"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
I probably couldnt live with myself if i killed an innocent person, so i voted that option.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
Being killed in cold blood I suppose. There's at least a possibility that I could find a way to come to terms with killing another person and live with myself. If I'm dead, I'm dead and there's just nothing.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Depends whether the other person is a man or a woman or child.
Its a bad question because it could be both are "innocent" and I have to decide which of us lives. It seems everything is declaring the answer is they certainly would be willing to die in the place of anyone and everyone else. I would not.
A plane is headed towards the ground. 1 parachute. I grab it, the other person dies. I don't, I die.
It is so NICE to be on a forum of people certain they would say, "Oh, you take the parachute. I couldn't live with myself if YOU die!" You can't live with yourself if you die either, can you?
Hopefully, you'd still have time to write a note to you children and family explaining how they don't mean jack **** to you so at least they know they meant exactly nothing to you, even less than a total stranger - and that your life with them is so worthless its not worth living anyway.
This one is a no brainer to me. 2 men. I'm one of them. Only one of us can live. I pick me.
I faced the question of the other guy or me in violent situations more times than anyone would believe in my youth and as an adult. I did not even see there was any decision to ponder about that, never crossed my mind.
I have a right to protect my existence in this lifetime. I have a right to act to prevent or minimize being hurt regardless of the innocence of the other person. I only would only yield that view now to my children and wife who are of a higher status than I.
I suppose at some point I'd yield my life to a large enough number of other innocent people unless all were men (if such as a truly "innocent" person even exists), but not the life of one of my children or wife.
Not making your highest priority instilling a parent's own morality does not mean that isn't the child being moral a goal of the parents.
I chose the first because well, if I had a choice between the two, that seems better. I really don't give a **** if most people live, me on the other hand, I got **** to do.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan