Ask Your Question today
There are three kids hurt in an accident. One is 17, one is 10 and the last is a baby. You have the power to save only one, all have an equal chance of winning. You no nothing about their personalities. Who would you save based purely on age?
quick version:
would you save a 17 year old, a 10 year old or a baby if they were all dying?
| The 17 year old | 21 | |
| The 10 year old | 21 | |
| The baby | 46 | |
| None, let them all die | 8 |
I think my instinct would be to save the most vulnerable: the baby. The others would still stand a better chance of saving themselves.
I'd save the 17 year old. No offence to the baby, but they haven't really had the chance to form their personality and mind fully, so, as bad as it sounds, I don't really see it as as much of a loss, as the 17 year old and the 10 year old. The 10 year old is tempting, but I think the 10 year old is at the point in life, where it could really screw them up permanently. The 17 year old would be traumatized, but I could see them getting past it with grief counseling a lot more easily than the 10 year old. By 17, you already have a better feel that death is a fact of life and an inevitability.
I would save the child. The oldest has had the chance to live atleast half of a life and if I choose him then he would most likely fall into depression due to his family dying and there is a 50% chance he would commit suicide. The ten year old will most likely be traumatized and will have problems with their personality (or mental state) due to seeing their family die at such a young age and most likely wouldn't live a happy life completely because of the insident. The child will not go through either due to it not knowing the family so well and not being old enough to have grown attached to the family 100% or become traumatized,the baby will have more of a chance at a normal life than the rest of the kids.
That's just stupid; the 17 year old has not had the chance to live "atleast half of a life" and Plenty of people go through traumatic experiences, without killing themselves, so there's not "a 50% chance he would commit suicide."
I'd save the ten year old because they are probably at the age of enjoying life the most and it seems the biggest loss to the individual to take away what is best.
Lol doesn't take that long to read two more sentences. Baby. Not only have the others lived longer but I would think it would be traumatizing to remember the experience.
The baby. The 17 yr old might save the 10 yr old and will know how to save themselves.
None of them. Not because I'm heartless but because of 1. I'd never get myself in a situation like that and 2. I'm not healthy enough to be saving people. I probably couldn't even save myself if I needed to.
baby. not because of emotion but because of their future impact on the world. the empathy you show will let that baby reflect on that for the rest of their life and they will "pay it forward" in extreme ways in order for them to try and reattribute to the other two lost ones. the baby will feel like the chosen one and will def do amazing things.
also, picking the other two would make them feel bad for the rest of their lives because their brains are developed enough to feel like it should have been them to die. they may become depressed from this and commit suicide anyways.
Well seeing as you are nearly all going to save the baby, move aside and let me deal with the 10 yr old, and someone else can deal with the 17yr old. Thhere are enough of us to do the job.
I suspected that a majority of people would choose the baby. Personally I would save the 17 year old only because at that age your ready to really start your life. You've worked so hard to finally get to a point when you can have total freedom and start living. It would be terrible to get to that point only to have it taken away.
Unless the 17 year old was a pretty girl, in which case I'd have an ulterior motive, the 10 year old because babies aren't 100% conscious and 10 years is awfully shorter than 17.
If the death is painless for both of them I won't help any of them. Anything is better than life in this world.
The 10 year old but I'd save the baby if the others would be able to help themselves.
I chose 10 year old cause I can't picture a baby dying. Plus picture yourself at 10 years old dying. Just sad.
Save a third of each of them and hope for the best! lol
Seriously, don't waste time saving the 17 year old because he's probably already had suicidal thoughts anyway and will end up having issues with why the others had to die so he could live etc. If I had to choose between the 10 year old and the baby, I'd save the baby because the 10 year old has already lived a bit of life, had some fun already.
i would save either 10 or 17..same reason as dappled, when u were a baby u didnt know much,
but when you r 10 u have had a great childhood and ur parents and friends that u love and 17 u have experienced even more,actually i even think 17 s even more bcause he s experienced so much and he is aware of the happines, the baby is not...
The 17 year old can save the 10 year old and the baby if you save him/her hahaha.
This is an awful question.
I'd want to save the baby, but the 10 year old is a bit close to my son, and the 17 has so much ahead of him ... I'd save whoever I could get my hands on first!!
I don't know. It would be too tough to choose. I would hope that in a real situation like this, no one would actually stop to think. Hopefully, you'd save anyone that you could in the time that you had.
Fuck that shit, the baby doesn't know anything worth a shit, it has no inspirations or goals yet, so it makes less sense for it to be saved.
It would be hard to let anyone die, especially the 10 year old but I would like to think I'd save the 17 year old, because he/she has more ambitions coming up soon.
Damn...errr...that's a hard one...
I would let the 17 yr old die D:
And I guess I would have to let the 10 yr old die too... Dx<
I can't stand to see babies die...it breaks my heart...its also quite traumatizing for me