# Morality test. (How will different types answer?)



## CreepyArcher (Mar 26, 2015)

No way.
I'm not going to give this miracle drug that is possibly impossible to recreate to a stranger. Especially a murderer. I don't care if it was a revenge killing, he still killed people and the drug could be put to better use. If I keep the drug I could try and synthesize more! Besides, most sane people in that situation would be claiming remorse, even if they weren't actually remorseful.


----------



## keiralexa (Nov 23, 2014)

I feel guilty simply reading the scenario, because a man is dying and crying out for my help, and yet I'm contemplating whether to provide it. He’s in excruciating pain and if I don’t save him, the last feeling he’ll ever have before death is the feeling of despair and abandonment, and a view of someone walking away when he most needs comfort and care. 

You see, right now when I’m viewing it from a detached perspective, the answer seems rather straightforward. No, actually, you deserve little sympathy. Why should you live when you’ve taken pleasure in robbing people’s life away? Families are grieving because of you, they’re enduring sorrow and the ache of absence everyday and scarred forever. You don’t deserve to be saved. But then when I delve further, aren’t I in some roundabout obscured way doing the same thing? Isn’t it kinda hypocritical? Watching his life being taken away? Pained but essentially indifferent by his upcoming death to not warrant any action from me? His passing might bring some closure to his victims’ families, but it will haunt me I’m sure. 

First of course, I’ll whip out my phone and call for the ambulance. It’s the least I can do for him. But also the POlice. So he can be convicted for his crimes whether he comes out of this dead or alive. 

The next part is difficult, because in theory, I’d prefer donate this pill to scientists to study so it can be manufactured in larger quantities to rescue so many more lives. The cancer patients, drunk driving victims…etc….or in the event that someone I love might come to need it in the future too. I know I wouldn’t give him the pill, but honestly I don’t know whether in reality when I feel him suffering and pleading that I won’t be swayed by his pain?? Like I can see the amazing merits of withholding the drug and potentially saving thousands of lives but I don’t want him to be in agony! Dafuq, this is confusing!


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

Meltboy said:


> I would love to try and understand everyone who saved the guy.


I'd save the guy because:

1. No one else needs the drug right now. If that is not the case, my answer is different.

2. There is a possibility of more drugs in the future, and I don't believe that there could only be 1 magic pill. No one would be stupid enough to just make one.

3. If I have to choose life or death for someone, I choose life. It is not my place to condemn a man to death by my inaction. If he has killed before, if he is a horrible person, that is what our court system is for. If I let him die, that makes me a murderer, at least in my mind. I choose not to live with that guilt.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I would save him, because I don't believe anyone has the right to decide if another person lives or dies, regardless of who they are (barring situations such as self-defense, protecting someone else in an immediate sense etc). We can punish them, of course, but taking away a life is never okay, because we have no way of being knowing what is really going on inside their head. 

I would also save him just to protect myself from possibly feeling guilty about it for the rest of my life. Guilt over something like that would stick with you for your entire life and might even get blown out of proportion in your head. I don't want to have to live with that.


----------



## Rice (Apr 27, 2014)

How did I find out the guy murdered people in the first place? This scenario raises too many questions.

But ignoring those questions, I'd probably give it to the guy. If I hung onto it, it'd constantly weigh on my mind. When is the best time to use it? Should I give it to someone who seems worthy or should I save it for myself? What would even be considered "worthy"? Plus I'd have to hang onto the pill for who knows how long, so fuck it. I'll just give it to that guy and make things easier for myself.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.
> ...



No, he's just one guy, this is a small concern there is misery all over the world this drug could assist with. I must find out how this drug it works, millions of lives might be at stake. I head to my cities university, or a pharmaceutical corporation. I need to find a chemistry professor. Perhaps I can sell the drug and make some money on side, fortunately I live in a society which rewards discovery and good work. I will need the help of professional chemists and a large corporation to reverse engineer the drug and distribute it to the world, saving millions of lives.
To convince the pharmaceutical corporation, I will give the dying man a small dose to keep him alive for a short time. So they can use him for testing.
It would be evil to save one guy when I may have the option to save millions. My own mortality and this dying man, are all secondary issues. There are much more important concerns, this drug could be vital to humanity.



My type is INTJ.


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

I would talk to him and afterwards come to my decision. If time allowed.

Assume I'm INTJ I suppose.


----------



## Ausserirdische (May 2, 2015)

I use it.
If I discover the persons he killed were innocents, then I kill him afterwards, but if he killed them for a good reason, I let him be.

Problem solved.


----------



## metaphor (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd save him, assuming that the two people he killed had done something terrible -- like kill someone for example. 

Not sure how I feel about him enjoying killing the person though, even if it was as a revenge. Perhaps those people had tortured and inflicted so much pain in his life that killing them somewhat became enjoyable.

Too many facts missing...so I'd probably end up sparing his life, because the other choice would be irreversible. If he's an actual killer, I'd rather have him spend his entire life at the most miserable, isolated prison, so that he can also get beat up by other inmates.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

NuclearKiller42 said:


> I use it.
> If I discover the persons he killed were innocents, then I kill him afterwards, but if he killed them for a good reason, I let him be.
> 
> Problem solved.



Typical INTP.  Try every solution at once.


----------



## Buran (Nov 2, 2014)

Meltboy said:


> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)


If the drug can be reproduced, then I don't waste it on him. I take it to a laboratory to be analysed for mass production. But assuming that it can't be reproduced...



Meltboy said:


> The man has murdered 2 people in his life and enjoyed it. They were separate occasions (a year between them). You don't know why he did it. Maybe they killed his family and he was taking revenge. Maybe he just enjoys inflicting pain and fear and killing. It's been 10 years since the last time he killed and it's possible he will never kill again. He's claiming great remorse for his actions and begging for help. If you don't save him you won't be in trouble in anyway (prison or anything).
> 
> Do you save him?


It's not my place to decide who lives or who dies. I save his life, then take him to the police.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

Buran said:


> If the drug can be reproduced, then I don't waste it on him. I take it to a laboratory to be analysed for mass production. But assuming that it can't be reproduced...



It would be a substance, matter. An arrangement of protons, neutrons and electrons like everything else. If its can exist it can be reproduced. It's just a matter of research. 




> It's not my place to decide who lives or who dies. I save his life, then take him to the police.


That I would agree with, for I am glad to live in a society in which justice is managed by a well thought out system and not the chaos of vigilantes.


----------



## Generalsurvival (Jun 7, 2015)

I would dare the man to try and kill me right now if he really wants the drug that badly...if he tries, then I'm not giving him the drug and kill/disable him for self defense.
Dialogue would go something like this:

Stranger: "I'm not going to kill you!"
Me: "Why not, you've killed before, why don't you just do it again?"
Stranger: "I'm dying here! Those killings were for my own personal reasons...reasons you won't understand!"
Me: "I don't care....if you want the drug, you have to kill me even if you are going to die...For all you know, I might be a insane psychopath that has murdered little kids. You're running out of time, in a few minutes, the ambulance will come and take you"
Stranger: "I don't believe you."
Me: "Alright...if you don't believe me, then, what gives you the right to kill for your reasons knowing that there will be severe consequences? If you truly think that those people deserved to die, then you should have no problem in submitting yourself seeing as you are the one who took the problem in your own hands and completed your mission, and therefore, must be punished no matter what."


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


I'm an INTJ.

I think I would be inclined to save him, only if his remorse seemed genuine though. I'd need to assess whether I thought he planned on killing someone again. So, I would save him on the basis that I believed him to not be a threat to society or others. If it seemed like he wasn't genuine and was capable of harming someone innocent, then I wouldn't save him.

It's hard to say. Ideally, I'd require much more information, but given the limited facts that I do know, I think I would save him. If he seems unsavory afterwards, society can always sort him out too.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Meltboy said:


> I would love to try and understand everyone who saved the guy.
> 
> It's surely an irrational move to save this man's life, unless of course you're going to make use of him somehow like Hikikomori contemplated. Isn't it?
> 
> ...


I don't know that I would say life is "sacred". I just know that there's a lot I don't understand, and I'm not really in a moral position to decide what it means to "deserve" to live or die. 

This particular situation is too limited in terms of the information I have. Maybe he enjoyed it because he was severely mentally ill, maybe he was getting revenge, not to say these things make it OKAY or JUSTIFIED. But what matters to me would be the likelihood of him re-offending. And unless I know that saving him will cause further harm overall, then I go with what I do know, which is that he's dying and I can save him.

If he killed my parents? Ten years ago? I don't know. I fortunately have not experienced the tragedy of having my parents murdered. I would say it's likely I'd hesitate to give the drug, but I won't say that that's a logical response on my part. It would be emotional. Which is sometimes okay.

If he'd killed MANY MANY people? I dunno, I'd probably withhold the drug because it seems likely he'd continue to kill. Likely enough that I don't want to chance it. Still not claiming this to be a logical or correct decision, but it's the one I'd probably make,

THAT SAID. The drug is really the complicating factor for me. If more good, on a much wider scale, could be done by holding onto it, I would be inclined to hold onto it... regardless of whether or not I had the choice to save this guy, or a saint.


----------



## Insightful_Idiot (May 26, 2015)

No.
This guy might be a great guy and all but everybody begs for their life and shows remorse when faced with their own mortality. I'm not going to judge the guy. He may have murdered for vengeance and might even be a good guy but he's not "Give the *only* dose of miracle drug" good. For the good of the earth, this drug needs to be studied extensively. Preferably under armed guard and scientists that have no kids or family. Parents do some crazy selfish and dumb shit for their kids.

I wouldn't do *nothing* though. I'd call an ambulance and comfort him in his last moments.

Even if this miracle drug were to be used on only one person, you'd think you'd save it for someone who had an incurable disease.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Meltboy said:


> I was shocked by both an ENTP and an ENFP (ENTP may have been you?).
> I figured ENTP's would come to the same conclusion as me and not save the guy, but someone (you?) saved him and explained why.
> I was certain that if all the INFP's were saving the guy, then all the ENFP's would do the same. This is not the case at least in one instance (Like I said I haven't gone through and checked yet so may have happened a lot).


Me.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Yeah, I would probably save him.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Meltboy said:


> I would love to try and understand everyone who saved the guy.
> 
> It's surely an irrational move to save this man's life, unless of course you're going to make use of him somehow like Hikikomori contemplated. Isn't it?
> 
> ...


I don't care if he chopped my arm off. Well, I do. Then I'd punch n spit him before I administer the medicine.

EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE! No matter if he is Hitler himself. Even Hitler can be redeemed.

The Good prevails!

edit: if he wastes the chance that I gave him...I would prolly hunt him down and make him pay. But he deserves a chance!


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

I'd call the ambulance + police. I can't even decide what to order for lunch, a criminal's life isn't my business.
I'd save the drug for later. Probably for myself or my parents.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

I would save him, no doubt. 

I don't have the right to decide myself to let this person die, no matter my feelings on the matter.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

No, it's not *just *the fact he murdered two people, it's also that he *enjoyed it*. 
How do we know to trust him anyway?

The drug should be saved and used on people who really deserve it, like an innocent child dying of cancer who wasn't really given a chance to live before they could die. Or a benevolent genius who would aid the world by creating amazing medical cures to awful diseases to save others lives, more than one drug would do.

You have the power to save the life of anyone in the world, you need to use is wisely, I would rather use it on someone who might save lives or have a chance at living themselves than someone who has taken it already, and might even do so again.


----------



## itselly (Jun 6, 2015)

Well, No I wouldn't save him!
No really because of what he did or who he was, but because I I only have one of those miracle drugs, I prefer to keep it for a loved one like a close family member I truly love, or a significant other, not a random guy.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

Yes, I would save him. Why is killing him/letting him die any of my business? Why should I be the one to get to decide whether he lives? Why am I so special that I know letting him die is a good idea? That's totally whack. Life is the more morally neutral option in this case, for me.

He might have killed those people out of desperate self-defense. Maybe he killed them serving his country...not something that I particularly care about, but I know a lot of people whose minds would be changed by that. Maybe he was a doctor and killed them by accident on the operating table. Obviously this is too simple a scenario!


----------



## MrQuestion (Aug 27, 2014)

I would not save him. An individual who has murdered another person AND enjoyed it is a threat to society, and should be punished.
As others have said: My primary intention would be saving the drug for later use; why use it on a person who has done wrong, when I could use it on someone more deserving, or on myself?


