posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:53 AM
a reply to: MrSensible
All life has value and we should if truly ethical regard all other people with an empathy seeing ourselves in there place.
To weigh the value of these three lives is not truly ethical but if I take it from my own choice I would value the child above the other two since he
has his whole life ahead and still believe in the woman and children first mentality.
Second I Would have to struggle to think on that, why is the career criminal such a person and was he a victim, has he murdered people and how old is
the nobel laureat and how much can he still give, has his personal life saved live's and does that count to place him second behind the child.
Regardless I would place it like this, child first, scientist second (he may still be saving lives) and criminal third.
If I was the captain of the ship that was sinking then I would be fourth even if there were only three place's in the life boat.
As for the gunman scenario, if I had to choose it would be the child obviously since I would ASSUME the scientist would be likewise inclined, If the
scenario was a little different and I had to choose one to die or all three would die and there was no choice then god forgive I would have to choose
the criminal since the scientist may still save lives even if he is an old man and the child once again is a total innocent.
Best of all world's I would have a fully drilled SAS squad with there mp5's raid the site and shoot the gunman through his medulla oblongata before
he could pull the trigger, that is how they saved the lives in the Iranian embassy siege in london with the help of a few flash bang's.
As for the title of the thread, A human life has infinite or it is at least to those that have any empathy at all.
edit on 6-7-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)