid fucking parents around. besides would we really want to see, the fucking monster this child would grow up to become? have i totally blew my chances for adoption? :)
 
Thats the PARENTS fault not the kids, if the kids have no home training, throw the parent in the lake and save the kid , then retrain them, don't blame a child for being wild when the Parent didn't do their job... SMH... burnt on the stake YOU ARE
 
I'd hope I'd get a reward I need some money to get k and also if you save someones life your resposible for them for the rest of your life they don't owe you the life debt you owe them
 
Lol I'd automaticly say save the child but then again I've never owned an Armani suit so.. hrmmf..
 
You saw that on Nat Geo's the Science of Evil, now on netflix streaming...
Very interesting documentary.

I personally would say yes...You cant put a price on life, especially taht of a child.

Posessions are just things. But if that did not fulfill me, i would just go rob a bunch of people and say i saved a baby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top