# Would you sacrifice your life for 26 strangers?



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Children or adult, it doesn't matter. An odd set of circumstances says you have to die in order to allow 26 total strangers to live, what would you chose to do and why?


----------



## kiirby (Oct 8, 2010)

Of course not. I am an inherently self-centered animal, regardless of what morality I preach. The only people who would are those who are heavily under the impression that it would grant them favours in whatever afterlife they believe in. The romanticised notion of being remembered as a martyr is ridiculous. Anyone who says that they would is either a liar or an idiot.


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

Nope not even for a billion.


----------



## anonymid (Oct 16, 2005)

Well, I do value others' lives over my own, though only because I have extremely low self-esteem--certainly not out of nobility or selflessness or anything like that. In an extreme situation, though, I really have no idea whether I would act like a hero or a coward or something in between.

If I had to guess, though, I'd probably flee like George Costanza from a fire.


----------



## Cam1 (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't think it's possible to speculate a situation like this, since we would have a much different thought process in the heat of the moment.

However, I'll say yes. My reasoning is because my life is **** as a result of SA/depression. I think my displeasure with my life would make it easier for me to sacrifice myself.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

Didn't 26 people die in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? And you just plucked that number out of thin air. I voted YES because 26 is more than 1.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

I would have to. 

I think about not doing it, and having 26 people die in my place, and I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life with that on my mind, anyway.

Die physically, or die mentally.


----------



## farfegnugen (Aug 16, 2010)

Maybe, if was a certainty. Absolutely, if it was just a situation that required me to make a quick decision to risk or not risk my life with the outcome in doubt. I have done some firefighting and search and rescue that has put me in perilous circumstances before.


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

Not intentionally, but if I died as a consequence while trying to help them, then so be it.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Strangers? Quite honestly, no. 26 people I know? Maybe.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Didn't 26 people die in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? And you just plucked that number out of thin air. I voted YES because 26 is more than 1.


No, i picked that number for that reason. Pretty obvious isn't it? I wanted to know if people would have stopped such an event from happening if it meant their life, that's all.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> No, i picked that number for that reason. Pretty obvious isn't it? I wanted to know if people would have stopped such an event from happening if it meant their life, that's all.


Well at least this thread has a legitimate reason behind it - what did Mr. OP (you) vote for - you have to tell us.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Well at least this thread has a legitimate reason behind it - what did Mr. OP (you) vote for - you have to tell us.


I voted no.


----------



## lanzman (Jun 14, 2004)

Absolutely, no question.


----------



## identitycrisis (Sep 18, 2011)

I believe I would.

I live my life to find meaning in it. If the meaning of my life is to give life to 26 others, strangers or no, I think I could be at peace with that.


----------



## BeyondOsiris (Nov 2, 2012)

I'd do it. If it means saving 26 other people from death, it would be worth it. Especially since I'm not overly enjoying myself or the constant day-to-day drag of my everyday life thus far, it would be selfish not to.


----------



## Evo (Jan 1, 2012)

Definitely. I would sacrifice my life even just for one stranger.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

kiirby said:


> Of course not. I am an inherently self-centered animal, regardless of what morality I preach. The only people who would are those who are heavily under the impression that it would grant them favours in whatever afterlife they believe in. The romanticised notion of being remembered as a martyr is ridiculous. *Anyone who says that they would is either a liar or an idiot.*


Well then, looks like we have a bunch of one or the other.


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

You mean would you risk dying to save 26 people? If you knew you were going to die 100%, chances are your plan sucks and would not prevent the deaths of the 26 people. Going in there without a plan is stupid. The guy has a gun. 

You at minimum need a gun to go in there and experience shooting. I dont live in the US have no gun and no experience, so no I would not most likely. Running over shooter with a car is possible but unlikely since shooter would be inside.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

kiirby said:


> Of course not. I am an inherently self-centered animal, regardless of what morality I preach. The only people who would are those who are heavily under the impression that it would grant them favours in whatever afterlife they believe in. The romanticised notion of being remembered as a martyr is ridiculous. Anyone who says that they would is either a liar or an idiot.


Way to piss on people who have sacrificed their lives for others. Your post is ignorant.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

nubly said:


> Way to piss on people who have sacrificed their lives for others. Your post is ignorant.


Some people who sacrifice their own lives for others (or are tricked into thinking that's what they're doing) are ignorant too. This applies to a good percentage of military personnel. So his/her statement wasn't totally false.


----------



## kast (Nov 22, 2012)

No, I value my own life and I expect others to value their own lives over mine. It's the natural order of the world.  For evolutionary success it makes sense to value your own life until you reproduce and value your offspring's life above all else (to ensure your genes go even further). It's not even relevant whether you plan on breeding or not.

However... I would probably enter a risky situation where I _might_ die if I had a chance of saving 26 strangers. It's an instinctual empathic reaction to do that, but I'm not going to voluntarily line up to be executed so 26 people can escape.


----------



## missingno (Sep 29, 2011)

Yes only because I don't particularly want to live and I would see that as a good way to go. 

It's not that I actually care about the strangers because if there was a button type scenario where if you press a button you get x amount of dollars and some random dies. In that scenario I would be spamming the **** out of the button.

Didn't vote in the poll. While I would sacrifice my life I relate more to the no statement then the yes


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Some people who sacrifice their own lives for others (or are tricked into thinking that's what they're doing) are ignorant too. This applies to a good percentage of military personnel. So his/her statement wasn't totally false.


Of the top of my head, Oskar Schindler, the people that were part of the Underground Railroad, various people who help hide Jews during WWII, the adult victims of the CT massacre, some from the Aurora massacre were not ignorant.

Here is a list of some people who gave their life to save others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tablets_on_the_Memorial_to_Heroic_Self_Sacrifice

Not everyone is a gutless coward.


----------



## mesmerize (Oct 19, 2012)

depends on who the people are, how i would die..
but at this point id probably do it cause i dont wanna live anymore


----------



## Black And Mild (Apr 11, 2011)

nubly said:


> Way to piss on people who have sacrificed their lives for others. Your post is ignorant.


Indeed


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Of course not. I'm not insane.

