Moral status of your fellow citizens?

[Boojatta]

Suppose the law provides for a random selection of 20 of your fellow citizens each of whom owns a single pet. One of the 20 is also randomly chosen. That person will remain anonymous and will have exactly two choices: receive $1000 and the 19 other people's pets will be killed or receive nothing and his or her own pet will be killed, but the 19 other people's pets won't be killed. What percentage of your fellow citizens who fully understood the situation do you think would, if faced with that situation, select the "receive $1000" option?

Note: from among all people who own a single pet, the 20 people are randomly chosen.

[rug]

1. How many of the pets are cats?

[waiting for hope]

2. I believe we are living

in very self absorbed, selfish times. People are more concerned about their own little bubble of contentment, not able to think outside of that. I forgot who said this but it was after the Foley scandal and the question of whether or not people really cared, (I paraphrase) "They will just yawn and turn back to Dancing with The Stars." At the time, I thought that to be immensely callous and thoughtless. Until a larger portion of the general public start to look ahead and realize that things we do today will effect our children, they will continue on with living in a bubble.

[mike_c]

3. yeah I'd vote to save cats, but otherwise $1000 buys a lot of tuna...

:rofl:

[kiahzero]

4. What if they choose option A out of love for their own pet?

That would seem to complicate the issue somewhat.