Which of these options are more moral?

[Deleted]

I just read online about this morality question and it goes like this:

A group of miners are stuck in a mineshaft and it is with your money that we will be able to save them. But you can also give that money to poor children, who may or may not have enough food to sustain themselves.

Which option would you choose?

Edit: how do I make a poll?

[Deleted]

Save the miners, they will die if you leave them. If you ignore the children however, they may survive.

[ewokgangbang]

wait until the miners die, then dig out the bodies and feed them to the children, its a WIN WIN for errrbudy. and more than likely cheaper in the long run because you dont have to worry about any deaths while you dig out the miners

[Trunksee]

Save the miners, they will die if you leave them. If you ignore the children however, they may survive.

Is it the same ammount of money? If so ill keep it to myself tbh. I donate to people who have helped me in the past like march of dimes with my daughter.

[Chirri]

Miners.

There's always money going to feed the homeless, the less fortunate, etc. There's not a ready fund for emergencies, only aid after the fact. The kids have a shot at survival without my money's help, the miners probably don't.

EDIT: I wouldn't consider it a more "moral" choice either, just a choice.

[Liagala]

Edit: how do I make a poll?

The option is only available when you actually create the thread. There's a checkbox or something for "add poll." You're out of luck at this point.

To answer the question - as others said, save the miners. The kids have other options, they don't.

[Jayburner]

This reminds me of my old thread. Execute child-rapists or execute killers that kill old people.

[Deleted]

Well, think about how young the children may be and how much of life they could look forward to? The miners could be 20 to 50 or something years old, and some may have already lived life.

[Deleted]

wait until the miners die, then dig out the bodies and feed them to the children, its a WIN WIN for errrbudy. and more than likely cheaper in the long run because you dont have to worry about any deaths while you dig out the miners

Realpolitik types might find this goes a bit beyond the thin veil of decency they try to maintain, an admirable effort though.

[Liagala]

Well, think about how young the children may be and how much of life they could look forward to? The miners could be 20 to 50 or something years old, and some may have already lived life.

So? They're not done living it yet, any more than the kids are. What if those miners are the sole providers for their own children, and their kids would now starve to death because you let their parents die? You can "what if" it to death if you want to. Given the information provided in the OP, the charity-kids have better options available to them than the miners do.

[IIamaKing]

Miners, through in-action they WILL DIE. The children may live w/o your help and may still die afterwards if you help.

[someotherguy]

sounds like neither is an immoral option, both are moral, and I'm just not sure what 'more moral' means.
Maybe save the miners, in hopes they will be so happy they donate toward the children fund?

[Deleted]

Noone of the choices are more moral but as almost everyone said, rather saving someone in immediate danger than a perhaps they will be saved.