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, they murdered two people approx 10 years ago- shouldn't they already be sentences to life imprisonment in jail?
Assuming they haven't been caught, I'll give him the miracle drug and give him a life sentence.
I do not want to be called a murderer as well, you see, that is a huge burden to deal with. Assuming the miracle drug only works in this situation.
You said he enjoyed it, does that seem like an act of defense to you, or a word coming from a mentally disturbed individual? He may be a psychopath on the loose. I don't think any normal human being would find joy in killing another human being, twice. You said he felt remorse after it. Why? Because he is dying and wants to show me he feels bad for it, so I can save him. That is only a hunch, however. This is the reason he should be locked.

EDIT: Nice scenario.


----------



## Iama (Jun 8, 2015)

I wouldn't save him. I have a miraculous drug, why spending it for someone that I don't even know? If he deserve it or not, that's not really important. I would probably think about it until he died, until I realize I haven't done anything (but that wouldn't bother me, to be honest.)


----------



## Jagdpanther (May 16, 2015)

Nope, I would just sit here and tell him I'll give him the drug, but I would take it out of his mouth at the last moment, then walk away like an asshole.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

I'd call 911. Why waste the drug? If he's truly dying he ought to be in the hospital ASAP. Honestly I've hardened myself to wretches.


----------



## Meltboy (May 14, 2013)

Some of you guys are hilarious.
@Jagdpanther - Your answer is the funniest so far (I know this isn't a comedy test but you're winning anyway).


----------



## Jagdpanther (May 16, 2015)

@Meltboy Thanks. huhu


----------



## PPM (Apr 7, 2013)

IF (1) the drug was only suited for his specific (and preferably rare) condition and (2) the people he killed were not my friends and family, I would save him. It's not my responsibility to punish him and I don't have the authority to decide to take another person's life. I don't want to feel guilty for choosing to let a stranger die. If I didn't care about him before, I don't want to care about him after this.

However, if I could use the drug for anything and he killed someone I care about, to hell with what I've said above - he dies and I keep the drug.

I think this question might have been easier to answer if he was about to fall off a cliff and you had the option to save him or to let him fall to his death. Either action wouldn't cost you anything in this scenario. The possibility of the miracle drug saving other people or yourself makes the decision less about judging the morality of his actions and more about you having to give up a valuable commodity to save the life of a stranger.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

INTP:

If the miracle drug had been scientifically proven to work as advertised, then it would be in such high demand that Big Pharma would be producing it very very quickly.

If the sample of the drug that I already have might be the only sample I ever get, then the medical community's confidence in the drug's safety clearly hasn't reached that point, and I would rather test it for potential side effects on a dying murderer than on a dying innocent :wink:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I'd care about saving the mans life, I don't care about his past actions or possible lack of remorse, in that moment its just about saving another humans life.

Although..

I wouldn't use the drug, I don't think. I'd do everything else in my power to save him. I'd want to save the drug though, and study it, possibly learn how to mass produce drugs like that.


----------



## Handsome Jack (May 31, 2015)

ENTJ:

I'd let him die but call for help. I'd sell the drug and/or save it for someone in my family.


----------



## TimeWaster (Apr 26, 2015)

I would consult an internet thread before making a decision.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

westlose said:


> I won't save someone who enjoyed killing people. There's probably someone who deserves this drug more than him.
> 
> .


Sounds like you enjoy killing "certain" people.


----------



## untested methods (May 8, 2015)

Yes, because his punishment isn't mine to decide.


----------



## Ninebirds (Jul 7, 2012)

Yes, without a moment's hesitation. I would then contact the police about the murders.


----------



## Insightful_Idiot (May 26, 2015)

Ixim said:


> I don't care if he chopped my arm off. Well, I do. Then I'd punch n spit him before I administer the medicine.
> 
> EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE! No matter if he is Hitler himself. Even Hitler can be redeemed.
> 
> ...


Let me ask you this... would you enjoy killing him? 

If so I think we just got the backstory of the dying man lol


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

Jagdpanther said:


> Nope, I would just sit here and tell him I'll give him the drug, but I would take it out of his mouth at the last moment, then walk away like an asshole.












- "Please.."

"Too late. Ciao." erc2:


----------



## SoulScream (Sep 17, 2012)

Oh yes I will. Having a murdered owing you his life might be handy later on


----------



## RoseateThorns (May 4, 2015)

Man who hadn't murdered the people: Probably, yes. 

But he took the lives of two people, why should I save his? Why am I in this position anyway? Am I a doctor? In this case it is my job so of course I'd use it. I really don't care why he did it. I am against murder, I wouldn't purposely kill a murderer but would I save one? I could give the drug to someone else who hadn't taken the live's of two others. 
As the person above says, it could be beneficial, but who knows? He might murder you to get out of the dept. 

In conclusion: He clearly doesn't value the lives of others, so why should others value his?
I might give him the medicine /cure, but to be honest, it would more be to clear my conscience than to save him. Dx


----------



## RoseateThorns (May 4, 2015)

Adore said:


> It's impossible to tell what the "right" choice is with such limited information. Did he kill those people for revenge? Okay, maybe they did something absolutely detestable. Was he a soldier? Maybe he was protecting his country. But why did he enjoy doing it? Was he mentally ill? What is the state of the world in this scenario? Why do I have this drug? Is it commonly available? There are too many variables. Maybe there is no right choice at all.
> 
> A few hours ago my boyfriend and I were having a conversation about the lives of the few verses the lives of the many. It's hard to sacrifice a life that has a face. It's hard to justify a death once they've become "real." I know that if I had to make this decision it would be very difficult. No matter what I say right now in my head or how I could justify it, once I talk to this person they're real. They are claiming remorse for what they've done. People deserve a second chance, right? I should help them. I will help them. But no, I won't give them the drug. I'll call 911 and do whatever I can until help arrives. A miracle drug has potential to save many lives. What if that's the only pill of it's kind? I simply can't take that chance. I want scientists to reverse engineer it. Honestly maybe that has some bad implications too. But there's just no way to tell so this is my conclusion. Hopefully the man lives. If he dies then I will just have to live with that.


This.


----------



## originalsin (Sep 4, 2014)

(This is assuming the drug is scarce). 
I would tell the man to give me a reason why I should use the drug to save him instead of someone else who is dying and could use it. I would also offer him redemption: refuse the drug and it will be given to a child who is also dying from something similiar. I would then tell the child (after saving him/her) about the man who refused the medication so that they would live, and the dying murderer would be at least partially redeemed. 

Alternatively, if the drug wasn't scarce, I would just give it to him, mainly so I can live with an easy (or easier) conscience.


