Hypothetical Debate

[404 Error]

You are downtown in New York and walk by an alley to see a group of gansta's and two people. One of them is a small little boy about 5 or 4 years old, the other is an important politician about 40 years old. Now the gansta's are holding a gun up at both of them so you can only save one. Which would you save?

[Ross]

But I would get killed then Given the choice though, I'd save the child. He's got an entire life ahead of him and obviously the situation isn't his fault. The politician on the other hand, should have put more effort into preventing crime in the first place. And besides, if he's 40 his career is almost over

[404 Error]

The thing with this debate is that it has no right or wrong answer however may I point this out to you:

First impression would be to save the child as you have to think quick and make a snap decision right? But just because your first instinct is that doesnt make it correct necessarily, it just makes it logical at the time being.

See the politician as attained actual, real success. The child only has potential sucess and the order of chain is:
1) Actual Real Success - Politician
2) Potential Success - Child
3) No Achieved Succes

But as you did point out, yes the child does have a whole life ahead of him. And as John Kennedy stated: I believe the children are our future, which is very well true...unless some foolish country nukes another country.... but thats not the point.

Now then again the normal person (self centered) would run away, save themselves from potential injuries/death.