Let's say you one day see a 20 something ready to throw themselves of a bridge, and are suddenly granted with intricate knowledge of their life. Right now the 20 something, let's call them K, is extremely mentally ill and truly detached from society. They have no friends, no job or other responsibilities, they have forgone their lease and live in a car, are in no contact with their family, and have had no close human contact for over a year. If they were to die right now, truly no one would care. Their body would never be found, and it would be like they never existed at all. However, if you choose to step in and save K, they will go on to live their life, make new friends, fall in love, get married and have kids, and lead a somewhat happy life. However, the depression gnaws away at them, and eventually a few years down the line, there's an 80% chance K hangs themselves in the garage, forever traumatizing their partner, their young children and all of their loved ones. Knowing this, would you choose to save K or let them jump?

>>33310627 (OP)
I'd save K. Because despite K thinking no-one cares, people do care. The bystander who saved them, for example, cared enough not to witness self-murder. The people who would have to be called out to fish out the body from the river below are forced to care too. Or if K hit some rocks, someone has to clean up the blood or brain matter. K's death affects people no matter what. And in the case of suicide affects everyone negatively. Even if their body is not found, the community is made aware there was a disappearance. People start to wrongfully believe a murder may have took place and feel unsafe. If they learn it was a possible suicide, it's also a bummer to hear about. K's death affects people. K should ask if that's how they want to choose how they affect others, through trauma of death. If K does not want this K should choose to affect people positively then. Starting with refusing to kill themselves. K should then realize they always have a choice to live. K could choose to live well. They just need to have opportunities to make that choice. K only wanted to die because those opportunities were not available, or at least not apparent. Once K chooses the good life, it will be hard. But it will be a type of difficulty that K can manage, a type of suffering that has meaning and produces twice as much contentment. Like a family, friends, married, with kids. K can build this life. And K won't hang themselves by that point. Because K will have every reason to live at this point.

K has no reason to live at the moment. Which is why K wants to die. So the problem is not K's life, or K specifically. K just requires reasons to live. And K can't find those if K is dead. So K should live.

>>33310627 (OP)
Any life is better than no life

>>33310627 (OP)
I won't read hypotheticals, especially kike "moral dilemma" rubiks cube games that are intended to keep us occupied by pointless mental activity while wer're in a burning building.

>>33310627 (OP)
If he fulfills his biological purpose and is not genetically defective in any significant capacity, then yes - I would "save" K.
Maybe even keep in touch, just to see how the odds play out.

Bun

>>33310627 (OP)
obviously i wouldn't save him

>>33310656
>what if this happens
>but that's not gonna happen because i say so
>yeah but what IF
>NUH UH

>>33310627 (OP)
I would save them for two reasons. One; when you have the ability to intervene but choose not to then you are culpable morally (and legally in some countries). Two; any chance is better than no chance.

>>33310627 (OP)
>However, the depression gnaws away at them, and eventually a few years down the line, there's an 80% chance K hangs themselves in the garage, forever traumatizing their partner, their young children and all of their loved ones. Knowing this, would you choose to save K or let them jump?
well how exactly do you get 80%?
it's pretty arrogant to assume things like that
if Ks life were to change so drastically, who knows what the odds would actually be?