I mean, I might _risk_ my life in attempt to save those of 26 strangers, and as a result end up dying that way. But if the deal here is I will _defnitely_ and arbitrarily die, and as a result 26 random people I've never met will not, then no, obviously not.


----------



## Daniel C (Apr 17, 2012)

Yes, I would. Not because I value others' lives over my own, but because 26 - 1 would mean a total sum of 25 saved lives. And I couldn't live with myself if I'd directly hav let 26 people die when I could have prevented it. However, if the circumstances would be less direct (say, if I'd only have a certain chance of saving those people) it would become a more difficult question.


----------



## woot (Aug 7, 2009)

If I was a teacher in that school, which is 10 minutes away from me, than yes.


----------



## cole phelps (Jun 24, 2012)

Very close poll. I voted no. I guess i'm a coward.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

No. There is no afterlife, there is no reward for making such a sacrifice and I would very much like to experience my only chance on this planet. Thousands of people are dying every minute of every day, why would I give up mine for another mere 26?


----------



## Soilwork (May 14, 2012)

I think that Kiirby has a point in that we have 23 people(so far) on here who say they would sacrafice their life to save 26 others but, when push comes to shove, I'm almost certain that a good percentage of these people would not lay down their lives at all. I just wouldn't use the term lying because that implies they are intentionally not telling the truth which I don't think is the case.

This is why I think the poll is pointless because it's impossible to know how you would react until you are put into that situation.


----------



## ShouNagatsuki (Oct 20, 2012)

Yes. My life is not worthy of living. If those 26 people could live a better life, I'd be more than happy to die in their place.


----------



## Aussiery (Sep 17, 2012)

I would i have nothing to live for.


----------



## Meli24R (Dec 9, 2008)

I might risk my life for strangers, but if it meant certain death than no probably not. I would give up my life for a loved one though.


----------



## Otherside (Jun 8, 2012)

No. At times I'd probably see sacrificing my life as a way out of here, but I wouldn't be killing myself to save everyone else.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

No. Every man or woman for himself. I can only protect myself. Would I feel bad if it's like the school shooting yeah, would I feel bad if it's adult, no.


----------



## MindEraser (Nov 15, 2012)

26 total strangers? No. They don't care for me.
26 people I called "friends" (As if I have 26 friends...) Yes.


----------



## Jason 1 (Jul 26, 2012)

Of course I would. As long as they are good people. I would especially love to die to protect children or ladies. If I could die to protect innocent people, then I would die knowing my life had purpose.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

Resonance said:


> I mean, I might _risk_ my life in attempt to save those of 26 strangers, and as a result end up dying that way. But if the deal here is I will _defnitely_ and arbitrarily die, and as a result 26 random people I've never met will not, then no, obviously not.


This is my answer, too. I'm not suicidal, I'm not going to intentionally send myself to death, I value my life. Just being honest. I might act differently in the situation, who knows, especially if it's a child about to die in front of me.

I have to say though, that I'm sure some of the people here that say they would sacrifice themselves most likely wouldn't when actually put in that situation. It's easy to _say_ that you would sacrifice yourself to save lives, as we all have a sense of morality, but you might not be so certain once there's gun pointed to your head. Sitting at your computer while eating chips contemplating this question isn't activating your evolutionary instinct to live, but the situation itself would.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

Without thinking YES,, :yeswith some thinking not really sure:um:sus


around three years ago an Asian young man saved the lives of 14 kids and died while trying to save the 15th!


----------



## cole phelps (Jun 24, 2012)

AussiePea said:


> No. There is no afterlife, there is no reward for making such a sacrifice and I would very much like to experience my only chance on this planet. Thousands of people are dying every minute of every day, why would I give up mine for another mere 26?


I agree. However the sandy hooks situation is kinda different. Those were little kids those teachers saw everyday. It would be hard to walk away from that and let them die.

For example one of the teachers who got killed told the gunman her kids were not in the classroom. She made them all hide in a cuboard. She saved those kids but died as a result.

If i was in that situation i'd like to think i'd do the same thing. I mean their little kids man. On top of that their kids you see everyday. It would be a ****ed up position to be in.

I'd like to think i would have her courage. Like i said i clicked no but i really don't know what i'd do



straightarrows said:


> around three years ago an Asian young man saved the lives of 14 kids and died while trying to save the 15th!


That's badass. They should name buildings after such a brave man. I mean seriously that's real determination. What a great man.


----------



## creasy (Oct 29, 2012)

Strong poll options. 

I don't know. Doing so would be the obvious choice from a utilitarian standpoint. I wouldn't want to sacrifice myself and I don't think there's any concrete moral obligation to do so, but I might go through with it out of guilt and fear of future guilt. I don't feel like it would be my choice really, it depends on how my emotions drive me in the moment.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Maybe


----------



## BrookeHannigan (Mar 29, 2012)

No


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

I would do it completely without hesitation and I wonder about the state of the soul of those who would not.


----------



## FadeToOne (Jan 27, 2011)

Revenwyn said:


> I would do it completely without hesitation and I wonder about the state of the soul of those who would not.


Agreed.


----------



## Baiken (Sep 11, 2012)

Maybe.

It would definitely be hard.


----------



## Archaeron (Dec 16, 2012)

I don't know. Right now my mind says that I should sacrifice myself. But I think that when I'd actually be in such a situation, I'll just try to save my own life. People are selfish. I'm no different.

If it would be 26 friends (oh wait... I don't have that much friends ) or family, then I'd do it without hesitation.


----------



## SoWrongItsRight (May 9, 2012)

I would have had to been in the situation to know what I'd do


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

Yes. Also, I don't think this situation is completely hypothetical after all. According to estimates from givewell.com a life can be saved for about 2,500 dollars. So, by giving up luxuries for the rest of one's life, one could likely save more than 26 people. Obviously this isn't as big a sacrifice as death, so if one says yes to the poll question, surely one should donate all one's money rather than buy luxuries for oneself.


----------



## octodoc (Dec 25, 2012)

Honestly, no - they are complete strangers. For family members, I would. I know it sounds selfish, but to state otherwise would be a lie


----------



## AnotherRawAddict (Apr 21, 2012)

I might. I have suicidal tendencies when off my meds.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

Death Warrant said:


> The idea of dying for strangers is ridiculous, infact u'd have to be insane to do it.


Why?

I believe in a much better afterlife, and while sacrificing your life is not a prerequisite to get there, if I had the chance to save them by giving up my life I would not hesitate. It's not like I would actually remember the pain of death. My life, in which I am not really able to do much, saving 26 others, among whom may be people who will grow up to find a cure for cancer, or become future teachers, leaders, etc. Seems like a no-brainer to me.


----------



## Puppet Master (Jan 1, 2012)

I would not the fact is I don't care about most of my "family" much less a bunch of strangers. Besides the odd person I do give a damn about at all would end up saddened if I did something stupid and got myself killed and what could would that be?


----------



## mysterioussoul (Jul 17, 2010)

Yes. I'm suicidal anyway so I would rather go in a noble way.


----------



## plusminusinfinity (Apr 28, 2011)

context. death is a radical concept which I believe should not be taken radically.


----------



## kiirby (Oct 8, 2010)

kiirby said:


> Of course not. I am an inherently self-centered animal, regardless of what morality I preach. The only people who would are those who are heavily under the impression that it would grant them favours in whatever afterlife they believe in. The romanticised notion of being remembered as a martyr is ridiculous. *Anyone who says that they would is either a liar or an idiot.*





Revenwyn said:


> I believe in a much better afterlife, and while sacrificing your life is not a prerequisite to get there, if I had the chance to save them by giving up my life I would not hesitate. It's not like I would actually remember the pain of death. My life, in which I am not really able to do much, saving 26 others, among whom may be people who will grow up to find a cure for cancer, or become future teachers, leaders, etc. Seems like a no-brainer to me.




Seems odd that this altruism only supposedly surfaces when you happen to be in an incredibly unlikely situation. Because it's not like saving someone's life through consistent, proactive action is the same, is it. Sigh.


----------



## MoonlightSky (Mar 24, 2012)

No way. There's not many people I would sacrifice my life for, let alone strangers.


----------



## Mithun (Sep 25, 2008)

I would say "okay, but give me the reason."


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

Hell no. Although I would try to kill the shooter, not sacrifice myself though.


----------



## Dion Phaneuf (Dec 22, 2012)

Yeah why not Im borderline suicidal anyway.


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

I believe that I would.- What really bothers me is not only that so many here say they wouldn't-but they seem to take such delight in their stand. So many of these sorts of threads are just VERY thinly veiled attempts to yet again revel in the pleasure so many here derive from talk of despising humanity. - Some bizarre competition showing each other up for just how vile and hate filled you can be. - Uhh,Congratulations,I guess?!?


----------



## pastels (Sep 18, 2012)

yes


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

Still Waters said:


> I believe that I would.- What really bothers me is not only that so many here say they wouldn't-but they seem to take such delight in their stand. So many of these sorts of threads are just VERY thinly veiled attempts to yet again revel in the pleasure so many here derive from talk of despising humanity. - Some bizarre competition showing each other up for *just how vile and hate filled you can be. - Uhh,Congratulations,I guess?!?*


If nothing else is giving a reason not to be hate-filled and vile, how else do you expect them to be?


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

cole phelps said:


> I
> 
> That's badass. They should name buildings after such a brave man. I mean seriously that's real determination. What a great man.


Two years later in 2009 they gave his father a medal :sus not sure if they gave him money!...... he was just 26 y.o. *Pakistani* ,, locals on Press and Media wanted to rename the street after him + giving him citizenship!!...but it was ignored!

Indians and Pakistanis are a little bit racist! but on that day they saved many lives! like God sent to us!,,,,,:yes:clap:boogie
while some other nationalities were busy stealing and trying to make $$$$$!:no


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Still Waters said:


> I believe that I would.- What really bothers me is not only that so many here say they wouldn't-but they seem to take such delight in their stand. So many of these sorts of threads are just VERY thinly veiled attempts to yet again revel in the pleasure so many here derive from talk of despising humanity. - Some bizarre competition showing each other up for just how vile and hate filled you can be. - Uhh,Congratulations,I guess?!?


How do you equate looking after your own interests with being hate filled or vile? Why do you expect others to make the same decisions as you, and why do you feel your decisions are the morally correct ones? Nonsense.


----------



## 0589471 (Apr 21, 2012)

Cam1 said:


> I don't think it's possible to speculate a situation like this, since we would have a much different thought process in the heat of the moment.


I agree, it's hard to say for sure, without being under those circumstances. I'd like to think I'd have the courage to defend anyone I'm close to, or that may be weaker/smaller than me. It's not like I don't value my life, but I don't know, depends on the circumstances. If I felt like I could prevent someone else's death, then it sounds like something I'd do.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

the cheat said:


> I would have to.
> 
> I think about not doing it, and having 26 people die in my place, and I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life with that on my mind, anyway.
> 
> Die physically, or die mentally.


^Bingo. You just hit upon the fact that everyone is inherently selfish, regardless of how many insist on pretending otherwise.

At least you recognize the reason you'd be willing to die is simply because you'd otherwise be stuck with a lifelong guilt trip that's worse than death. So you're still acting in your own best interest.

As for hate-filled, it's almost as if 39 years of being screwed over by life has left me in a bad mood where I don't feeling like helping out strangers.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Still Waters said:


> I believe that I would.- *What really bothers me is not only that so many here say they wouldn't-but they seem to take such delight in their stand. So many of these sorts of threads are just VERY thinly veiled attempts to yet again revel in the pleasure so many here derive from talk of despising humanity. *- Some bizarre competition showing each other up for just how vile and hate filled you can be. - Uhh,Congratulations,I guess?!?


 I read the OP here in this thread and I don't think that was it.


----------



## SnowFlakesFire (Aug 23, 2012)

If they could prove they are nicer people than I am and never going to harm anyone in their entire lifetime.


----------



## Saintly (Dec 28, 2012)

My answer is no.

Mainly, I value my life very highly. I have, so far, lead a blessed life and had many chances to work on myself, which I feel is why I am here. Until I have fulfilled my life task, death is not an option, as far as I am concerned.

