Moral Dilemma


This is an imaginary situation, but thinking about it will provide insights into your internal ethic proclivities.

The situation: You are in the Middle East, and there is a huge flood in progress. Many homes have been lost, water supplies compromised and structures destroyed.

Let's say that you're a photographer, like myself, getting still photos for a news service, traveling alone, looking for particularly poignant scenes.

You come across Osama Bin Laden who has been swept away by the floodwaters. He is barely hanging on to tree limb and is about to go under.

You can either put down your camera and save him, hoping to redeem and convert him, or take a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of him as he loses his grip on the limb.

So, here's the question, and think carefully before you answer it:

Which lens would you use?
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xalbertporter
I'd be thinking to myself,"I hope that I have all the settings on the camera set correctly, click"
I can put down the camera and...
BRAKE THE TREE LIMB
because I'm an audiofile, not the photographer.
You know, you're all sick bastards! Why take a still shot when, if you used a camcorder, you could capture the terror in his eyes going under for the last time, knowing that he could never again harm another human being. God Bless...
I throw him an oxygen tank or life preserver, pull his sorry ass outta the water, AND THEN TAKE HIM HOME AND TORTURE HIM SLOWLY!!!

(Or did you mean convert him to audiophilia? Maybe that would be even worse!!) LOL!!