A question of moral dilemma.

[Sigma Octantis]

You are a fire fighter.(very unlikely considering majority of you are INTX's or - eeew too dirty, thats not for me).


Anyway, suppose you're a fire fighter.

A tragedy occurs.

An earthquake occured in your local area and as a fire fighter, you're one of the first official agents to respond.


the dilemma is.

there is a burning building.

the burning building is 5 storey high.

the fire boke out on the second floor.

theres about 5 people trapped on the third floor and 2 people on the fourth floor.
you can hear some of them scream and call out for help.


the problem is, the roof top and the floors beyond is completely in accessible due to the earthquake damage rendering every other entry point useless but one.

the main entry.


how ever, that would require you to go through the 2nd story where its completely engulfed in flames.




so the question is.


are you willing to send 10 men to rescue these 7 souls on a building that is about to collapse?


take note that the structural integrity of this building is severely compromised due to the earthquake and the fire, it will collapse in a matter of minutes.



--------



i got into an arguement with this volunteer fire fighter cause his logic was

"yerrr sure why not, these men volunteered to save lives, send em in durrr harr harrr harrr!"



""you can hear the people calling for help" meaning there is someone alive, and im willing to risk my life for them.

secondly, those men sacrificed their lifes to help people, and i will always have the out most respect for anyone that does that."- Volunteer fire fighter.

that was his response after i said...

"
okay, lets recap.

there was an earthquake.

therefore, the buildings structural integrity is compromised.

a fire broke out, now you're at risk of asphyxiation and dimmed vision which poses more threat.
the fire also compromises the structural integrity of the building.


yet, you still believe that sending 10 lives into a building that is about to collapse to save 7 lives whos most likely dead already?

so now, 10 people entered the building, it collapsed.

now theres 17 body count in total instead of just 7.

...i really think they should assess these volunteers whether theyre capable of making the right decisions or not.


no wonder lots of fire fighters died during 9/11."

 

[BigApplePi]

You are a fire fighter.(very unlikely considering majority of you are INTX's or - eeew too dirty, thats not for me).


Anyway, suppose you're a fire fighter.

A tragedy occurs.

An earthquake occured in your local area and as a fire fighter, you're one of the first official agents to respond.


the dilemma is.

there is a burning building.

the burning building is 5 storey high.

the fire boke out on the second floor.

theres about 5 people trapped on the third floor and 2 people on the fourth floor.
you can hear some of them scream and call out for help.


the problem is, the roof top and the floors beyond is completely in accessible due to the earthquake damage rendering every other entry point useless but one.

the main entry.


how ever, that would require you to go through the 2nd story where its completely engulfed in flames.




so the question is.


are you willing to send 10 men to rescue these 7 souls on a building that is about to collapse?


take note that the structural integrity of this building is severely compromised due to the earthquake and the fire, it will collapse in a matter of minutes.



--------



i got into an arguement with this volunteer fire fighter cause his logic was

"yerrr sure why not, these men volunteered to save lives, send em in durrr harr harrr harrr!"



""you can hear the people calling for help" meaning there is someone alive, and im willing to risk my life for them.

secondly, those men sacrificed their lifes to help people, and i will always have the out most respect for anyone that does that."- Volunteer fire fighter.

that was his response after i said...

"
okay, lets recap.

there was an earthquake.

therefore, the buildings structural integrity is compromised.

a fire broke out, now you're at risk of asphyxiation and dimmed vision which poses more threat.
the fire also compromises the structural integrity of the building.


yet, you still believe that sending 10 lives into a building that is about to collapse to save 7 lives whos most likely dead already?

so now, 10 people entered the building, it collapsed.

now theres 17 body count in total instead of just 7.

...i really think they should assess these volunteers whether theyre capable of making the right decisions or not.


no wonder lots of fire fighters died during 9/11."

I have two answers:

(1) These ff's are experienced. Therefore they can measure the odds: Save 7 versus 17 die. So if the odds are 1/3 the bldg will collapse, that's 17/3 = 5 2/3 dead. 7 alive versus 5 2/3 dead is better. So go in.

(2) If the firefighter feel "pumped up" and eager to save lives, let them go in. They will do a morally good thing recognized by outside survivors. If there is a 90 percent chance the building will collapse, then that's 15 dead. Not worth it and survivors will say it's foolish to go in.

 

[7even]

First I'd like to say that I don't mind getting dirty (I'm not saying that in a dirty way); and I'd love to experience the thrill of being a firemen in situations like these.