I have a fair amount of empathy and I understand that people have just as much right as me to make choices with their lives, however I am biased in favor of my perspectives and desires, so if I am the one making the decision it is going to be rather me-centric.

Also, come to think of it, I am useless in a crisis.


----------



## mountain5 (May 22, 2008)

Not a very practical question.

There are people who have decent jobs in first world countries and give away 90% of their money to charity, keeping only enough for themselves to scrape by in poverty.

Or people who give up everything they have to travel and volunteer to help the unfortunate, do social work, save hungry children, etc. 

I don't know if that's brilliant or stupid, but I think it takes a hell of a lot of courage. I absolutely believe those people are actually saving lives, or at least giving others a chance to not waste their lives. And why aren't *we* doing that, if we're so concerned about others?

I think that I'm no help to others if I can't help myself, and that my success will make other people successful. But that seems kind of weak, really.


----------



## Raphael200 (Aug 18, 2012)

Yebo,anytime,my life is mahala for humans .


----------



## lzzy (Nov 28, 2012)

I'd like to say yes, but (and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one) if the situation really occured I'd probably chicken out


----------



## Sniper Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

yes cause I wanna die anyways


----------



## Meli24R (Dec 9, 2008)

I previously said no, but I don't know if I could live with myself if I had the opportunity to save a bunch of people and didn't. 
I'd be more willing to do it if I didn't have anyone in my life who cared about and depended on me. There is one person in particular who likely wouldn't be able to handle my death..she'd be destroyed. Take the very few loved ones I have out of the equation and I don't really have a reason to live. I'd probably be suicidal if they weren't around.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> How do you equate looking after your own interests with being hate filled or vile? Why do you expect others to make the same decisions as you, and why do you feel your decisions are the morally correct ones? Nonsense.


We can agree on which actions are the morally correct ones as long as we agree on some fundamental premises. For instance, I'd claim that all else equal, an action which leads to greater happiness is more moral than an action which leads to less happiness. Do you accept this premise?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> We can agree on which actions are the morally correct ones as long as we agree on some fundamental premises. For instance, I'd claim that all else equal, an action which leads to greater happiness is more moral than an action which leads to less happiness. Do you accept this premise?


No. I believe morality has to do with right or wrong, not happiness of others. I don't believe looking out for yourself is the wrong thing to do, or even selfish. It is human instinct.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

UltraShy said:


> ^Bingo. You just hit upon the fact that everyone is inherently selfish, regardless of how many insist on pretending otherwise.
> 
> At least you recognize the reason you'd be willing to die is simply because you'd otherwise be stuck with a lifelong guilt trip that's worse than death. So you're still acting in your own best interest.
> 
> As for hate-filled, it's almost as if 39 years of being screwed over by life has left me in a bad mood where I don't feeling like helping out strangers.


Avoiding life-long guilt, and saving 26 lives, combined, would lead me to my decision. Partly selfish, partly selfless. Either way, nothing simple about it.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> No. I believe morality has to do with right or wrong, not happiness of others. I don't believe looking out for yourself is the wrong thing to do, or even selfish. It is human instinct.


If we can't agree on fundamental premises, than we can't reach an agreement on morality, but what I'm saying is that if we could, we could go from there to having a debate over what specific actions are most moral.

However, I don't follow you're statement that morality doesn't have to do with happiness, but right and wrong. Moral right and wrong is morality. It just raises the question, what criteria do you use to define right and wrong? I'd consider the fundamental criteria to be what creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, I don't think we have to go that far to agree that an action which creates more happiness is more morally right than another action, all else equal. ie. If action A and action B have equivalent consequences aside from happiness, but action A would lead to greater happiness than action B, it is always the morally right thing to engage in action A rather than action B. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I don't see how "human instinct" addresses morality. That something is natural doesn't make it good unless that is your definition of good. Meteors crashing into planets is natural, but would you say it would be good if a large meteor crashed into earth and all life ended?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> If we can't agree on fundamental premises, than we can't reach an agreement on morality, but what I'm saying is that if we could, we could go from there to having a debate over what specific actions are most moral.
> 
> However, I don't follow you're statement that morality doesn't have to do with happiness, but right and wrong. Moral right and wrong is morality. It just raises the question, what criteria do you use to define right and wrong? I'd consider the fundamental criteria to be what creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, I don't think we have to go that far to agree that an action which creates more happiness is more morally right than another action, all else equal. ie. If action A and action B have equivalent consequences aside from happiness, but action A would lead to greater happiness than action B, it is always the morally right thing to engage in action A rather than action B. Do you disagree with this?
> 
> Also, I don't see how "human instinct" addresses morality. That something is natural doesn't make it good unless that is your definition of good. Meteors crashing into planets is natural, but would you say it would be good if a large meteor crashed into earth and all life ended?


Human instinct _doesn't_ address morality. It just makes morality invalid, to me. Meteors crashing into planets is not action controlled by human instinct, so that is also invalid.
I could be wrong, but i think you're trying to say lack of sympathy or an unwillingness to be a good samaritan is morally wrong. This simply isn't the case, especially if there is also a threat to yourself.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Human instinct _doesn't_ address morality. It just makes morality invalid, to me. Meteors crashing into planets is not action controlled by human instinct, so that is also invalid.
> I could be wrong, but i think you're trying to say lack of sympathy or an unwillingness to be a good samaritan is morally wrong. This simply isn't the case, especially if there is also a threat to yourself.


It doesn't make morality invalid. Object morality is a problem, but not subjective morality. Obviously the reason we feel morals is because of natural selection, so there is no objective rationale behind the morals we feel. However, this doesn't mean that we can't look at the world and come up with subjective tenets (eg. greater happiness is better than less happiness) to base a morality system around and then objectively examine how an action fits in with the subjective tenets.

With the meteor example I'm getting at the fact that just because an occurrence is natural (whether agency is involved or not) doesn't mean that this occurrence is good. If you're not saying that natural=good, then the point is unnecessary.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> It doesn't make morality invalid. Object morality is a problem, but not subjective morality. Obviously the reason we feel morals is because of natural selection, so there is no objective rationale behind the morals we feel. However, this doesn't mean that we can't look at the world and come up with subjective tenets (eg. greater happiness is better than less happiness) to base a morality system around and then objectively examine how an action fits in with the subjective tenets.
> 
> With the meteor example I'm getting at the fact that just because an occurrence is natural (whether agency is involved or not) doesn't mean that this occurrence is good. If you're not saying that natural=good, then the point is unnecessary.


