oh the things that run through my mind

what do you guys think?

would you just spend simply a decent amount and put the others life at risk?
would you just turn to professional help and donations to do it all for you?

would you leave them by themselves and hope they can make it through?

or would you spend your complete live savings, enough to ruin your future and your career, to keep your best friend alive?

this is a sorta dark topic but
aah idk
go ahead and put down what you think

A life is worth another life~ Equivalent exchange, my dear friend.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here, OP. However, if I'm translating it slightly correctly, I agree with >>2.

Agreed with Kuroneko, if that's what you mean. If it's someone one cares for deeply, the best option is to do whatever you can for them, in my opinion.

>>4 Cough. Cough.

>>2 >>4 I agree with them.

Well... I think I do. My head hurts now that I tried to read >>1

I saw the title and thought my dyslexia was acting up again, stared at the title for like 5 minutes....

>>7 I think we all felt that way. The last part is written backwards :V

It really depends on whose life I would have to save, and whether saving that person would bring joy or suffering to others. To compare money to life is usually, if not always, impossible due to the difference in value between the two. It's almost like trying to compare whether or not a dollhouse or a mansion is more valuable. However, if saving someone would bring misery to others and have a detrimental effect on society, I would have no choice but to allow them to die, regardless of my personal feelings.

I like to think that no life is more important than another. The president of the United States is of the same value to the life of a homeless man. Even further, the life of a human to any animal, which kind of makes me feel a bit bad when I eat meat. o xo'

As for what I would do... it's rather sad to say, that I would leave them and hope they make it through. But I don't know, having that actually happen and thinking about what you would do if it happened can be two entirely different circumstances.

>>10 Isn't your life equal to the life of an animal, though? If you don't eat, you'll die. Most of the vegetarians I know get sick a lot, as well. Therefore, that life isn't sacrificed; it's one life for another.

>>11 I suppose so. It's still just... bleh. Eating slaughtered pigs and cows. qq I'm still going to eat meat, but I just don't like the prospect.

The value of life is equal to the realized potential of an individual or even animal. Nobody is equal because everyone has a different realized potential. Which potentials are important are up to each person to decide in any given situation.

>>11 Really? My entire family is vegetarian, and we don't get sick any more than meat eaters. Maybe it's something to do with them not making sure to eat a balanced diet, which admittedly is somewhat more difficult as a vegetarian than as an omnivore. Or possibly they're just unlucky.

On the value of human life, I usually try not to assign things value. I would rather accept that things and people exist and attempt to enjoy my experience of them and help improve their existence or experience in any way possible which does not harm my own, if that makes any sense.

>>14 Since it's your whole family, you're probably doing it right. When it's just one person who doesn't really study about what other vitamins you need to take or how to balance their diet out, they just screw themselves up, and that's how you get sick.

I have the idea that humans aren`t of equal value. Although I have the belief that a newborn baby is worth more than someone whose already spent half their life without accomplishing much. Because, as >>13 said, an individual with more potential is worth more. You can`t judge the exact value of a human, but you can try to get a decent estimation.

I do carry the opinion, however, that humans are of greater value than animals. Simply for the fact that humans are the dominant species on Earth and were able to invent an array of tools before any other animal was able to.

Personally, I think anything with a soul is equal to anything with a soul. For me, that means any one thing is equal to any one thing, no matter the level of usefulness or intelligence.

I wish to chime in on this thread now.

*rings a windchime*

Anywho, I somewhat agree with >>17.

The only thing I disagree on is this:

Some things must be more valuable than others for the sake of continued existence. If one spends too much time trying to advance a person that favors destruction of mankind, then mankind will die, and therefore no more souls will exist. Of our kind, anyhow. As such, it should be a priority (to some extent) to place importance on those that take an interest in preserving the possibility of future existence, as to those who think there should be none at all.

Some will agree with this, some will disagree. There isn't really a definite "right side" to it, either. I'm on the pro-existence side, with the understanding that some people are better off dead for the sake of our continued existence as a species.

>>1 I find myself to be "unnecessary." And I feel a certain degree of obligation towards those around me, save for those that are clearly "better off dead." But who am I to judge that?

So, I'd give my life up in pieces to various people so that they may continue living. A piece of my own existence gone; shrapnel to replace the holes left in others, thus allowing them to live.

Noblesse Oblige, or something like that.