Would you take a bullet for a pregnant woman? For the purpose of the debate, you must assume that if you do take the bullet, you will die, and if you don't, the pregnant woman and the baby will die. You may be thinking this is a very specific thing to argue about or that it is a stupid debate, however this includes: Wether 2 Lives are really better then 1. Wether you have a responsibility to save them. Wether the baby, the pregant woman or you have a right to live. Wether it would be immoral to or not to take the bullet.
In some sense, it would be unnatural to take the bullet. The most fundamental human instinct is self preservation. Others would say we as a society have evolved from that, but human nature will nonetheless stay within us for it is what makes us human. If you say not taking the bullet is immoral, then you are saying human nature is immoral. This is all based on cold logic. Based on societal standards, it is your responsibility (as well as everyone's) to protect the community as best as you can. If that requires sacrificing your life, then that is what the community dictates (this goes along with serving in your country's armed forces). I think this debate can also be generalized into "the community versus the individual." I would choose to sacrifice my life to save another, whether pregnant or not. Now, you can take this statement two ways: 1) he is selfless for sacrificing himself. 2) he is selfish for not wanting to live with the guilt of preventing a person's death.
Saving two lives for the good of one. Sounds like a gnoble cause, right? Personally I wouldn't do it, unless that woman was, say, my wife. If it was a random, then no. Simply because I don't consider saving a random person who I don't know worth my life. If I had terminal disease, that would be a different case. A person does not have the obligation to save another human beings life. The community does not dictate saving another's life at cost of your own. If you were in that situation, and you don't take the bullet, then what do people say? They won't say "Why didn't you take the bullet?" They take you to psychiatric treatment because of the mental trauma that you go through when you see someone die. You might have survivor's guilt, but then people tell you that "It's not your fault." It is only really yourself who places any blame upon your shoulders. Emotionally there may be blame (from relatives), but they will eventually reconcile with the fact that she and the child is gone and realize that they could hardly expect a random person to take a bullet for her. This says something about our society, in that we may say that saving another's life is a noble cause, yet if you don't people say "It's not your fault." We don't yet have the idea of sacrifice for another's life fully ingrained within our society. Our society is not yet advanced to that degree so that the idea of personal sacrifice for another's life is fully present within everyone. Sure they may be people who do these things, but they are anomalies. For two reasons: 1. The fact that not everyone will take a bullet for someone else in the first place. 2. Those who would are nowhere near at the time of the shooting. This means that those who would have no idea about their capabilities, and can't spread the belief of personal sacrifice around. This is gradually happening, but not as fast as if these people would wake to their natural goodness. That last bit sounded a bit New Age... tl;dr Society doesn't place much emphasis on personal sacrifice, although this is gradually happening. So it is not your responsibility to save someone. At least not yet.
This is actually a really good question! Could this women end up having a child that saves lives. If so I would take the bullet, but we don't know that, prehaps I would have died so that a drug addict could live. It depends on many factors on whether one would sacrifice a life to save two. I believe that Morally the community would not care if you did not take the bullet although you will be remembered as a hero if you do. Also, what if I had two children, or a boyfriend? Would I still do it knowing that I will leave my Boyfriend/Children alone. Or should I do it so that they may gain a large chunk of wisdom that we must love each other. I ponder so greatly about this... This is a very good question that is debatable.
No. I first realized that would be my answer when reading some Dostoevsky (Notes from Undergound). Once you embrace the fact that you live life only once these kind of questions become simpler. If you die, you may just as well allow everything around you to die. The world and everything in it, including yourself, ceases to exist. The other side of the coin, however, from your view, only risks the lives of two people. It sounds terrible, because it's an all too rational outlook on life than most people are comfortable with (people are not innately rational). There is a great variance in the way people see the world - some with emotional ties, who would still give their lives even if they knew the costs, and others like me.
I don't give a **** if it is immoral or not, but I would rather have my own life before some random stranger's life any day. **** that. What's the point of doing a good deed if you will be dead afterwards? Once you are dead, you are dead and it won't ****ing matter.
Are you talking about saving lives or the weather? And you cant tell from your situation. If you gave a background story or something significant as to why he/she should step in then it would be better.
Not much of a debate. "Should people take bullets for pregnant women?" might be a better title. Also, no. I'd catch the bullet with my bare hands, throw the shooter into a black hole, and then eat someone else's birthday cake.
The situation is as stated. Either you take the bullet and die, saving the pregnant woman, or you don't, and you live but the pregnant woman dies.
Too many spelling errors in this thread, too many spam posts, not even a legitimate debate. Sorry for the people actually wanting to continue this debate, but I'm locking.