I believe natural is good. Nature is pure. I love it. My morality is a product of human instinct, not a changing of what is seen as right and wrong based on current trends in society. I prefer it that way.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I believe natural is good. Nature is pure. I love it. My morality is a product of human instinct, not a changing of what is seen as right and wrong based on current trends in society. I prefer it that way.


There's no reason that what our natural instincts are should be moral. This is just as subjective as any other definition of morality. This also seems like a very impractical definition of morality. How would you define which instincts are natural and which are artificial?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> There's no reason that what our natural instincts are should be moral. This is just as subjective as any other definition of morality. This also seems like a very impractical definition of morality. *How would you define which instincts are natural and which are artificial?*


There is no such thing as artificial instincts. If something requires a second thought, the urge to second guess yourself is a product of outside influence, not instinct. I have adopted much outside influences in my life, but i remain true to the need to survive (instinct), not the need to make others happy. 
As for morals, there's no reason that anything BUT instinct should be used to define them.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> There is no such thing as artificial instincts. If something requires a second thought, the urge to second guess yourself is a product of outside influence, not instinct. I have adopted much outside influences in my life, but i remain true to the need to survive (instinct), not the need to make others happy.
> As for morals, there's no reason that anything BUT instinct should be used to define them.


By outside instincts, do you mean anything but genes? If so, the same question remains, how do you distinguish between environment and genetics?

Sure there are reasons to define morals differently than instincts. Here's my justification for utilitarianism; I would rather have greater happiness than less happiness. I understand that other people feel the same way. There's no reason to think that my well being is more valuable than anyone else's, so it makes sense to try and maximize everyone's happiness.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> By outside instincts, do you mean anything but genes? If so, the same question remains, how do you distinguish between environment and genetics?
> 
> Sure there are reasons to define morals differently than instincts. Here's my justification for utilitarianism; I would rather have greater happiness than less happiness. I understand that other people feel the same way. There's no reason to think that my well being is more valuable than anyone else's, so it makes sense to try and maximize everyone's happiness.


Outside influence, not outside instinct. The way you determine instinct from influence is whether or not the decision you make is based on what other people think you should make, or a gut feeling. I'm not sure about others but it's pretty easy for me to distinguish the two as i am in the process of making a decision.

I would rather have greater happiness then less happiness as well. That greater happiness comes from the thought of me continuing to live, not dying for people i don't know.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Outside influence, not outside instinct. The way you determine instinct from influence is whether or not the decision you make is based on what other people think you should make, or a gut feeling. I'm not sure about others but it's pretty easy for me to distinguish the two as i am in the process of making a decision.
> 
> I would rather have greater happiness then less happiness as well. That greater happiness comes from the thought of me continuing to live, not dying for people i don't know.


Every decision you make is influenced by all the environmental influences around you, including other people. You can't separate your own thoughts from these influences because you are a product of these influences. Thus, your morality seems rather arbitrary.

Sure, you would obviously be better off not sacrificing yourself for the 26, but the 26 would be better off if you did. There's a net 25 who would be better off and have greater happiness if you made the sacrifice.


----------



## HollowPrince (Dec 9, 2012)

Considering that at least few of that 26 people would be better at life than me, would probably wanna live a lot more than me, and so on, I'd say yes.But that might change over time.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> *Every decision you make is influenced by all the environmental influences around you*, including other people. You can't separate your own thoughts from these influences because you are a product of these influences. Thus, your morality seems rather arbitrary.
> 
> Sure, you would obviously be better off not sacrificing yourself for the 26, but the 26 would be better off if you did. *There's a net 25 who would be better off and have greater happiness if you made the sacrifice.*


*
*
I don't agree with that first statement. People eat to survive, that has nothing to do with outside influence. Natural instinct says you eat, you live. If not, you die. So people eat.
As for the last, i'm sure that's true but my will to survive outweighs the needs of others. People can say thats "hate filled and vile" if they so choose but it seems to be the popular opinion.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> [/B]
> I don't agree with that first statement. People eat to survive, that has nothing to do with outside influence. Natural instinct says you eat, you live. If not, you die. So people eat.
> As for the last, i'm sure that's true but my will to survive outweighs the needs of others. People can say thats "hate filled and vile" if they so choose but it seems to be the popular opinion.


Even what you eat is influenced by your environment. For instance, it could depend on what foods you were fed as a child.

Yes it's a popular opinion; I certainly don't dispute that.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> *Even what you eat is influenced by your environment. For instance, it could depend on what foods you were fed as a child.*
> 
> Yes it's a popular opinion; I certainly don't dispute that.


_What_ you choose to eat is indeed learned from outside influences. Not the need to eat itself.


----------



## Michael91 (Dec 7, 2011)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> _What_ you choose to eat is indeed learned from outside influences. Not the need to eat itself.


Even how hungry you are is determined in part by the environment. For instance, if an environmental factor stresses you, you could be more likely to eat more. Obviously genetics are extremely important, but every urge you feel is also related to your environment.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Michael91 said:


> Even how hungry you are is determined in part by the environment. For instance, if an environmental factor stresses you, you could be more likely to eat more. Obviously genetics are extremely important, but every urge you feel is also related to your environment.


Yes how hungry you are is influenced by an outside source, but the need to eat (in any amount) in order to live is not. I'm not sure where this conversion is going at this point.


----------



## apersonintheory (Nov 26, 2012)

Sure why not, wtf I got to live for?


----------



## yourfavestoner (Jan 14, 2010)

Yes, BUT only because I have no desire to live anyway and this would allow me to go out in a blaze of glory - remembered for doing something.


----------



## Unknown88 (Aug 21, 2012)

I wish I could say yes, I don't think I am a particularly valuable person and I would be tortured to know that 26 people died in my place. It's just that I have this intense fear of death and my survival instinct would hold me back. It would leave me guilty for the rest of my life but I am simply not brave enough.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Unknown88 said:


> It's just that I have this intense fear of death and my survival instinct would hold me back. It would leave me guilty for the rest of my life but I am simply not brave enough.