----------



## Saevor (Jun 18, 2015)

Maybe I'll save it for people that I know by myself and that I know who they are and if they are the right person to give it to. Maybe I'll take it myself or probably I'll give it to my daughter, because I know for sure that it's not gonna be wasted that way (or maybe it'll be in the future, but I don't think very much in a distant future :th_blush: ).


----------



## Doran Seth (Apr 4, 2015)

I understand why someone would prefer to save the drug for another person or otherwise choose not to save the individual. However I don't think it is fair to say he does not deserve it or someone else deserves it more. I think it comes down to the depth of your compassion.

Compassion can be defined as sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

It is easy to feel sympathy for a loved one or an innocent victim who is suffering. But feeling compassion for someone you dislike or hate is the true test. One who is truly compassionate would not see the man in the example as just a murderer, but as a person who is suffering. 

If you choose not to save the man because you think he would likely kill again, that makes sense. This would be consideration of the safety of others. If you would like to save the drug for yourself or loved ones that also makes sense, as this guy is a stranger and you would prefer to help those close to you. However, not saving him just because you know he has killed is inhumane. That would require making a judgment on the value of his life and believing his life is worth less than that of someone who you feel deserves to be saved.


Anyway, what would I do? I would save the drug for someone else who I think deserves it more.


----------



## Lady D (Mar 17, 2013)

I would save him, chain him and make him my slave. I think I might be an ISFP. I tought an INFP at first but you see, I am too evil and calculating for that.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


I don't see how this is a morality test. It's more a mercy test.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Peter said:


> I don't see how this is a morality test. It's more a mercy test.


Mercy is an aspect of morality. It's a test of what moral values people hold.


----------



## Sefii (Jun 17, 2015)

I'll give him a little bit of drug, just to keep him alive.


----------



## Arakkun (Jun 2, 2014)

I'll probably handcuff his hands, give him the drug, call the police,and let him regret his actions by jailing him for all his life, given I'm in a country where he wouldn't get a Death Sentence. If I'm in a country where a death sentence is possible, it will depend on the moment though, depending on who he killed and whether I can/not forgive him.


----------



## Miss_Violet (Mar 31, 2015)

Um, can I say something that might not be the point or might just be irrelevant for everyone else? But don't anyone think that these morality tests have kinda a little "flaw" in them - like, it's so easier to judge when it's just a imaginary situation and the answer doesn't matter... would everyone make the same choice if it was really real (even if you could take that "intincts" stuff from the equation and were only thinking on logics and feelings of good and wrong at the moment)?

Like, when the man doesn't exist, you can more easily simply decide to apply some kind of "universal moral law" you have, example "he killed, he must be punished. I can punish him here by letting him die. So that's the answer" - but like this I have this impression we're not really judging the _case_ itself, just dropping some pre-made answer on it... Um... am I wrong?

If I was there and it was real, I wouldn't dare to rely only on my fallible little self to make a decision so huge as if another person, murderer or not, should live or die. I'd have to save him, or I'd spend my whole life questioning myself about it. It doesn't matter if he deserves it or not - I hope he really is being honest when saying he regrets it, and I hope he changes, and I'll be frustrated if he doesn't after all the inner trouble I had to save the idiot - ...and here is where Fi gets too crazy for me to understand what I'm thinking. Okay, he's a being with counsciousness, but who can make mistakes which can lead to bad things, but if this mistakes are from a wrong judgment, it can be solved with the right arguments and some time, and if it's a manufacture defect, there's probably no way to solve it, but then it's not his fault, at the same time, so he probably should just be locked up somewhere where he won't harm anyone.
...Was it this I was thinking...? ah, it will do.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


Um...no. I will save it just incase this disease/illness is contagious.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


Hah, I'd look at him with a sort of sad contempt and walk away.
There are better people that deserve to be saved.

Too many times terrible people get second chances they don't deserve and end up screwing up even worse.
I refuse to repeat past mistakes.


----------



## Vast Silence (Apr 23, 2014)

Miss_Violet said:


> Um, can I say something that might not be the point or might just be irrelevant for everyone else? But don't anyone think that these morality tests have kinda a little "flaw" in them - like, it's so easier to judge when it's just a imaginary situation and the answer doesn't matter... would everyone make the same choice if it was really real (even if you could take that "intincts" stuff from the equation and were only thinking on logics and feelings of good and wrong at the moment)?
> 
> Like, when the man doesn't exist, you can more easily simply decide to apply some kind of "universal moral law" you have, example "he killed, he must be punished. I can punish him here by letting him die. So that's the answer" - but like this I have this impression we're not really judging the _case_ itself, just dropping some pre-made answer on it... Um... am I wrong?
> 
> ...


You're thinking too much Violet. 
Killing him is the safest course of action. 

Don't let anything cloud that raw, heartless, logic.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Miss_Violet said:


> Um, can I say something that might not be the point or might just be irrelevant for everyone else? But don't anyone think that these morality tests have kinda a little "flaw" in them - like, it's so easier to judge when it's just a imaginary situation and the answer doesn't matter... would everyone make the same choice if it was really real (even if you could take that "intincts" stuff from the equation and were only thinking on logics and feelings of good and wrong at the moment)?


If you are answering the question with the thoughts that your action "doesn't matter", you are answering the question wrong. A hypothetical scenario aren't always representative of what would happen in a real situation, but you must answer it in that fashion.


----------



## Miss_Violet (Mar 31, 2015)

Convex said:


> If you are answering the question with the thoughts that your action "doesn't matter", you are answering the question wrong. A hypothetical scenario aren't always representative of what would happen in a real situation, but you must answer it in that fashion.


I know you should answer it as if it were real... but isn't that the problem? It isn't real. And everyone knows it isn't real... so won't be it influencing your answer, too? Not necessarily happening, but could be happening easily?


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Miss_Violet said:


> I know you should answer it as if it were real... but isn't that the problem?


No, quite simply, it's yours.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Geveerda said:


> No, I would save the drug for later use or to sell for a lot of money. I would call 911, though.


I would do this, too.

But I wouldn't call 911. I value my life.



Miss_Violet said:


> Um, can I say something that might not be the point or might just be irrelevant for everyone else? But don't anyone think that these morality tests have kinda a little "flaw" in them - like, it's so easier to judge when it's just a imaginary situation and the answer doesn't matter... would everyone make the same choice if it was really real (even if you could take that "intincts" stuff from the equation and were only thinking on logics and feelings of good and wrong at the moment)?
> 
> Like, when the man doesn't exist, you can more easily simply decide to apply some kind of "universal moral law" you have, example "he killed, he must be punished. I can punish him here by letting him die. So that's the answer" - but like this I have this impression we're not really judging the _case_ itself, just dropping some pre-made answer on it... Um... am I wrong?
> 
> ...


