You and two other people are in a room, and you are blocking the door out. The other people are two men who NEED to get out of the room. You can let one of them go, but you have to keep the other locked in the room with you.

Which do you fear more, the man with everything to lose, or the man with nothing to lose?

In other words, which of these do you let go and which one stays?

neither... i leave myself.

*scratches head* I don't understaaaaaaaaand................

Do you think someone who has everything or nothing to lose is more dangerous?

*Snicker* I was waiting for that one.

Interesting question...I'm not sure how I'd answer. The man with everything to lose obviously has the most to lose (duh)...so whatever he must do outside of the room is obviously very important to his well-being. However, the man with nothing to lose is probably more dangerous to leave in the room with me.

Of course, if it was you in that situation, Swift, I'd bust down the door and keep both of 'em from you...but that's just me...

seems logical to me... let them have at it themselves f they want it so bad... cause guess what? im blockin the door from the other side... oh yeah...

The man with nothing to loose stays. A man with a motive has more strength and focus.

I have to agree with that.

Yeah, I should have also added that you can't leave, I guess. Oh well.

*blush* Thanks Final. You know I'd do the same for you

But of course.

hm... Id have to let the man with nothing to loose inside and let the other one out. if he has nothing to loose then he would'nt mind spending a lifetime locked in a room, the problem is he needs to go.... but still............only with 'me inside the room then the person that stayed would have me to fear iinstead.....

what happens if i let no one leave the room.....ever

I'd let the man with everything to lose go, because he would definitely be more motivated. I'd feel bad, anyway, if I prevented him from going with the knowledge that he had everything to lose and that I would be ruining his life.

Good basic and simple philisophical concept hee. In all honesty its a matter of weighing the obvious facts. The man with everything to lose simply put has more of a reason to get out and is likely (but not nessecarily) more deserving of release. He would most assuredly fight well for his freedom. HOWEVER there is no more dangerous a foe in history then those who have lost everything and know it. Such people are able to fight without fear of consequences giveing them a release from moral objections. If you weigh the facts both are deserving of fear for different reasons. I am going to have to stand outside of moral beliefs and answer from a pure cold logic based solely on self preservation. The man with everything to lose while he is the more deserving of the two will have to stay. Why? SImple if he has everythign to lose his actions will ofcourse be restricted by fear of loseing what he has. Chances are he will be more calm and relly on reasoning with you to let him go rather then attack. The man with nothing to lose however is more likely to physicaly attack even to the point of killing. Since he doesent have the fear of loseing his freedom or treasured possesions or loved ones he doesent have to worry about prison nor being rejected by others due to his actions.


Food for thought, How far would you go to uphold your moral values? Would you be willing to die in order to do so?

Well, if we take this a bit further then by keeping the man who has everything to lose in the room, he essentially has lost everything unless he escapes, meaning that he has nothing left to lose...the other man simply lost everything before he ended up in the room, quite possibly including his own strong motivations for leaving. It's simply a matter of perspective.