I think it's that way for most people in the situation.
The fear of pain and the pressure of the situation would make most run away.

You're an immensely valuable person though!


----------



## Earl of Lemongrab (May 15, 2012)

Only a person who wasn't completely misanthropic/embittered/selfish would answer yes to this question. I'm not surprised with the results on this poll, in spite of the number of mentally ill/suicidal people on this forum who make no secret of their feelings - I think answering yes to this kind of question would be like declaring your love for other people, which is extremely difficult when you have a disorder like SA. You'd probably get vastly different results if this poll was posted on a forum for philanthropists.


----------



## Revenwyn (Apr 11, 2011)

trisquel said:


> Only a person who wasn't completely misanthropic/embittered/selfish would answer yes to this question. I'm not surprised with the results on this poll, in spite of the number of mentally ill/suicidal people on this forum who make no secret of their feelings - I think answering yes to this kind of question would be like declaring your love for other people, which is extremely difficult when you have a disorder like SA. You'd probably get vastly different results if this poll was posted on a forum for philanthropists.


Why does social anxiety preclude a love for people? I like people I just feel anxious in social situations. I tend to feel better in one-on-one situations but am afraid of other people my own gender. That does not mean that I would not sacrifice my life for them however.


----------



## whatevzers (Jan 26, 2012)

Honestly, I have no idea. I guess it would depend on the situation. Also, if I chose my own life over 26 other human lives knowing I could have saved them, I'm not sure I could live with myself.


----------



## Fledgling (Jan 1, 2013)

Strangers, you say? My answer is no.


----------



## Puppet Master (Jan 1, 2012)

trisquel said:


> Only a person who wasn't completely misanthropic/embittered/selfish would answer yes to this question. I'm not surprised with the results on this poll, in spite of the number of mentally ill/suicidal people on this forum who make no secret of their feelings - I think answering yes to this kind of question would be like declaring your love for other people, which is extremely difficult when you have a disorder like SA. You'd probably get vastly different results if this poll was posted on a forum for philanthropists.


I'm not misanthropic, embittered, or selfish and I still wouldn't. Why should I sacrifice myself knowing there is no reward? I don't believe in a heaven or anything like that at best I'll be stuck returning to this cage and starting from zero.

I don't even have SA anymore and can interact with people pretty normally I just don't feel anything one way or the other.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular but needs to be said all the same.

In these things people love to claim they would sacrifice themselves what a crock of **** until you've been in a situation where there is a good possibility of you getting hurt or killed you don't know the answer to believe otherwise is naive I used to think it was simple but it's not. This goes to anyone who dares to judge others for not falling into that naive I'd self sacrifice bull****.


----------



## Freiheit (Dec 8, 2008)

Depends what type of death. If a painful one, then no. Even though I don't particularly enjoy life I'm still scared of death.


----------



## HollowPrince (Dec 9, 2012)

> Why should I sacrifice myself knowing there is no reward?





> In these things people love to claim they would sacrifice themselves what a crock of **** until you've been in a situation where there is a good possibility of you getting hurt or killed you don't know the answer to believe otherwise is naive I used to think it was simple but it's not. This goes to anyone who dares to judge others for not falling into that naive I'd self sacrifice bull****.


Hilarious.There it is, Mr. know it all ^ Just cause you think so - doesn't mean it's true.I know i would do it, anytime.Why?Cause i don't really value my life.Simple as that.And be as oblivious as you want, but 26 lives will always be worth more than your, or better said, one person's life.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

At the moment yes but its not of valuing a strangers life over my own. If its peaceful and painless and quick that is. In some situations theres some people I'd prefer to die with me than live but thats not the point really.


----------



## Earl of Lemongrab (May 15, 2012)

Puppet Master said:


> I'm not misanthropic, embittered, or *selfish*





> Why should I sacrifice myself knowing there is no reward?


Contradictions like these are quite cute. Of course humans are selfish, self-centred animals, and there's no shame in admitting that you are one of them. *The definition of being selfless is being self-sacrificing without the anticipation of any reward.* The definition of being selfish, which you claim you are not, is refusing to do so in spite of the repercussions it would cost (and 26 other lives is a pretty big one, imo). Are you really that delusional that you can't even see that? I'm pretty sure the majority of other people who have answered no to this question have admitted to being selfish, at least, and there's nothing wrong with that. *It's human nature.*


----------



## sheblushed (Dec 29, 2012)

I don't know what I'd do... but I think yes, cause... saving just one person's life is like saving the whole humanity. If you believe in God, you won't be afraid of death, because you know there is an afterlife. And giving 26 other people the chance to live... i mean, it's good right...


----------



## SAgirl (Nov 15, 2003)

This reminds me of 9/11. Look at all the people who sacrificed themselves for strangers. Firefighters, EMS, etc. I think it's innately in us to want to protect others. I think I would do it especially if it were children.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

SAgirl said:


> This reminds me of 9/11. Look at all the people who sacrificed themselves for strangers. Firefighters, EMS, etc.  I think it's innately in us to want to protect others. I think I would do it especially if it were children.


I wish someone would give me some logical reason for why children deserve to live anymore than adults. I find that notion totally disgusting.


----------



## Fledgling (Jan 1, 2013)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I wish someone would give me some logical reason for why children deserve to live anymore than adults. I find that notion totally disgusting.


I think it's because children have a more extensive future to look forward to. Like, they have yet to experience what life has to offer or something. Really interesting point you have, btw.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Closed Book said:


> I think it's because children have a more extensive future to look forward to. Like, *they have yet to experience what life has to offer* or something. Really interesting point you have, btw.


Exactly, that's why i think it makes more sense to favor the person who has lived, and knows what they'd be missing. Perhaps some adults actually enjoy their life and what it has to offer? Far more tragic to lose a matured life than a young life imo.


----------



## flamingwind (Jan 1, 2013)

nope, I don't value any life more than mine. Every life has to end, I'm just not in a hurry to finish mine


----------



## sansd (Mar 22, 2006)

If I were feeling suicidal at the time, yes. Otherwise, I don't know, probably not. I would die for a single person I knew and liked a lot, but I don't like most people much.

