Poll: Which would you choose to save?

[JLML]

You wake up one morning to find that you have been locked room with no visible way out. On one side of the room is a window that looks into a room containing 100 total strangers. On the other side of the room is a window that looks into a room containing the ten people who are closest to you. Before you are two buttons, a red one and a black one.

You hear a voice from an intercom that explains the functions of the buttons. Pushing the red one releases a poisonous gas into the room with 100 total strangers (killing everyone in that room), and lets the ten people closest to you go free. Pushing the black one releases poisonous gas into the room with the ten people who are closest to you (again, killing everyone in that room) and lets the other 100 people go free. The voice tells you that you must push one of the buttons within 5 minutes, or both rooms will be flooded with the gas, killing everyone except you. No matter what you do, you will be let go after 5 minutes, and no one will know that you pressed the buttons if you choose to do so.

My question to you is this: Which button would you press? Would you save the lives of the ten people closest to you, or 100 total strangers?

I have 2 problems with that... 1. I don't have 10 people I'd consider close to me, and 2. Is that people I like or..? 'Cause if that's the case there would only be 1 person there... Still, I'd save that 1 person over 100 strangers any day. :3

 

[Mr.Pandah]

If you save 100 total strangers, then chances are you'll get at least another "10 closest people" out of the deal, if not more.

100 strangers would be so appreciative of your sacrifice that you're bound to get a lot out of saving them, whereas if you saved the to people closest to you, they wouldn't be as appreciative as they expected you to save them, plus some of them will probably ***** at you for not pushing the red button immediately and even entertaining the dilemma.

I'd choose self interest disguised as pragmatism and save the 100 strangers, as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Or they'd see that you killed 10 people that were closest to you and you'd be up shits creek in terms of making new friends because they wouldn't be able to trust you with their lives if the situation ever arose again.

 

[Amberella]

The ten people closest to me.

Sorry, but I just wouldn't want to go on without Tom.
And the other 9 people closest to me.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

The 10 people closest to me without a doubt. You made the choice too easy by making it 10 people.

 

[Souplex]

Have you met the ten people closest to me?

 

[SaberXIII]

People I know mean a whole lot more to me than people I don't, so it's a no brainer. My only problem would be remembering which button did what -_-'

 

[Jadak]

This needs to be more than 10 vs 100 to even cause consideration for me, perhaps 1,000, or 10,000, or more and I'd least have to think about it. 100 strangers doesn't even register to me in comparison.

 

[DeathsHands]

10 closest. Pretty simple moral dilemma.

Tom, Dick, Bill, Harry, Jim, Mike, Fred, John, Bob, and Joe are all very important to me.

 

[Ladette]

I'd trade a billion people I don't know for one person I care about. That decision would take all of about 5 seconds.

 

[rathorn14]

I'd save the 10 people closest to me over 100 people I don't know and probably wouldn't like anyways. I couldn't care less about the moral dilemma involved with choosing few above many for the sake of personal interest, that's why they would never let me be a Jedi. Or a Sith either, for that matter, if you buy into Lumiya's teachings of ultimate self sacrifice.

 

[burningdragoon]

I like this one. Not because it's particularly inventive, but because whenever a thread like this pops up I usually say something along the lines of "saving lives is not a math problem". This is the first one in recent time where I would definitely (as far definitely as killing people can be) choose the smaller number, so it works well with my psuedo-philosophy.

Granter, either way I won't be too happy with myself.

 

[Ace of Spades]

10 people closest to me. I wouldn't hesitate at all. I'd still feel horrible, but I wouldn't even have to think about it.

 

[TriggerOnly]

I don't know 10 people I like and I'm not risking saving 100 people that could be wankers, so there all going to have to die !

Its a madder of principle ya know ?

 

[xSpartanLazerx]

I would choose the 10 people closest to me. I would tell the 100 strangers (assuming the glass isn't soundproof) to believe in Jesus.

Honest opinion right here.

 

[konor77]

hell i'd choose the 5 closest to me over 100.

 

[Ren3004]

The 10 people closest to me. I'd hate to lose 10 of my friends.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

The ten people closest to me. I don't know what I'd do without some of them. It'd still be difficult to live with the fact that I killed 100 people, but that's how it goes.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I don't know. I can speculate, but I have no idea what my mindset would be in that situation. I might pass out.

 

[Alpha Maeko]

It's possible that 99 of those 100 people are serial killers. Only makes sense to choose the 10 people that I know for sure are worth saving over someone else.

But I dunno; I would never want to have to make that decision.