Yeah, I agree with BigApplePi; their jobs, including police men etc. are risky and always come with the risk factor of death, but they are indeed experienced.

Although I find it to be an odd occupation; modern society isn't exactly much of a loving community; people don't look out for each other anymore, it's all solo. Barely any traditions, culture, or communication (unless capitalism is involved). I definitely don't feel any 'sense of community'. So I wouldn't risk my life for others in such a society.

Excuse the cynicism; respect firemen anyway.

(don't even think I mean any of this..)

 

[Jason]

I was once a ff/emt, forest service volunteer, and shipboard ff, but I wouldn't say I have an expert opinion. The guys who go into the building aren't the ones who make the call, your superiors do and usually they have the most knowledge of the odds. Being a ff isn't about playing it safe and betting on sure things. The profession has many risks but everyone who joins knows that. A dead ff isn't saving anybody so you try to be as safe as you can but the reason most join is for the danger and excitement. Its a rush better than most drugs, and usually great highs like that don't come without a chance of death.

 

[crippli]

I'd send them in. Since there are no entry or exit points except the main entry, then there is also no air supply, so it should be pretty easy for my firefighters to do their job, take out the fire, and rescue the people in hazard.

 

[7even]

I'd send them in. Since there are no entry or exit points except the main entry, then there is also no air supply

Aaahh this guy!

 

[Jennywocky]

I really don't have an issue with Firemen doing their job. It's what they chose to do, they each have their personal reasons for doing what they are doing, and the firemen making the decisions as being described have experience I do not have. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes; but fighting fires is also a risky business and sometimes mistakes will be made or unpredicted/unexpected incidents will occur. It just is what it is.

As far as the supervisor being mentioned, his logic is correct in the sense that those people did volunteer to be firemen and accept risks. I understand the concern over the cavalier attitude you felt he had, however. If he is making bad decisions, he won't last long in the supervisor position; you only screw up once out of incompetence and I think they'd be pulling you off.

I'm just glad there are guys willing to do that kind of work, for those of us who are doing other things with our lives.

 

[Da Blob]

Solution - be a politician and avoid responsibility. Ask for volunteers and let them go in where they will, as an exercise of their free wills and not one's own...

 

[BigApplePi]

I really don't have an issue with Firemen doing their job. It's what they chose to do, they each have their personal reasons for doing what they are doing, and the firemen making the decisions as being described have experience I do not have. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes; but fighting fires is also a risky business and sometimes mistakes will be made or unpredicted/unexpected incidents will occur. It just is what it is.

As far as the supervisor being mentioned, his logic is correct in the sense that those people did volunteer to be firemen and accept risks. I understand the concern over the cavalier attitude you felt he had, however. If he is making bad decisions, he won't last long in the supervisor position; you only screw up once out of incompetence and I think they'd be pulling you off.

I'm just glad there are guys willing to do that kind of work, for those of us who are doing other things with our lives.

I think Jenny has got it. The supervisor is responsible for his men, volunteers or not. His team must survive to fight fires another day.

 

[hurricanejane]

I would neither send them in nor stop them from going in. These volunteers should get to choose whether they want risk they're own lives in this situation. Yes, they already know what they signed up for, but maybe when the time comes they see this scenario and think it's too risky. On the other hand, if these firefighters are willing to risk their lives for those 7 people with the large chance that the building will fall apart, then no supervisor should stop them.

 

[EditorOne]

Just as a footnote, there were no volunteer firefighters involved in the Twin Towers. They were all NYFD until a day or two into things, when they started phasing in people from all over to cover.

The main difference between paid and volunteer firefighters is experience. Many volunteer outfits now face rigorous state training requirements - something like 60 hours a year. But any paid outfit exists because of demand, and that means they get a lot more calls every year than most volunteer fire companies.

I did this as a volunteer for 17 years. The response by one volunteer to a hypothetical situation really shouldn't be used as the paradigm in place for all.

Adrenaline: the goal is to control it, not let it take over. EG, I once kicked down a door under the influence of adrenaline, but the decision to go in that building was made by someone who wasn't going in and didn't have the same juice lighting up his body. Entry was timed to match the hole being opened in the roof by another team; when the fellow with the Halligan tool was not being successful popping the door, I simply hauled off and stomped on it so we could get in quickly with mist at the same time the smoke and heat had somewhere to go out the vent hole. Any delay and things get worse, not better. Under normal conditions I'd never have been able to whup that door. (Maybe this is why I have bad knees now. )

See, there's a theory of firefighting and processes for doing it. :-) It does have appeal for an INTP.