When I was a kid, I asked my mom if she would die to save me, and she said no.


----------



## Earl of Lemongrab (May 15, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> Exactly, that's why i think it makes more sense to favor the person who has lived, and knows what they'd be missing. Perhaps some adults actually enjoy their life and what it has to offer? Far more tragic to lose a matured life than a young life imo.


Agreed, I don't think age has to do with it though. I think people are more enraged when they hear about children being killed in a shooting, similarly to how they feel when they hear about a child being raped/molested as opposed to an adult, because of their perceived innocence.


----------



## FadeToOne (Jan 27, 2011)

I just actually saw the poll results for the first time. And re-read this thread.

Wow. Wow. Dear me. Wow.

Not only are the "No" votes winning, but it seems the majority of "yes" votes are from people who say it's mostly because they don't value their lives. Meaning if they win the lottery tomorrow or get a gf/bf, you can scratch them off the list.

And it gets worse. We're not talking about just one human life. We're talking about 26 - most likely referring to the Newtown schoolchildren. 

It seems that people are honest at least, but say it isn't so, SAS. Tell me this isn't real. This is supposed to be a place for people who are different from the rest of society. The larger society is already cruel, selfish, heartless and unjust to the absolutely maximum - or so one would think. If the "outsiders" are just as bad if not worse...what hope is there for this world? Yes, life sucks majorly in many ways. Has done so since the beginning of time. But are you really going to harden your hearts and dance to its dark tune? 

I don't know if there is a devil, but if he is, he is rising a toast to this thread.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

FadeToOne said:


> I just actually saw the poll results for the first time. And re-read this thread.
> 
> Wow. Wow. Dear me. Wow.
> 
> ...


We will be sure you contact you when 26 lives are to be saved then.


----------



## FadeToOne (Jan 27, 2011)

AussiePea said:


> We will be sure you contact you when 26 lives are to be saved then.


Alright. But hopefully we can first work toward eliminating the circumstances that lead up to these lives needing rescue.


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

No I wouldn't. Strangers are strangers and therefore people I care nothing about, so.. *shrugs* maybe if it was a loved one, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself for people I don't know.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Who the **** said yes to this?


----------



## Regrets (Jan 15, 2013)

Depends on the people? idk, most likely no mater who they are, I would.


----------



## Queen of Spades (Mar 17, 2012)

No. They don't deserve it.


----------



## na0mi (Dec 25, 2012)

If you aren't family,the love of my life or close friends,then nope sorry.


----------



## Picturesque (Jan 13, 2013)

Hell no, why would I sacrifice myself for 26 strangers?

Yes, it sounds very brave and all but.. no.


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Intellectually, I would say yes....

But I can't honestly say if I would have the guts to do it when the crisis hit without warning....

It's simple arithmetic to me....

One miserable life (me) vs. 26 other lives, many of them children with possibly great futures, and families of their own, etc....

A no-brainer....

Plus, it would be nice to do something brave and admirable, just once in my life....

To have people look at my actions, and say 'Well Done!'....


----------



## FadeToOne (Jan 27, 2011)

It doesn't take an action hero to be brave and do the right thing.

This 27 year old school teacher died protecting those kids. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/victoria-soto-namesake-sc_n_2472144.html


----------



## Arthur Dent (Jan 15, 2013)

Not strangers, I would have to have some idea of who they are.

What it if was a prison bus with 26 rapist?


----------



## tk123 (Jun 27, 2012)

I would for any one of the members of my immediate family but not any stranger however many the count.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

sacrifice - no 
risk - yes


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

If I wasn't scared of dying I would


----------



## Loveless (Apr 6, 2012)

I wanna save the other person for me. If I died, what would be the point of saving that person? I wouldn't be able to be with them and when I'm long gone, I'd be forgotten. So no I would not die for any person.


----------



## AxeDroid (Jan 11, 2013)

FadeToOne said:


> I just actually saw the poll results for the first time. And re-read this thread.
> 
> Wow. Wow. Dear me. Wow.
> 
> ...


LOL! This is Humanity at its best. I'm suprised that you're suprised.


----------



## AxeDroid (Jan 11, 2013)

Arthur Dent said:


> Not strangers, I would have to have some idea of who they are.
> 
> What it if was a prison bus with 26 rapist?


Why in the hell would I be on a prison bus with 26 rapist?


----------



## Arthur Dent (Jan 15, 2013)

AxeDroid said:


> Why in the hell would I be on a prison bus with 26 rapist?


Well, the concept about being on a situation of having to save the life of 26 strangers... seems to random.

I can think of of example, your car broke in the middle of nowhere and the fist thing that passed by was the prison bus, so they're giving you a ride until the next gas station.


----------



## AxeDroid (Jan 11, 2013)

Arthur Dent said:


> Well, the concept about being on a situation of having to save the life of 26 strangers... seems to random.
> 
> I can think of of example, your car broke in the middle of nowhere and the fist thing that passed by was the prison bus, so they're giving you a ride until the next gas station.


First of all, they would not give me a ride(breach of protocol), 2nd: I got a phone(AAA), and 3rd: unless I got no legs I can walk to the nearest gas station.


----------



## Lacking Serotonin (Nov 18, 2012)

I am an altruistic person at heart, so yes.


----------



## M90 (Jan 10, 2013)

RIP Strangers.


----------



## Irvine (May 30, 2012)

It's a righteous thing to do for some people, but I don't want/have to be right so no.


----------



## musiclover55 (Feb 7, 2011)

It depends on if they would feel appreciative or not. I'm not going to die for someone who wouldn't give a damn.


----------



## Remnant of Dawn (Feb 22, 2012)

No. I am a coward and fear death, and as such I would let the entirety of the human population suffer extermination before I gave up my own life. It doesn't matter that I know, morally, that the lives of a billion people should always be worth more than one. To me, my life is all of existence, and without it I am nothing.

I'm not sure how I feel about other people doing this-I'm glad that it is done, I suppose, but I don't hold any more respect for someone because they sacrificed their life for another-I feel that every animal (and human being) has the right to defend its life as its primary concern without being viewed as "evil" or "selfish". This is simply the way of nature.


