Baby, pregnant woman, teenage boy and middle aged man. The old lady would not have long left anyway. No it is not the same as killing them, that implies your intent is to harm which it clearly is not.

Probably, in reality, I'd leave the middle aged man. The reason -- the pregnant woman, the baby, and the old lady will need my help to get out. The teenage boy could probably get out on his own, but given the choice between him and the middle aged man, he has his whole life left to live. The middle aged man probably has a good shot at saving himself. No, I don't think leaving him is the same as killing him -- if I could only save 4, I'd save the four I could save. Not that I wouldn't have nightmares about the one I couldn't save, but I would know, in my heart, that I tried to save everyone I could.

Pregnant Women of course, that is two lives. Than the rest in the order of life they have left. Bye old Lady, I lovded you.

I would have to look at their faces and think carefully.....they'd all be in distress at that time.....if I choose a young man, what if he won't be a productive member (turning out to be a jail) of the society.....If I assist the pregnant woman, what if the baby was going to die at birth anyway?......If I leave the old lady, what if she's got a wealth of helpful advice for me and other living beings.....it's a tough one. I'll decide when I'm there....but most probably, the nearest will be taken out.

baby first, then the pregnant woman, the old lady (she most likley has children, grand children AND great grand children who would be devestaed if she died) and the middle aged man last. I wouldnt save the teenage boy as he would be able to get out faster then all of us and thus, save his own life. I dont think it would be murder if you left anybody there, unless you, yourself had started the fire in the first place in which case it would be manslaughter.

I would save them all except for the middle aged man. Thats because middle aged men make me angry because they drive around on their shitty little sportster bikes that they purchased because of the midlife crisis, dress up in leather and shit, and then live in a 700,000 dollar house. Then they pretend to be something there not and cheat on their wives. So lets throw that middle aged bastard into the fire, the Old lady prolly has a grand kid, the baby has a long life ahead, and the pregnant lady counts as two though so that means we have to throw that teenager in the fire along with the fat weekend warrior biker middle aged man.

very interesting answers. most people seemed to lean against the middle aged man. so let me pose this: if you had to run the middle aged man over to get the other four out, what would you do?

Who ever came first in my path.

I'm afraid I would leave the old lady. Just scientifically, the replacement rate here would work out just fine. The old lady would die and be replaced by the baby eventually birthed by the pregnant woman. In terms of population growth, no life has been lost. Plus, naturally, she has less life left, less time to live, than the others. Although, I'd be very sad to let her pass away, all the knowledge and experience of a long life going with her. Interesting question. ++

Ideally, i would save the pregnant woman and the teenage boy, the others in unsure of for various reasons, the middle-aged man may be more able to escape by himself, and may have less to give to the world than the others, but at the same is likely to be a family man too... The old Lady, not long left in the world anyway, but would likely have family, lots of knowledge and experiance, and i like old people... The baby would be in a fragile state anyway, due to the smoke so may not survive and may also die more quickly due to smalled lung capacity, so arguably less pain inflicted on it and would be less aware of the situation, but it's parent would be devasted. Between those 3 i'd leave whever was furthest away. I'd save the pregnant woman because that is 2 people in one and she is likely to need lots of help. I'd save the teenager because he had a whole life ahead of him and is very much aware whats going on. Also if all the people are the same family, the middle-aged man may choose to sacrifice himself to save his family... I don't think it is murder to be unable to save all of the people, because you are trying to help and you (i assume) didn't start the fire.

I don't think you would be killing them, the fire would kill them...I would probably leave the middle aged man as he is more apt to be able to fend for himself.

Well, there are two different acceptable solutions. Either I have the old lady hold the baby and save them all. Or today, in today's world you cannot discount the fact that the Old lady and the pregnant woman may actually be the same person. Either way, I save them all. In fact if the old lady were pregnant with twins and the teenage boy lived in a country with a country with an extremely low life expectancy he would also be a middle aged man. Put that together and you can save everyone by simply saving two people. Man these word problems are easy!

i would leave the old lady because she has already lived a full life... no offense to any old ladies who are reading... ;)

Assuming all of them are strangers and equally difficult/risky to get to, I would save them in this order: 1. pregnant woman 2. baby 3. old lady 4. teenage boy 5. middle-aged old man I'd save the pregnant woman first because she represents two lives. I'd leave the teenager and middle-aged man last because they are the likeliest to be able to save themselves. I'd save the baby before the old lady because the baby has its life ahead of it, while the old lady has most of her life behind her; also the loss would be more painful for the family of the dead baby than the family of the dead old lady, I think. I don't think not making it in time to save the last person is the same as killing that person (assuming you didn't start the fire). You tried your best, after all. Even if you walked by the fire and didn't try to save a single person, that's not the same as killing that person. Maybe it's selfish and cowardly, but it's not like killing them. You didn't create the circumstances, you just didn't fix them.

I'd choose the people less able to help themselves -- everyone but the middle aged man

I'd try to save them all anyways.

well of course i would try to save all five but if i only had the choice of four to save i would pick the four that are the least likely to save themselves due to physical ability. So my selection would be 1. Baby 2. old lady 3. preggo 4. teenage boy. Good luck middle aged man.

During a real fire there will be a situation that the fire will not give you a choice whom to save and whom not to.The fire will be fast and time is precious as well as all lives are precious. Who ever you reach first you must save and try your best to save the rest.

If I must choose, I would leave the elderly woman. She has already lived her life. Seeing as you set the rules, I'm not killing her; sorry to say, you are.

So that means I can make four trips, so I do the following: Pick up the baby and give it to the teenaged boy and lead them out of the fire. Next I go in and get the old lady, encouraging the remaining people to help themselves. Next I go in, grab the pregnant woman. Lastly I got for the middle aged man who should have had the sense to get out of the fire himself and help those around him too. Four trips, five people saved.

Honestly, if it was a fire I would have no choice in choosing who id save. Id save the 4 ppl whom were closests. The last person who couldn't make it out, ouldnt be the same as killing them. U shouldn't be blamed 4 any natural damages that came from nature. If u or I wouldn't have saved the other4 then there would have been 5 ppl dead, which would've been worse.

I would leave the middle-aged man behind because he, more so than any of the others, could perhaps see his way out of there alive. I would never, ever want to see a baby die; that's why I would save the baby and the pregnant woman. The teenaged boy is not an adult and I look out for children. I would save the old lady just out of respect for the elderly. That is definitely not the same as killing them.

I would take the baby to the windov and attract the attention of someone below, then throw the baby to him. That takes a lot less time than carrying it downstairs and out, so hopefully I'd have time enough left for the other 4. Failing to rescue 1, is not killing that one, it is just failing to rescue him/her.