Morality Question: Would you let a stranger die or let your house become worthless?

[MavsSuperFan]

Suppose God (or whatever force you believe in or pretend you believe in some force that controls the universe) gave you the option of one random stranger you know nothing about dying or that your house would become worthless.

Eg. your house becomes infested heavily with black mold, pests, burns down, your town floods, an earthquake happens, etc. And your insurance doesnt cover it for some reason.

Do you value a strangers life enough that you would rather your own personal financial net worth take a huge hit?

[AlphaWolf24]

save the House...

It's the biggest investment most people will ever make.







next

[christian1923]

Suppose God (or whatever force you believe in or pretend you believe in some force that controls the universe) gave you the option of one random stranger you know nothing about dying or that your house would become worthless.

Eg. your house becomes infested heavily with black mold, pests, burns down, your town floods, an earthquake happens, etc. And your insurance doesnt cover it for some reason.

Do you value a strangers life enough that you would rather your own personal financial net worth take a huge hit?

A stranger dies.

[longhornfan1234]

Stranger die. I only care about myself and my daughter.

[Dresta]

Why would killing someone prevent my house from losing its value? You can't abnegate responsibility by bringing up the abstract being of God in a hypothetical. It makes it completely pointless. A better question would be would you willingly overlook the killing of people for financial gain, and then maybe making it even more specific? The vague language of your hypothetical also makes it meaningless (it can be interpreted in two ways).

[DeuceWallaces]

Why would killing someone prevent my house from losing its value? You can't abnegate responsibility by bringing up the abstract being of God in a hypothetical. It makes it completely pointless. A better question would be would you willingly overlook the killing of people for financial gain, and then maybe making it even more specific? The vague language of your hypothetical also makes it meaningless (it can be interpreted in two ways).

Why would someone have to die for a random animal or my pet? You just spent 2 pages debating that bullshit but somehow this has crossed your hypothetical line.

[Done_And_Done]

I think the responses you'll glean will weigh heavily on whether one actually has to interact, meet, or witness this individual dying. I could see it being difficult for many to destruct their most valued possession to rescue a life that will never be visible to them.

[-p.tiddy-]

If a deity or "God" gives you this option?...you better put the fckin stranger's life over your house

[Dresta]

Why would someone have to die for a random animal or my pet? You just spent 2 pages debating that bullshit but somehow this has crossed your hypothetical line.

No i didn't: that debate had crossed into something quite different. I never said anything about your pet or anything at all about that hypothetical. Go back and read that thread because you are evidently confusing my with somebody else.

[russwest0]

Kill the stranger. We overpopulated as it is.

[gts]

Obviously I'm choosing the house.. Have to have a place to keep the 10 animals I saved from the other thread

[Jasi]

If a deity or "God" gives you this option?...you better put the fckin stranger's life over your house

We have a winner

[MavsSuperFan]

Why would killing someone prevent my house from losing its value? You can't abnegate responsibility by bringing up the abstract being of God in a hypothetical. It makes it completely pointless. A better question would be would you willingly overlook the killing of people for financial gain, and then maybe making it even more specific? The vague language of your hypothetical also makes it meaningless (it can be interpreted in two ways).

I wanted the choice to be harder.

Its easier to give up a potential gain than it is to lose something you already have.
Its a hypothetical. I have no idea why you oppose the presence of god in the question as that was totally irrelevant to the question.

If you wanted it to be more real, fine pretend you live in a dictatorship and have a relatively good life. the dictator decided to mess with you for shits and giggles and told you he will randomly kill another citizen or burn down your house. Its your choice which he does.

The question's purpose is to gauge how much you value a random strangers life, in comparison to your own person property.

[Dresta]

I wanted the choice to be harder.

Its easier to give up a potential gain than it is to lose something you already have.
Its a hypothetical. I have no idea why you oppose the presence of god in the question as that was totally irrelevant to the question.

If you wanted it to be more real, fine pretend you live in a dictatorship and have a relatively good life. the dictator decided to mess with you for shits and giggles and told you he will randomly kill another citizen or burn down your house. Its your choice which he does.

The question's purpose is to gauge how much you value a random strangers life, in comparison to your own person property.

See, that makes it much easier. If a dictator is 'messing with you for shits and giggles' it is his responsibility whoever he chooses to kill, and you must do what is necessary to protect yourself. If i refuse to let my property be destroyed, whether this dictator chooses to kill someone or not has nothing to do with me.

[Akrazotile]

See, that makes it much easier. If a dictator is 'messing with you for shits and giggles' it is his responsibility whoever he chooses to kill, and you must do what is necessary to protect yourself. If i refuse to let my property be destroyed, whether this dictator chooses to kill someone or not has nothing to do with me.

What if he told you that you had to either kill the stranger or burn your own house, else he kills you?