Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

EDIT:
Write your answer before you read how other people responded. Feel free to reflect afterwards.

Scenario one:

Adam and Bob are neighbors who live across the street from one another. Adam lives in a beautiful 3 story mansion and Bob lives in a cardboard box.

One day while out for a walk, Adam sees Bob rummaging through a trashcan for food. He says nothing, and continues walking.

That night, Adam eats wine and caviar, and feeds filet mignon to his dog. Bob goes to bed hungry.


Scenario two:

Adam and Bob are neighbors who live across the street from one another. Both Adam and Bob live in cardboard boxes.

One day while out for a walk, Adam sees Bob rummaging through a trashcan for food. He says nothing, and continues walking.

That night, both Adam and Bob go to bed hungry.


Which scenario bothers you more?

Why?

[~Neri]

Number 2. I personally think people shouldn't be held back by "equality." People aren't born equal and equality should not be forced on anyone. People should have the chance to succeed should they have the capability. If they don't, oh well, Darwin has a toll.

[WillowLuman]

Yeah, have to go with 2. More people are going to be hungry in that scenario. At least if there's a rich neighbor, even if he isn't helping out, there's more likely to be something edible in that trashcan.

[Vattic]

Scenario one as Adam/Alex shouldn't have to put up with homeless people on the rich side of town.

More seriously: At first I thought scenario two as more suffering is worse than less, but then I realised that in scenario one the suffering is avoidable while in the second it may or may not be. This is presuming we are meant to treat the scenarios as self contained. Ultimately I have more beef with avoidable suffering being allowed to exist than unavoidable suffering just existing.

[Orange Wizard]

Number 1. Person in position to help (and faced with a pretty direct opportunity to do so) ignores it.

Number 2 is less bad because Alex/Adam wasn't in a position to help anyway. 'Course, a little sympathy would have gone a long way. It's just a shame you can't eat it.

[alexandertnt]

Number 1, as the potential exists for both to live comfortably, but that potential is not being exploited. Number 2 doesn't really bother me, why be bothered by a problem if no solution is possible (assuming a closed system)?

[WillowLuman]

Number 1, as the potential exists for both to live comfortably, but that potential is not being exploited. Number 2 doesn't really bother me, why be bothered by a problem if no solution is possible (assuming a closed system)?

Given only what we know, IDK about potential for them both to live comfortably. Adam could make Bob's life easier if he'd help him out (that filet mignon could easily go to him), but I still wouldn't say Bob would be comfortable, as he'd still live in a cardboard box.

[alexandertnt]

Number 1, as the potential exists for both to live comfortably, but that potential is not being exploited. Number 2 doesn't really bother me, why be bothered by a problem if no solution is possible (assuming a closed system)?

Given only what we know, IDK about potential for them both to live comfortably.

Why? There are 2 people, one three story mansion, and enough wealth for one person to afford caviar and wine for dinner each night. Seems like more than enough for three people to live comfortably to me.

[Neonivek]

Hmm so in the first scenario Adam and Bob go hungry

and in the second scenario adam and bob go hungry.

I think the only person here winning is Alex.

Anyhow both scenarios bother me... equally.

Why SHOULD Adam be walking out to some strange guy who lives in a box and go "Hey want some food?"

[scriver]

What bothers me most is that you expect us to choose from sucharbitrary (and no doubt created to prove a point) options. What next, you're going to ask the deep philosophical questions like "plague or cholera"?

[Neonivek]

What bothers me most is that you expect us to choose from sucharbitrary (and no doubt created to prove a point) options. What next, you're going to ask the deep philosophical questions like "plague or cholera"?

It is a "leading choice" so to speak. Two options where one is made overwhelmingly preferable to the other.

[ggamer]

What really bothers me is that 19 line space on the bottom of your post

[i2amroy]

I'm a bit confused, are we dealing with two neighbors here and you just accidentally switched names from Alex to Adam in the post? Or are we dealing with some random third person named Alex who isn't one of the two neighbors?

[Arx]

That was actually what bothered me the most. If Alex is a separate guy, he should be called Charlie.

[RedKing]

Then there's scenario 3, wherein Alex and Bob kidnap and kill Adam and eat well that night.