----------



## indigoXdaisy (Jan 22, 2013)

I would absolutely sacrifice my life for twenty-six strangers. I have nothing going for me, while most of those people probably would. They'd have families who care about them, people who need them. My single, sad life is substantially less important than that of twenty-six strangers'. If I had something to look forward to, then yeah, I might not sacrifice my life. But I don't, and that's that.


----------



## Alas Babylon (Aug 28, 2012)

Yeah, I would. I would never be able to live knowing 26 others had to die for me.


----------



## puppy (Jun 27, 2012)

Hell no. As far as I'm concerned the 26 should never have put themselves in a position such that my death was required for their continued existence.


----------



## NoHeart (May 5, 2012)

I would have to say no... sorry I'm not that noble :/


----------



## worldcitizen (Aug 28, 2011)

Absolutely. I don't value my life one tiny bit. I'd even sacrifice it to save a cat.


----------



## Wrong Galaxy (Aug 13, 2010)

Absolutey YES!.I hate my life would rather save them 26.


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

Yes. I consider my life pretty much worthless. Plus, I would rot inside knowing I could have saved them if I didn't. It doesn't matter if I'm remembered or not. I'll not what I did, right before everything goes dark forever.


----------



## Charmander (Sep 5, 2012)

If I knew I had the power to save them, then yes. Why waste 26 lives that will probably go on to do better things than someone who doesn't really value their life all that much?


----------



## cosmicslop (Nov 24, 2012)

Most likely no. Why would it be a surprise to anyone if someone wants to be selfish about being able to live their life and look out for their own safety. I'm not an object for sacrifice. I'm a human and I have a right over my life more than anyone else.


----------



## TryingMara (Mar 25, 2012)

This is one of those situations where we can't say for sure. Many of us can try to be noble and give an emphatic "yes!", but when in the moment we may be so struck with terror that we're unable to move. I work with little ones, and all I can say is that I wouldn't be able to live with myself if something happened to them that I could have stopped, whether I know them or not. I hope in the case of children, something would kick in inside of all of us that would have us do whatever we could to shield them from anything threatening.


----------



## ApathyDivine (Feb 28, 2012)

It's hard to say. I'm selfish and value my own life, but I', not sure how I would react to people about to be murdered. I'd probably be too frozen in fear to do anything


----------



## morped (Jan 25, 2013)

*Honestly can't say I would.*

Even with my anxiety and sometimes anti social tendencies I am still a people person who loves watching the down trodden triumph and wishes he could make a difference for the less fortunate (but you know anxiety and all that). I help people when ever I can but honestly I have so many goals in life that I haven't accomplished and I have yet to feel truly happy that I don't feel like I am nearly ready to die yet.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I don't value my life much, but I think that has nothing to do with how I would react in a violent situation. I would protect even certain animals from harm, even if it meant harm to myself. If my home was broken into and the intruder was homicidal I would confront him first to protect those I love. I couldn't live with my myself otherwise.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

Lol. Absolutely not! I love people but unless it's my immediate family there's no chance in hell. So many people are dying this very second. Death is a natural part of life and I'm at peace with that. I'll be damned if I sign my life over for a stranger. I want to live.


----------



## saganist (Nov 28, 2012)

Depends on the people.

If it would be 26 scientists of any kind, then yes.
If it would be 26 average people who follow "Big Brother", then absolutely no.


----------



## bluecrime (Jan 27, 2013)

I’m too much of a selfish git to do so


----------



## ShyFX (Mar 6, 2006)

I'd like to say yes but I wouldn't know unless I was in that situation. I'd probably chicken out.


----------



## DesertStar91 (Feb 1, 2012)

I would. I've lived a pretty interesting okay life.


----------



## toutenkarthon (May 14, 2012)

26 would be ideal. Realistically speaking, I would sacrifice it for one person.
I would do so because I believe in the afterlife, so I believe that we never really "die." I have done the things that I wanted to do in this life so I am willing to give away my life for another person.


----------



## Marooned86 (Nov 30, 2012)

I most definitely would.


----------



## Dark Shines (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes. I wouldn't be able to bear the weight of my conscience knowing that I'd deliberately condemned 26 people to death, in order for me to live. It would gut me from the inside out and I would self-destruct.


----------



## monotonous (Feb 1, 2013)

no i wont sacrifice myself to save the whole world


----------



## TheExplosionist (Apr 13, 2009)

I'd sacrifice 7 billion strangers to save myself.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

In a heartbeat.


----------



## laetus (Nov 23, 2012)

I wouldn't sacrifice myself for them even if they were being tortured to their last breath, be it 26 or whatever number.


----------



## Levibebop (Feb 15, 2013)

I'd sacrifice myself for just one life. I feel as if saving another would make up for all the wrong I've done.


----------



## Implicate (Feb 1, 2011)

TheExplosionist said:


> I'd sacrifice 7 billion strangers to save myself.


I am on board with this thought.


----------



## saltyleaf (Dec 30, 2011)

obvious answer is yes. wouldnt be so hard for me to do considering how much of my life SA has destroyed.


----------



## Marooned86 (Nov 30, 2012)

saltyleaf said:


> obvious answer is yes. wouldnt be so hard for me to do considering how much of my life SA has destroyed.


Exactly how I feel.

With all the people here that have (thus far) had such crappy life experiences, you'd think that they'd be open to the idea of allowing others the chance to live a more fruitful one.


----------



## extremly (Oct 25, 2012)

God is hard to answer depending on the scenario really. Either way lets pretend they are complete strangers

lol I often go out of my way to impress girls. If a really hot girl was part of the 26 and she got to see how much of a gentleman I was, I would probably do it lmao.

If there was no way for the girl to see I actually sacrificed my life for her no.

*Note: all of this is considering is a group of 26 strangers, I have absolutely no relation or previous knowledge of them or about their lives.

I guess I would also sacrifise myself regardless of whether or not I know the persons if it plays out to be some sort of terror situation (say a shooting breaks out and I have to sacrifice myself so people can get away) ,I wouldn't mind.


----------



## rifulcube (Jan 1, 2013)

nah...no !

Why would i do that for 26 strangers? 

If there were people that i know personally then i might consider it.


----------

