What would you do?

One in four people are directly effected by cancer sometime in their lifetime. You are very lucky.

1 in four.

(I lol'd at):

 

I think i'm gonna add an extra spanner into the works, here is a plot twist:

Both you and one of your closests friends suffer from rare forms of cancer, both of which have no current treatment to cure, and yet would be cured with this promised treatment.
Does this change anyone's choice?

 

This still isn't a trap question right? We can assume that the doctor speaks the truth? If so, then I obviously stick with my decision.

 

Of course that changes my choice.
Like I said before, if I had no personal experience with conflict, I'd do the selfish thing and save my loved one in that spur of the moment.

Here, I'd still be selfish and save the doctor at the thought at being cured. Will I be thinking of all the other cancer patients? They'll be on mind, but I'll be the main reason. There might still be some personal conflict on letting my loved one die to be cured, though.

 

Well the thing is in the middle of a burning fire and someone promises you a reward if you save them, you can't be a 100% sure that they really are going to keep their promise, which is something people would have to deal with in the situation. If you had more time to think, then you could bargain with the doctor, but right now you can't do that much thinking or you all die.

Self preservation above all else? I guess I can respect that decision, I just can't personally deal with the emotional baggage I’d have after losing the person I cared for the most.

 

Save the person I care about most.

 

I would save the person I cared for most. I doubt I or anyone would have the time to ponder and choose, my first reaction would be to save my loved one. And as Pika said, if the doctor claimed he had a cure for cancer, it would be recorded somewhere and not totally lost. And I doubt I would consider myself selfish if that were true.

 

That's a very tough one. If I was in that situation, and had about 3 seconds to think it through, I would almost certainly save the one I love most. But if I had more time to think about it, I'd probably be in a pickle. My loved one would probably want me to save the doctor (assuming I know the doctor isn't lying to save his ass), thus saving millions of lives. I'd be heartbroken no matter which decision I make.

 

This seriously is really hard for me. I would want to save my loved one, but cancer has effected my grandfather and when my family and I found out about it, it really did hit us hard. So, if I was in that sudden moment, I'd end up hesitating which will probably lead to all of us dying. If I choose my loved one, then the doctor will die and my grandfather will have cancer for the rest of his life. If I choose the doctor, my loved one will die and I'll be left with the thought of that I should have probably chosen my loved one even though my grandfather wouldn't have cancer anymore.

But the way I see it, my actions would all come out of selfishness. I'd save my loved one because I obviously love them and care more about them and I wouldn't be thinking on the millions of people who have cancer. But if I chose the doctor, I'd only be thinking on saving my grandfather from cancer.

So yeah, it's a pretty hard decision for me.​

 

Save the loved one. Ask the doctor how to cure cancer, then walk off and grab the loved one. Done and done.

 

I'd save the person that is save-able whether its a loved one or not. it might pain me but it has to be done.

 

I still chose my loved one. I would rather spend my last moments with them then have the fact I let them die on my conscients for the rest of my life.

Not trying to be an ass but the doctor could be an ass and not tell you unless you save him.

 

This question strikes me as having little forethought. There wouldn't be one man on the entire planet who could cure cancer, while no one else had any idea where to begin doing so; science doesn't work like that. If this guy was really the only person on the planet who knew, I'd have to assume it was because he'd just made a breakthrough; in that instance, how would one know that he could? Conceivably he could tell you that when you arrive at the scene in question, but then you'd think he's a loony who just wanted you to save him over your loved one. The point is, it wouldn't be on your hands, because you'd be in the right saving the person you knew and loved. Trust goes a long way in these situations.

However, assuming that the conditions of the question do hold up, here's my answer: I would save them both. No, I don't care that I'm only supposed to save one. In reality, questions have more than two answers, no matter how strongly you're inclined to believe only two are acceptable. You can't keep me from saving both of them unless you create both physical and mental barriers between me and one or both of them, and you definitely can't tell me it's impossible. Hell, if we lived in a universe where it was impossible, and similar moral choices must be made every day, I would regularly fight against it, no matter how futile. I just don't work like that. If they both didn't make it out alive, I'd consider it a mission failure. There is no acceptable outcome but the greatest that I can achieve.

It doesn't matter that one can cure cancer and the other can't, or, as in my example above, that one is insane and the other is someone I trust. The point is that somewhere out there, there's someone who would save that doctor before my friend. He has touched lives, just like my loved one has touched mine. Every person is connected to someone. They have no right to have that connection severed because of my selfishness. I'll take option C: Go big, or go home.

 

The doctor is the obvious choice. No offense but if you don't pick the doctor you're pretty fucking selfish. One life compared to millions that he can save with his cure. Not to mention if he found the cure to cancer there's no telling what other diseases he might cure.

 

Unfortunately this IS a queation all about how you feel, and not how you can analyse the situation, collect the data, and come up with a best approach to the problem.
It's all about the small amount of time you have to choose between logic and love.

Still I have to admit cancer is one form of illness meant to lower the numbers of the species. It's effective, but now widely curable if got to at the right time.
Still I worry that, eventually something worse than cancer will come along and take its place, something that may be uncurable, violent and widespread. A real armaggedon of an illness.

 

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp the concept of a hypothetical question that is being asked for the sole reason of studying one's own sense of morals?

The question clearly states:
"Choose either of the two and state why you would choose that person."
and not
"Come up with some semi-philosophical irrelevant horseshit that would get you to save both."

But for those of you who still want to waffle their way out of it I'll pose a similar but different question:
"In case you're not all that sure that you're gonna be able to save both, who would you save first?"

 

What i meant by that is, who is the easier person to reach. It's pointless trying to be a hero and get trapped aswell.

 

It wouldn't have mattered at the end of the day, only one could be saved. I'd probably end up saving my friend, simply because I know the person and I truly care about them.

If we take out the factors of why the doctor and the friend might be important, we can compare what you generally believe. Are doctors even honorable in this faded republic of a nation? Medicine is an impossible field to feel great about because it is dying in the economy. This can result in a lot of bad moral decisions by doctors, such as getting parents and loved ones to pull plugs on coma patients, misdiagnosing, giving out unnecessary amounts of medicine... etc...

The friend has a shlew of memories with, sure... by taking the friend you're taking a selfish choice but also you'll be acclaimed for it (probably not locally, although it is possible). You probably won't feel the guilt of having let your friend die, as well. Which could possibly drive some to kill themselves. That's one death plus the original death in the fire, and that possibility is unnecessary.

Also, you might say by letting the doctor die, people would die everywhere 'cause of the cancer and the loss of the cure. Well, it depends on where the cure is. Is it on the doctor IN the fire? Or is it back at a lab with a bunch of lab notes on the cure and how it works? If it is the latter, then why bother? Also, if it is on him, the heat probably would have destroyed the cure by then anyway.

Plus, there is no "cure for cancer" that is universal. There are quite a few different types of cancer, so you can't just generalize with one type of cure. This is a technical problem, I'm pretty sure.

Anyway, I'd save the friend.

 

Point taken.