Hello, everyone :)
The weekend is here! And once again, the topics to make the noggins working came out. And one of the topics was meant to stir our minds because it involves life for one and death for another.
If you could save only one child from a burning house who would you choose to save and why? They are six-year-old twins, a boy and girl and the one you do not save will die. What is the logic behind your choice and possible implications moving forward.
My brother who experienced being in the midst of a house on fire once narrated to me that his mind simply froze but he still tried his best to save whatever he could grab saying there isn't any time to think on situations like that. You just jump in with the thought of saving something or someone. And I believe that to be true. When it comes to life, one wouldn't be thinking about who it is to save, right? We most definitely want to save many as we can.
The question incidentally reminded me of a twin cousin whom their eldest brother tried to save when their house caught fire many years ago. The story goes that their brother did his best but he was not able to get to them in time because he didn't know which side of the bedroom they were. He even climbed up the windows amidst blazing fire and smoke just to find them. They later found out that the twins hid themselves under their bed embracing each other. It was said that the eldest brother didn't seem to know he was hurt until someone noticed and that was the time he was brought to the emergency.
Going back to the question, I'd save whoever I see or encounter first. It is the most sensible thing to do. My default mode would be to save the first person I'd see and then go back for the other.
Why?
Time is of the essence in such circumstances so I'll just go in and the moment I find one, I'd get him or her out as soon as possible regardless of who it is. And then I'd go back for the other one. I would be really crazy if I found the boy first and then say, "I'll come back to you later okay? I have to find your sister first."
And I don't believe one would be choosing whom to save. Or would you?
No?
I thought so...
To be honest, I could not even begin to imagine how I would be able to deal with my conscience or guilt if I would not save both. I may succumb to depression or might even lose my sanity soon afterwards, or may live like nothing happened, who knows. Of course, I would never wish to be in such a situation and I believe no one would either.
My cousin who lost his twin brothers on the fire might have blamed himself and may still carry the painful memories up until this time, no one knows except him. But looking at his burnt scars on his neck down to his arms, I believe he did his best. Those to me are already glaring evidences that he risked his life to get them out, just that the fire got to them first.
I don't know if one is ever ready or prepared when faced with such a catastrophe but the stories from those who experienced dealing with fires somehow made me believe that our minds, instincts and adrenaline are heightened and often work differently during dangerous circumstances. I have no idea in what manner I would act when faced with such a situation, but for now, my answer remains the same, get to safety whoever I see first and then go back and save the other. This made me wish we can be supermen when difficult situations occur in the real world.
This is as far as my noggin had gone for today. It is refusing to go farther, lol! Thank you @galenkp for the WE #89 topics that make us go through difficult scenarios in our heads, scenes that we would never ever wish to be in here in the real world.
Thank you and have a wonderful weekend!
