You're viewing a single thread.
I know this is all fun and games and to be taken in jest, so I understand the stick in the mud reply. However, I think people deserve to live. Choosing to save objects over people shows we (the collective we, not specifically the ones replying) are no better than conservatives who prioritize objects and money over lives. I'd like to think I'd help whomever is nearest/most injured/in most need of help etc. in the situation, just like if it was any other arbitrary group of people. My standards shouldn't change just because they wouldn't do the same for me, my conscience would still feel guilty even if theirs wouldn't.
What if choosing those objects meant saving a lot more lives though
For sure a point, but I still don't think I could.
Well none of them chose anyone over themselves, so they reap what they sew. Gimme pizza and tacos.
Yeah I understand the sentiment.
That's the "golden rule". Do onto others as you would have them do to you. You're arguing against the bronze rule which is an eye for an eye, which is an excellent point.
Mathematical modeling has shown that the most just societies operate on the gold plated bronze rule. The idea here is that you initially treat people according to the golden rule, however after repeated abuse wears out the plating you transition to the bronze rule. This ensures human decency while protecting against agents acting in bad faith trying to profit by destroying society and repeatedly abusing the golden rule.
In this case you leave them in the fire, not because they would do it to you, but because they have burned and continue to burn so many people that every second they're alive they cause a tremendous damage to society.
That makes sense. Keeping them alive would do more net damage than saving them, in terms of human lives.