No, actually you're quite missing the whole point.

What we would do in the moment is probably different from what we say we would do.

But what we would actually do is completely irrelevant. The point is to determine one's moral leanings, not to determine how susceptible to peer pressure or guilt someone is.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

What the question really asks is would you be the judge and executioner of this man? My sense is judging doms will be more willing to make this judgment and kill the man. I would. Perceiving doms, otoh, will probably be more open to the possibility the man had good reasons to kill, may indeed be reformed, or will get his comeuppance even if he lives. They will pass the buck. I would kill him because he enjoyed killing two people and saving him only makes it possible for him to kill again. So the life I _would _be saving is already worth much less than the life I _may _be saving.


----------



## ObservantFool (Apr 1, 2015)

emberfly said:


> I would do this, too.
> 
> *But I wouldn't call 911. I value my life.*


What do you mean by this?


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> What the question really asks is would you be the judge and executioner of this man? My sense is judging doms will be more willing to make this judgment and kill the man. I would. Perceiving doms, otoh, will probably be more open to the possibility the man had good reasons to kill, may indeed be reformed, or will get his comeuppance even if he lives. They will pass the buck. I would kill him because he enjoyed killing two people and saving him only makes it possible for him to kill again. So the life I _would _be saving is already worth much less than the life I _may _be saving.


I personally don't care whether he killed anyone or not, I would still keep the drug for myself.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Convex said:


> I personally don't care whether he killed anyone or not, I would still keep the drug for myself.


So if the man hadn't killed anyone, you would still keep the drug?


----------



## Capellia (Jun 4, 2015)

I don't believe in revenge; forgive for your own sake and move on. "You took something of mine, now I'll take something of yours" is childish and immature no matter how justified it seems. I also don't find it necessary to keep possible psychopaths/sociopaths alive, because they're incapable of remorse, feeling guilt etc. Either way; I would do the humane thing and let him die - there are worse fates after all.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> So if the man hadn't killed anyone, you would still keep the drug?


Yes; hundreds of thousands die every day, and he is no different because we share the same geographical location at the time of death. I share no personal connection to him, and I'm not looking for a mate or a social rank [fame], therefore I have no need to be altruistic.


----------



## Miss_Violet (Mar 31, 2015)

emberfly said:


> No, actually you're quite missing the whole point.
> 
> What we would do in the moment is probably different from what we say we would do.
> 
> But what we would actually do is completely irrelevant. The point is to determine one's moral leanings, not to determine how susceptible to peer pressure or guilt someone is.


Then... morality tests don't need to be like real life...  Okay, I think I get the idea of determining moral leanings... but it just seems so odd to me: how can you test a thing like morality without being in practice (or closest to it as you can make in a hypothetical scenario)? I know about using mental scenarios to test theories for example, but to have an idea of people moral leanings looks different... I'm getting out of the topic, sorry, I'm stopping here - but what is morality outside of real situations, when not in ethical theories? That's more the question maybe.

*Wince* Did it look like I was talking about acting like that for feeling guilty or giving in to peer pressure...? Ah, damn. No, nops, forget about that!
Okay, I'll try again: I'd do that because people are beings who can make mistakes of many kinds, unfortunately - so that would be valid both for me and the murderer guy - and I think human life (for reasons like we being able to think rationally, being counscious of ourselves, being able to create things and have meaningful relationships with others) is too precious to risk letting someone die when I could save him, even being a murderer. And if he's still alive, he'd have the possibility to rethink and do something better of his life, something he can't do when he's dead, so maybe it's worth against the chance that he would stay being a criminal. You know that stuff in Kant, that we're actually respecting people when we punish them as bad as the crime they commited? Well, I can't agree with that, because, even if they are rational and made the choice, I don't think human reason is perfect, so maybe it's better to try to help them find where they went wrong and do something like that stuff of readjusting them to society than merely punishing. I don't think it would be using them as means to our ends, for example, if it is like that. Uff. Maybe it looks better now? does it, does it? :kitteh:


----------



## Twisted Mind (Aug 28, 2014)

I think I'd let him die and save the cure for someone I know for sure deserves it.

But then again, I usually turn out to be nicer & more merciful than I expected when I end up in those sort of situations. (Yeah, happens all the time)


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> So if the man hadn't killed anyone, you would still keep the drug?


If I did not know that the man was a murderer, I would probably help him "to the best of my ability,"

but I would _not _use the drug on him.


----------



## Recluse BrainStormer333 (Dec 25, 2014)

A smart person would:

say that he will give him the drug in exchange for money and after he gives him money, he would let him die and keep the drug for business.No person deserves to die or live so why care. There are tons of people who die and will die in the end. He is not some special snowflake.


----------



## Socratic1 (Oct 30, 2013)

I would save him; the way he chooses to live his life oughtn't determine the way I choose to live mind.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Regardless of what I know about it, unless he was someone I loved/cared about, I wouldn't save him.


----------



## justroaming (Jul 8, 2015)

Hmm I don't know exactly how to feel about this. I believe If I _truly_ was in this situation It would end with me saving him, although I'd probably hesitate keeping the stuff for myself and family. If it turned out his murders were just sadistic acts, i still believe the only way to correct an injustice is by well, "learning your lesson" and i dont think you can really learn your lesson if your dead lol. Tricky question


----------



## DomC (Jul 9, 2015)

save without much thinking


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Not enough information to decide


----------



## oheyErin (Jul 7, 2015)

I would save him! Every life is precious no matter how many wrongs someone makes.


----------



## Jordan J (Apr 1, 2015)

I would definitely not save him. Very rarely do people enjoy killing someone for good reasons. Even if he were getting revenge for a wrong done to his family, how can one enjoy that? You might feel catharsis or closure, but certainly not joy. Only bloodthirsty maniacs enjoy murder. And bloodthirsty maniacs deserve death. In my book, the man should have been executed for his actions anyway. The chances of him being a just man are so incredibly low that I would save it for someone else. The mere fact that he had reformed his life for the past 10 years means very little: he's still responsible for his murders, and he could just have changed because he's deathly afraid of dying. Let him die. Save someone who doesn't revel in the lifeless stares of his victims.


