1) Is it luckier to be shot at and not hit than to not be shot at all?
2) I found a 5$ bill while volunteering at a school. My first reaction was, "free lunch!" Then I realized that someone might realize they dropped it and returned for it, so I left it where it was. Would I have been in the right to keep it?
[ April 11, 2007, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
1)i don't understand the question. are you asking whether it's luckier to be shot at and not hit, or is it luckier to never have been shot at at all? As in, are so many people shot at it in the world that you have to be lucky to go through life without getting shot at? If that's the case then i'd have to go with "luckier to be shot at and not hit". If you mean it some other way, my answer my or may not change.
2. I think the wrong thing to do was to leave it where you found it. Odds are that someone with less scruples than you will come by it again before the original person who it actually belongs to, and keep it for themselves. That is assuming the person who lost it would actually come back for it or even know where to look for it. You could try giving it to the nearest administrative person, but honestly, in that case, you probably should've just kept it. I guess where exactly it was found would make a bit of difference too.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
1. Like Strider said, your question seems to be seeking a statistical rather than philosophical answer. Statistically, I have no idea what those figures would look like, but I'd imagine it's more probable to just not be shot at.
I don't think you're asking which would ultimately have a more valuable impact, but if you are, I think the obvious answer is to be shot at and not hit. For many (most?), it would give new meaning and added importance to that person's life, leading him/her to beome more appreciative, humble, caring, giving, etc.
2. It was wrong for you to leave it where you found it only in the sense that there probably was a better way to give the person who lost it a chance to get it back. If you had held on to it or given it to an administrator, you would ensure it at least didn't fall into the hands of someone less honest. Then if no one claimed it after a reasonable amount of time, it would be ok to keep it (or perhaps donate it to a charity if you're feeling particularly noble).
But I wouldn't feel guilty about it.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
1. It would be a sad society to live in where one considers not getting shot at lucky. It is lucky to have somebody miss you when shooting at you though.
2. I just keep small amounts of money I find around. If somebody had lost more than that, I'd consider trying to devise a way to get them to claim it without letting an impostor have it.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The probability that you will not be shot at is higher than the probability that, if you are shot at, you will be missed. So in that sense, it shows more luck to be missed. But it's better not to be shot at at all, so in that sense, it shows more luck to not be shot at.
It might depend where you found the bill. If you found it on the ground on a busy street, it won't be there for someone to come back for it. If you found it on a table in the library, it might be. If you found it in someone's house, it probably would be.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It wasn't wrong to leave the money where it was. But if your hope was that it would get returned to its rightful owner, then that's not the step you should've taken to accomplish that goal. As others have said, chances are high that whoever does pickup the money will keep it.
As for the first question, I don't see how that's a philosophical question.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The first question seems simple at the same time as it perplexes me, to be honest. Because obviously not being shot at all is luckier, but the being shot at and not hit is luckier, which strikes me as being sort of wrong.
Well, not wrong, but perhaps odd.
A further question, perhaps, is how the questions relate to one another .
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
1) Luck is in the eye of the beholder. I can attest that it is infinitely better to not be shot at all. Even bullets shot in your general direction is bad, despite not being hit by them.
2) That is a moral question, not a philosophical one.
I'll bite: how are the questions related?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The first question seems simple at the same time as it perplexes me, to be honest. Because obviously not being shot at all is luckier, but the being shot at and not hit is luckier, which strikes me as being sort of wrong.
depends on how you're defining "luckier". if you're literally talking about luck in relation to the probabilities of the events occuring, then it is most certainly luckier to be shot at and not hit, then it is to have never been shot at at all. if you're talking some sort of wishy washy definition of luck meaning which is the more desirable occurance, then yes, of course it's better to never have been shot at.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.