A scenario that will stretch your moral boundaries.

That's a difficult one. Probably wouldn't press any though, why should one person get to live over the others purely based on luck?

But without much effort you can save one of them? Surely you would have done a good thing?

The effort isn't the issue, I'd put all the effort I had into saving someones life.
The problem is favouring one life over another. Whether it's me chosing directly or it being a blind choice.
None of those people deserves to live more then the others. They're all human beings and it's unfair to allow one to live while the others die.

But surely to do what is moral is to pick the better choice? In this case the two outcome scenarios are simply 2 dead or 3 dead?

Rid the world of degenerates, whats so bad about that?

Will Sally kiss me if I save her?

I think it's morally worse for me to influence who lives and who dies based off of factors like personal bias or chance.

The unfairness of one being saved over the others is worse then all 3 of them dying.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think it's morally worse for me to influence who lives and who dies based off of factors like personal bias or chance.

The unfairness of one being saved over the others is worse then all 3 of them dying.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Tbf, you could ask to watch if ygm

You could pick randomly though. There must be time to do a pseudo-random thing in your head given all the time we apparently have to be briefed on these people's lives..

Are you not a bad person for letting them all die?

in conclusion the person i'd save is john

I would have to choose at random because I don't honestly think anyone is in a position to justify who gets to die and who gets to live. Everyone is a victim of their circumstances and everyone is equal.

pretty much i wouldn't save any of them, they're all bad people, but some are less at fault than others.

so first is sally. so all in all she's got good enough grades to get to uni but not making use of it. she's been influenced by her partner so bad choice of partner then and things are going only downhill from there from increasingly worse drugs and she might fail her course.

next is sukhdev. so business man and has badly behaved children, successful company but fraudulent so bc of the fruad and children his wife has mental disorders. he's had an affair and left her for dead basically and is also considering divorce after being unfaithful

last is john. he's basically a criminal and he's trying to get some work but his personality won't allow for that. However this has all happened because of his upbringing. due to upbringing being a huge factor of learning how to interact and live you life later on when you get older.

in conclusion the person i'd save is john because all the other have had free choice to do what they want, they even had an advantage over john in life, they WERE previously successful but degraded and chose to live a life which is full of lies and deciet. john however it's less in his hands because it's not really his fault he commits crimes, yes he is held responsible but less at fault than the other because f his horrendous upbringing. on the surface he's bad but you have to look deeper for the true meaning of why these things are happening

basically this is the question of who's less wrong?
anyone who disagrees with me can fite me and i'll argue my case

well i'd rather have 2 less bad people in the world than 3 bad people.
also someone has to let them die, no-one will have no blood on their hands >.>