----------



## LostScrew (Jun 26, 2015)

Meh, don't see much of a reason to save him, but if I don't do anything that'd just weight on my conscience until the uncertainty of whether or not I should feel guilt crushes me.. Just call 911 and tell them the situation, from there on out it's not really of my concern what it happens, maybe he survives, maybe he doesn't. And if he does, then maybe he kills someone again, maybe he doesn't. Too many variables and possibilities that are just out of my capacity to control. But I definitively wouldn't give him the miracle drug.

Not really a decision based on whether or not he deserves to live (frankly that's none of my business deciding), but rather, the fact that I'm not gonna blow out what is essentially a free 1-up that can bring someone back from near-death in an instant... On a complete stranger who may or may not be a psychopath. Maybe I will use it on someone I love someday, maybe I will use it to cheat my own death, most likely I will try to figure out what it is, how it's made and how it works... And if it turns out to be something super-rare and unknown, I'd sell it to science people so that they can analyze it and make a breakthrough in medicine or something along these lines.


----------



## Delicious Speculation (May 17, 2015)

People lie. Who's to say he isn't feigning remorse? 

Justice over mercy. I'll call for help but he won't get the drug. I'll keep it for myself and take it to a laboratory where I can replicate it.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

I'd save him, but it would be more for my own peace of mind than for his good, if that makes any sense.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

ann4 said:


> lolz, I didn't thought of that one, but it could still work


I thought of it when everyone said there answers and I was like
Why hasn't anyone said this
I had to check back at the scenario like 5 times too so I didn't look goofy if i suggested it

It also never said how much medicine he needed
or how much you had to give him


----------



## Atarah Derek (Aug 10, 2015)

As I have no authority to condemn him to death, and have been given a sacred charge to save life wherever I can, I will save him. Then have him arrested.


----------



## Ettina (Aug 20, 2015)

I'd save him, because I believe violating someone else's life does not remove your own right to life. Only way I'd even consider refusing is if I knew for certain he would kill again and I had no reasonable way of preventing this short of letting him die. (I wouldn't save Joker if I was Batman, for example.)


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

I would take the drug, myself, while very much still alive and healthy (Just to see what happens). Afterwards, I'd go to PerC to talk about the time a man died in front of me.

Eh, I might help him. Depends on how convincing he is. If he completely manipulates me then I have no choice but to respect his prowess and give him half the pill.


----------



## raskoolz (May 26, 2014)

No. It doesn't change the fact he killed, and I don't know him on a personal level to feel obligated to help him. I might just save the cure for another time it may come in handy.


----------



## Amy (Jan 15, 2015)

I would save him, because everybody deserves a second chance to change their lives. That's what Jesus made to the people around him.


----------



## Karolina (Sep 30, 2015)

If it was a stranger, I wouldn't save him and I'd keep the drug for the future.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

I would save him to give him the benefit of doubt. I wouldn't like knowing I may have let someone die when I had the chance to save them, based on circumstantial evidence. That would haunt me. 

I would have to know for a fact that he killed people for reasons that didn't involve avenging his family or self-defense, etc.


----------



## Bel Esprit (Aug 2, 2011)

No, I would save it for some one who was more deserving of it.


----------



## MyEvilTwin (Sep 27, 2015)

I'd save him.
Why not have a man capable of killing owe you his life?


----------



## Treckasec (Jan 12, 2015)

I'd save him. It's been 10 years and I don't think I could waste a chance like that.


----------



## ephemeralparadox (Apr 14, 2014)

I would save him. I believe people deserve second chances, and perhaps having been shown mercy when he knew he least deserved it might change his life.


----------



## Baldur (Jun 30, 2011)

No. Letting this asshole die in agony, sounds like a way better deal than wasting sweet precious medicine on him. Later, I'll make a deal with a pharmaceutical company to find out how to make more of the drug, then we'll sell it for profit and hippie tears.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

It would depend on how long I've had this miracle drug and if I understood how it worked. If it was ambiguous whether I could obtain further drugs or not, I would call for help but submit the drug for research so more people could be saved. If it was made of rare components, I would still submit it as you could maybe find some cheaper materials that might not be as effective but still you know effective.
If I had a definite answer about the future supply of drugs, I would give it to him. Do I have the right to judge who to give the drug to? It's random chance

Then again if I knew about the future supply then I probably would have used up the drug already.


----------



## Elaihr (Jun 24, 2015)

If he's feeling great remorse for his actions, does he still enjoy killing people? That's a bit confusing...

That aside, I think I would've saved him. The only problem I see is if he'd go killing again, I'd like to know that he wouldn't kill anyone innocent... But how would I know? Apart from trying to see if he was genuine, I couldn't really do much. And I suppose he could be genuine at that given time, being nearly dead and all, but he might change his mind later when he's no longer in mortal danger. Hm.

Ah. Well, I'd save him. If he turned "good", it'd be terrible of me to not help him. I mean, if he really felt remorse for his actions he might even be a better person than many others. I believe if you go through hardships and come out with another perspective you're usually more enlightened than you were before, and than others who haven't gone through anything, who haven't seen "the dark side". So if he really doesn't want to kill anymore, he's probably very certain of it as he "knows" what he's choosing, kind of. Do I make sense? Like, he'd actively choose not to kill, which an ordinary person who hasn't killed wouldn't have to. We just go along not thinking too much about it (at least not to that extent).

If he did manage to fool me or if he'd have a change of heart at a later point in time, I suppose there's nothing I could've done anyway. I couldn't _know_ he'd kill again. It'd be best though if I could save him and then have him go through trial, and a mental examination (no idea what it's actually called in English but I hope you know what I mean) and so on, just to make sure he gets taken care of in a humane way, should he still pose a threat to other people.

Also, as for that magic tonic (or whatever you'd like to call it), if someone's managed to make one bottle of it, surely there's a chance it could be made again? And this actually leads to another dilemma, what would the world be like if we prevented everyone from dying? This might sound horrible but would it really be a good idea? I know I'd want to, but I'm not sure it'd be very smart.


----------



## Elaihr (Jun 24, 2015)

Tangled Kite said:


> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


That's my favourite quote! <3


----------



## Bunny (Jul 11, 2015)

No, I wouldn't save him.

This drug sounds very valuable, I shall figure out how to duplicate it and then sell it to the masses.


