Moral Dilemma

[mairving]

Someone e-mailed me this. I had to share it.

This is an imaginary situation, but I think it is fun to decide what one would do.

The situation: You are in the Midwest, and there is a huge flood in progress. Many homes have been lost, water supplies compromised and infrastructures destroyed.

Let's say that you're a news photographer out getting still photos for a news service, traveling alone, looking for particularly poignant scenes.

You come across Vice President Al Gore, who has been swept away by the floodwaters. He is barely hanging on to a tree limb and is about to go under. You can either put down your camera and save him, or take a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of him as he loses his grip on the limb.

So, here's the question (and, think carefully before you answer the question):

Which lens would you use?

[LawyerRon]

Medium Wide Angle. Let me explain my reasoning. When I snap the photo as he's loosing his grip, I want the proper "scale" with the floodwaters in the scene. I want all of the landscape too. I want that Pulitzer Prize.

[Kubie]

I would just use the standard setting on my digital camera and shoot the picture in email mode. I'd have it on the internet in nothing flat with the caption, "now it IS all over".

[troysvihl]

lol

[SARGE]

Despite my dislike for his ideas and politics, I'd save him. He's still a human in need (at that point) and his life is a value to someone. Perhaps, after the deed, I could convert him to conservatism.

[troysvihl]

convert him? an even bigger lol


he's nothing more than a thief. his whole life is based on the idea that he has a right to tell others what to do. instead of taking the time to save him, you'd be better off using that time constructively.

[Edited by troysvihl on 12-12-2000 at 11:58 PM]

[mairving]

Sarge, it's a joke. Of course, I would save him. I would even save Jesse Jackson or Bill Clinton. I am not so sure about James Carville.