How many people would you give up your net worth for?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Angelina Jolie for sure, I know she would [censored] the [censored] out of me and reimburse my loss

[WristRocket]

Saying you won't do this for a stranger is different than saying you will not spontaneously donate your net worth to some random starving people. In this hypothetical you are on the spot, this persons life is solely your responsibilty. Starving people have some responsibility for their own survival and on top of it they could be saved by other peoples money as much as yours. Basically if some starving people you've never met kick it you share the responsibilty for letting them go with a ton of other people. Maybe we're guilty but we're only kinda guilty. Here if we don't cough up the dough it's totally on us. You really come off like a dick now even if it's just to yourself. I'm not saying I'd do it for anyone just that's it's different than donating your money to random starving people. But c'mon have a heart guys, >20.

[critikal]

Answer should be however many people would do the same for you.

[THAY3R]

I suppose I didn't word it clear enough.

Most of you got the general gist of it though, which was how many people in your life would you be willing to make a tremendous sacrifice for.


My answer I think would be easily over 20, however if it were "give up your life for", my answer would definitely be 0. Living is pretty [censored] awesome IMO.

Now, if/when I have kids, I assume I will be willing to give my life for them, else I probably shouldn't be having them.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a silly question, because if your net if fairly low, then the person can easily pay you back quickly.

[/ QUOTE ] No. What is silly is to look for these kinds of loopholes in the hypothetical, in stead of just trying to go along with the intent of it. It's pretty obvious that you're not supposed to calculate with getting your money back.

[ QUOTE ]
Answers will vary largely depending on what each respondent is worth.

[/ QUOTE ] This is true.

[kongo_totte]

I'd do this for anyone with the following exceptions:
1) Someone I know (have good reasons to believe) is a total POS and a burden to society.

2) Someone with a chronicle illness who is in a great deal of uncurable pain or is gonna die within the next couple of weeks/monts.

The latter would problably not apply for anyone I care alot for.

[NoMeansYes_]

I'd phone the police.

[Schmitty 87]

Obviously a necessary assumption in this whole thing is that the victim won't be able to pay you back. Otherwise it's just a loan in which case big deal.

I'd like to say I'd give up my net worth for a stranger, and in this situation I would (as is the tendency for people to respond). The interesting implication of that position as posters have pointed out is "Why haven't you given all your money to Oxfam then?" In OP's case, we are presumably the only person who can save the victim. In the case of starving kids around the world, there are millions who can help but don't. The fact that millions of others aren't doing [censored] to help doesn't make our neglect any more ethically excusable, but it certainly does make it easier to do nothing.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I'd do it for anyone just that's it's different than donating your money to random starving people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's as different as we immediately think.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I'd do it for anyone just that's it's different than donating your money to random starving people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's as different as we immediately think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it clearly is - immediacy matters! We're all going to die, so why accumulate money in the first place?

Oh, right, because I expect to need it today, etc, LDO.

If I'm going to read in the paper that my old buddy from college will be dead tomorrow because I didn't help him, well, I can't handle that and I can make more $$$ anyway. I'll gladly pay off the 'nappers if I get a guarantee.