It depends. If it is somebody not worth saving (ie, somebody determined to commit suicide or murder or the like), then I would choose the money as the life would be wasted or misused. Otherwise, I would clearly choose the life.
Hmm.. An infinite amount of money doesn't sound so great. In the end, money is just worth the values people assign to it.
I'd assume if I was to save a life, it'd be the life of someone that isn't hopelessly degenerate. I dunno. I still choose saving a life over an infinite amount of money.
Infinite amount of money = Unlimited research facilities Unlimited research facilities = Cures for cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases Cures for cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases = Save more than one life
Infinite amount of money = Unlimited research facilities
I'm skeptical of the value of having an infinite amount of paper and coins worth money.
If you're talking about something worth an effectively infinite amount of money, then I'm on board.
I'm not really sure if you can have "unlimited" research facilities, but a vast wealth sure speeds things up.
Money wins again.
In due time.
Hmm.. I just thought more about this and I'm really sitting on the fence here. Mainly because this thread is too general? Saving a life? How? What life? What circumstances?
I'm not really sure if you can have "unlimited" research facilities, but a vast wealth sure speeds things up.
As in, as much research going on at once as possible.
It's very late, so if some of the things I say cease to make sense, I have an excuse (this time).
In due time.
Well, if you're patient enough, the money option can save many more lives. If you want to save a single life right now, but it would mean cancer and AIDS won't be cured for who knows how long, I don't think it's really worth it just to save that one life.
Well, if you're patient enough, the money option can save many more lives. If you want to save a single life right now, but it would mean cancer and AIDS won't be cured for who knows how long, I don't think it's really worth it just to save that one life.
I have to say, you reminded me about why an infinite amount of money is much better than saving one life.
I hate these general questions, especially the ones that seem to be dumbed-down ethical dilemmas.
I have to say, you reminded me about why an infinite amount of money is much better than saving one life.
Capitalism is a way of life, and I am a believer.
Even though I've never been focused on earning large amounts of money, I do believe that money can triumph in any hypothetical situation such as this one.
I would prefer save a life (especially if it is about somebody whom I know), of course.
But I think lot of people would prefer be rich, and let someone die. They would say "A lot of people die everydays. So one person furthermore, it's not serious." But for me, it is.
do I get any money for saving the life? no. I take the cash.
That's sort of my logic, but I prefer to put the money I earn to a good cause rather than just take the cash and spend it on myself.
I can do that anyway. It's unlimited.
But I think lot of people would prefer be rich, and let someone die.
It wouldn't technically be your fault if they died, unless it was you who was initially responsible for their death. If, however, you encounter people suffering from a life-threatening disease, but you've already saved that one life, you're going to feel mighty guilty that you could have potentially saved many more lives than just the one. You'd also start to wonder why that person you saved ended up being more important than every human being who will suffer an uncureable life-threatening disease in the next century.
who says I wouldnt do that eventually? it just wouldnt be my number 1 priority, but Id probably get around to solving world problems right after I declare myself ruler of the free world.