----------



## wolfclaw (Oct 11, 2015)

No i wouldn't save the man since if he enjoyed the murders he might very well kill again but on a more practical note the drug would be more useful by giving it to researchers to find out a way to duplicate it


----------



## Forgery Zaytsev (Oct 16, 2015)

No. I only have one and don't know if there will be more again ever. I would have it patented, synthesized, and mass produced. I'm not blowing a chance of curing a disease permanently on some serial killer that would surely say anything to live.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't patent it for making money, I would patent it to keep big pharma from stealing it and lording it over the population.


----------



## wolfclaw (Oct 11, 2015)

i agree that keeping it from being ridiculously overpriced just so that a amoral company can get more money is a good idea.


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd save him. My signature kinda explains my view on past crimes, and when it comes to the possibility of future murders, I feel like that isn't something that I have to take into account. As far as I'm concerned, I'm giving him the gift of life, It's up to him what to do with it. 

Also, he sounds like quite a formidable fellow, always good to have one of those owe you one :kitteh:


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


As much as I sympathize with him, he killed innocent people. That is unjust. He deserves to die, twice.
Even if he killed people out of revenge, I have no way of knowing this, and he might be lying.
If it actually ends up true (him revenge killing for his family), I would kill the person who did this to him, so I use the pill on myself.
BTW it's also impossible to sell the drug for money since nobody would believe it could actually heal somebody.
Or I could wait until I believe it's certain death and take the drug myself there.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Yeah I would save him


----------



## BlueMajorelle (Oct 20, 2015)

I will answer by quoting one of the wisest fictional characters of all time.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.” ~Gandalf


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


Absolutely! This, to me, is such a no-brainer I wonder why anyone would choose any other alternative (I'm responding to this immediately, without looking at anyone else's answer or reasoning).


----------



## Caneaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


The fact he is remoseful implies he didn't kill in for a justified cause.

Anyway, I'd only keep the drug to save myself when I'm about to die while I still have on-going projects, otherwise I'd just let myself die even with it. I also wouldn't bother saving someone else.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

I'd save him if he was hot


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2013)

karmachameleon said:


> I'd save him if he was hot


LMAO, you made me spill my drink :laughing:


----------



## Grandalf (Jun 7, 2014)

I'd save him IF AND ONLY IF I can ensure he can truly change and teach others how to get off crime. He and other criminals would reform their lives much like these people:

10 Exemplary Tales Of Ex-Convicts Who Turned Their Lives Around - Listverse


----------



## BlackLikeMySoul (Sep 7, 2015)

I would save the guy, but I would follow up, basically demanding to know why he killed those people he killed, and I would probably make him swear to tell me the truth before saving him (because the word of a murderer is always trustworthy..). Anyways, I would talk to him until I was satisfied with his answers regarding his crimes and regrets. Not because his answers would decide wether or not it was "worth it" saving his life, but because I am a nosy person and now he owes me after saving his life. Also, if he seemed to be a crazy serial killer I would have him arrested on the spot (handy tip: when saving a murderer's life, tie them up first, so they can't kill you once you've used all the miracle drug on saving their ass). 

So yeah, if it was my call, the guy would live, but if I found out he killed again later, I would personally hunt his ass down and slap him so hard the miracle drug would stop working..


----------



## Vaux (Mar 1, 2015)

I WANT to say that I wouldn't give it to him, as I could take this miracle drug to a lab or something where they try find out what it's made of and possibly learn how to replicate it. That way more people could benefit from it in the long run (assuming it's actually possible to reproduce it).

But in reality, if I was confronted with a guy dying in agony and I had the ability to save him, I doubt I'd stop to consider the 'greater good.' I'd probably just consider the short term implications of my actions (he dies or he lives). 

Although then again, maybe I'd just be terrified by the sight and run away xD 

So yeah who knows what I'd do. It's easy to write things down, but in the situation I'd probably act completely differently to how I imagine I would.


----------



## Pozzai (Nov 3, 2015)

I would most likely save the drug, in the hopes that it would save many lives over the cause of history if its secrets were unlocked.

I would most likely feel guilty and regret not saving him for most of my life though.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Im not sure.

It really would depend on the motivations and reasons for his past actions.

Not enough information really.


----------



## Saturnian Devil (Jan 29, 2013)

I would just keep on walking, to be completely honest.


----------



## shruggingemoji (Oct 23, 2015)

No, I wouldn't save him. Unless the people he killed deserved it, then I'd save him.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

I would save the person.


----------



## SilverFlames (Oct 22, 2015)

If he had a good reason for killing those two people, then why would he be all remorseful about it? If he had a good, moral cause for his actions then he would have no reason to regret it at all, especially considering the fact that he _enjoyed_ killing them and it wasn't like a mercy kill or something. From what it sounds like, it was probably an immoral kill, so I wouldn't save him.

I'm an ENFP, by the way.


----------



## loverainthunder (Nov 28, 2009)

SilverFlames said:


> If he had a good reason for killing those two people, then why would he be all remorseful about it? If he had a good, moral cause for his actions then he would have no reason to regret it at all, especially considering the fact that he _enjoyed_ killing them and it wasn't like a mercy kill or something. From what it sounds like, it was probably an immoral kill, so I wouldn't save him.
> 
> I'm an ENFP, by the way.


Infp here, Exactly my thoughts. Why should he regret killing monsters? So he probably killed people, and then he judged himself as wrong and apologized with his dying breath, so I look at it as him judging himself. It would probably haunt me, but I would have to let him die, because I think its absolutely evil to profit evil.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

I would save him. 

The one twist being--did I know the two people that he killed? If so, my own personal perception might skew the situation. I'm not sure how I would react in that case. I don't like the idea of having a life on my hands. Doesn't sit well with me, even if I were blinded by anger and hatred. I wouldn't want to stoop to his level.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Yes I would save him. 

If I were to let him die, wouldn't I be a murderer myself too? Wouldn't I be the same sort of person as he is? Wouldn't I become the type of person I despise most? I hate murderers, so how can I become one myself? And I know that I wouldn't go to prison even if he is dead, but in my eyes, I'd actually see myself as a murderer if I were to let him die like this. Our character is what we do when we think that nobody is looking at us. And I chose to be a person of strong morals and integrity even when nobody is watching me. 

Letting him die might be justice to the two people he murdered, but it's just so wrong to ignore someone who is in a life and death situation. And I don't think I'll be able to live up to my conscience if I just ignore him and let him die in this situation, I'll feel guilty for the rest of my life, because I just indirectly killed a fellow human. I don't think that letting him die is the right way to handle this situation, especially when I am in the situation that I am able to help him. I am not God, so who am I to seek revenge on him, and who am I to take away his life? 

