squicker:
How deep would you go to save someone who was close to you?
and How deep would you go to save someone you didn't know?
ps. you're diving air.
To the maximum depth where it is probable that I can succeed. Who it is is irrelevant - it's another human being. The point you stop is when you're more likely to
just double the body count.
Some people have said they'd go as deep as it takes, and die, for their spouse and kids. Stop and think about that -if all you succeed in doing is killing BOTH you and your spouse, then you've just COMPLETELY orphaned those kids, whereas, if you die on a doomed attempt to rescue a stranger, at least your kids still have one parent.
You've framed the question in a manner that serves no purpose here. There are two aspects to any risk decision - the stakes, and the odds. The stakes are a matter of who you're rescuing - how much you stand to gain and/or lose.
The incremental loss from failure over not risking is your own life. The gain from success is the life of the victim.
The odds are your chances of succeeding.
Framing the question in terms of the stakes makes it a purely emotional issue, and only asks people what their passions are. This information is of no value to anyone except the respondent and those he/she states a greater depth for. The only value is they can show the response to the stated recipient of the deeper rescue and get a "Gee, you love me THAT much!" response.
Framing the question in terms of the odds yields valuable information, because we can discuss a sound basis for a rescue attempt decision, based on objective aspects that don't depend upon passion. Of course, that also requires the rescue scenario to be fleshed out a little better.