I would save his life and then turn him to the police.


----------



## 318138 (Oct 1, 2015)

I would save him, definitely. Whether he is a good or bad person is not up to me to judge.


----------



## purpleviolet (Nov 20, 2015)

Somehow, it seems the no-brainer answer is yes.
Due to the line "it's possible he will never kill again."
Is it also possible I could give him half a pill and let half of him die and the other half live? I think i'd be okay with that, and I think, somehow, that makes it worse.

But I'd still have part of the cure. I assume it's all I'd need to study its components and create more. In that way, I could avoid his death and the loss of the cure. It doesn't speak for the quality of his life; however. At best, giving him half the cure would prolong his death instead of kill half of him, and then in the meantime, I could generate more. At worst, half the pill would not be a large enough dosage to save his life, but I would at least have tried and still have enough sample left to replicate the cure.

In the end, people on a wide scale win. That seems rather pragmatic. And the man's life could potentially be saved. That seems humane. Whether or not if he is good or bad, I don't know, but consequences must be dealt accordingly.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

The way you have set it up is unrealistic. Either I can or cannot make more of the drug. Either he killed people for a just reason or because he is a sadistic psychopath. It's unlikely I would not know the answer to either. And even if I did, why would this drug save him? Where did it come from? Who created it? What does it do? Why would it ever be impossible to make more of it? Too many variables to answer the question definitively either way. I will say:

*IF* I knew the drug could potentially save many more lives but not if I used it on him, I would not use it on him regardless of what he did or why. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

But *IF* the drug was only useful in this one situation anyway or could be replicated, I would save him regardless of what he did or why. I would essentially consider it imposing the death penalty on him if I took his past actions into account. I don't believe in the death penalty.

If for whatever reason I didn't know which was the case... Odds are I would probably go with not using it. Simply because the risk of losing a drug that could save many is greater than the risk of not saving one.

What I would find to be two more interesting and more revealing scenarios would be:

1. Whether you would save the person who is closest to you knowing that if you did thousands of others would die because you would lose the drug forever. 

2. Whether you would save the person who killed the person who is closest to you when there is no risk of losing the drug.


----------



## Primeval (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't care if it was the Pope. He's dead, and I'm patenting the drug.


----------



## Catppuccino (Nov 22, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


First, you said this drug would save *HIS* life. You didn't say whether it could only save his life or could save every life.
And you didn't say the man's condition except for dying. Why is he dying? What is causing it?
I don't care how many people this man murdered. The past is the past.
And he's claiming remorse after 10 years. Why did he claim remorse? Why didn't he just not mention it and make it a greater possibility for people who don't know him save him? Is it because he knows that I know he killed two people? How? Do I know this man? Do I know people who know this man? If it's possible he will never kill again then it's possible he will kill again?
Do I want this man to die?

This really depends on the situation so I'll just not answer it.


----------



## Bry (Nov 24, 2015)

There's all this talk about _what_ we know: whether the drug can be replicated, whether it will keep or rot, whether we can get more in the future, whether we ourselves have dying friends/family, &c.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that that we don't have the answers to these questions is part of the point. That it's all totally ambiguous, and that this is a thought experiment (poorly structured, perhaps) about what we do morally in a relative vacuum of reality.

With that in mind, I'd save him. I don't know his motivations, and if I did it _probably_ wouldn't matter. Not my place to execute, particularly without knowledge.

(Besides, even if I decided not to, here, in front of my computer, I doubt I'd actually be able to follow through with a dying man begging me to save him in front of me. I'd definitely cave, not going to lie.)


----------



## voron (Jan 19, 2015)

I wouldn't save him. I'd find better use for it sooner or later if it really is a medicine that works for everybody.

Now that I read OPs' answers it makes me think as well. So many things to pay attention to, so hard to answer properly.


----------



## AddictiveMuse (Nov 14, 2013)

I would save him. How could you let a man die? It would haunt me for the rest of my kife if I didn't


----------



## INeedToP (Nov 23, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> You have a miracle drug that would totally save his life. You only have 1 (at least at this moment in time. Maybe you can get more, maybe not.)
> ...


I will give him the drug simply because I'm smart and I will figure out how to reproduce the miracle drug in no time.


----------



## INForJoking (Nov 23, 2015)

I would rather be responsible for saving a life than ending one. Therefore, save him.


----------



## zemiak (Mar 5, 2015)

Nope


----------



## oliness (Aug 7, 2014)

Definitely save him. Whatever wrong he may have done or will do, my job is to do the right thing in this moment.


----------



## Lord Necro (Jun 15, 2014)

I would give him approximately 99% of the "miracle drug" and save the other 1% so the formula isn't lost, so to speak. 99% should be enough to bring him back to full-ish strength. Just to ensure it though, I'd call an ambulance for him after. This should definitely ensure that he lives, and I get to keep the drug for further researching purposes. Everybody wins.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

My decisions are based on Cost benefit. So I will do what creates the least amount of casualties. There is a name for this but I forget what its called.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Meltboy said:


> The situation:
> 
> There is a dying man lying in front of you.
> 
> ...


No.

And not because of anything he did, but because if I had a dose of miracle drug I would keep it a secret, research the heck of out medical-ethics boards, and find someone I'd be willing to tell about it.

I'd then only speak about it in hypotheticals to figure out who would be best able to ethically handle the information.

I would then enlist them somehow in some kind of confidentiality agreement that would put them at risk for breaking it and telling anyone about it.

I would do my best to figure out who to give it to for testing while trying to keep as much of it as my property as possible to give only to myself or my child (because the only person whose life I have any responsibility in other my own is my child) if and when necessary.

I would list it in my will to give it to the researchers as an inheritance should I die and not get a chance to use it.

Hopefully they find out a way to replicate it, or find something in the formula to make helpful scientific advances.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> My decisions are based on Cost benefit. So I will do what creates the least amount of casualties. There is a name for this but I forget what its called.


In the case of human life: Utilitarianism


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

Wait, wait. This is a miracle drug, that I just so happen to have. Shouldn't I save this thing for further research, and maybe save millions of lives.

Yes, I would feel very hurt that someone had to die. However, like the great Spock once said, "The needs of the many, outweigh the few."


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> In the case of human life: Utilitarianism


Oh yes thank you


----------



## gencyan (Dec 7, 2015)

well you did say that he enjoyed killing people so who's to say that he wouldn't kill some other people?
definitely wouldn't save this person lol, i might die too.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Can I just take his pants...?


----------

