Saving a Life

[Aleph]

I said can't, not don't. I will concede that certain animals and perhaps even some insects are less pitiful than robotic people.

[Bryan]

I still agree with Celice. You very well could have just asked the question of which three should die.

For example, your scenario could have been: "Three people are strapped to three separate chairs, each on a trapdoor. There is a man standing by a control panel that will drop one of the three chairs. After one of the chairs is dropped, the other two are released from their restraints. If no answer is chosen by the three members in x amount of time, all three trap doors open, and all three fall to their deaths."

This scenario answers different "loopholes" that are created with your gun scenario. The Ancient Greeks and Romans took time to think out scenarios, such as the fox, duck and grain. (Explained below.) It increases your ability to think outside of the box. Your question really just asks for a response, not an answer, as Celice has pointed out. This is the kind of mind game that is typically in horror movies (if there's one at all) because it plays with people's minds. The people in the scenario are forced to think that they need to pick one of the three, but in fact they can think outside of the box. This kind of skill can save your life, so when thinking up these kinds of things, it's important to look for odd answers. By your own reasoning, Celice saved all three people by telling the shooter to shoot himself.

The fox duck and grain scenario dates back to ancient history. You are walking down a trail and you have with you a fox, a duck, and a sack of grain. If you ever left them alone, the fox would eat the duck, and the duck would eat the grain. As you are walking, you come across a river. Your house is on the other side, where you could finally separate the three things. Luckily for you, there is a boat that can take you across, however, you can only fit one of the grain, duck or fox in the boat with you. The goal is to make it over with all three items still intact.

[spoiler=The Solution]You first take over the duck, as the fox won't eat the grain. Then, you take the grain over. Wait, the duck eats the grain right? But then you pick the duck up and take it back to the other shore. You then put it down and grab the fox, so you have the fox and the grain on one shore, and the duck on the other. It's this "out of the box" thinking that allows this problem to be solved.

[Aere]

Bryan, your experiment is irrelevant. There is an actual correct answer to that problem, while mine is a matter of opinion. Your experiment isn't thinking outside of the box, it's how the problem is MEANT to be solved. Mine is a matter of opinion. There is no correct answer, and trying to make one means nothing.

I don't care if you find a 'solution' to the problem. THAT MEANS NOTHING. Because you clearly understand the problem, but are all caught up in the wording because you're trying to prove something, pick one of the three people to die. The 'problem' was merely a mean to an end, of valuing one life over another. There isn't any hidden meaning that I haven't expressed, and you aren't going anywhere by attempting to make this a 'thinking outside of the box' problem. Because it isn't. This scenario isn't meant to be realistic,

[Bryan]

Bryan, your experiment is irrelevant. There is an actual correct answer to that problem, while mine is a matter of opinion. Your experiment isn't thinking outside of the box, it's how the problem is MEANT to be solved. Mine is a matter of opinion. There is no correct answer, and trying to make one means nothing.

I don't care if you find a 'solution' to the problem. THAT MEANS NOTHING. Because you clearly understand the problem, but are all caught up in the wording because you're trying to prove something, pick one of the three people to die. The 'problem' was merely a mean to an end, of valuing one life over another. There isn't any hidden meaning that I haven't expressed, and you aren't going anywhere by attempting to make this a 'thinking outside of the box' problem. Because it isn't. This scenario isn't meant to be realistic,

Half of what I said earlier was to say you could have worded it better. My falling chairs and your gun have the same theme in common, except that the chairs has less of a margin for error.

I understood the question you posed. However, if all you just wanted to say was "Which of these lives do you value more?" and if you don't care about the scenario being realistic, why bother even including one at all? The question doesn't need any scenario, so again, why did you bother to make one when you just hand wave it?

If you didn't want people to pick option D, you shouldn't have allowed for your wording to put it in there. You said the shooter would shoot whomever we told him too, so option D would be the shooter. Also, you didn't include anything about what would happen if nobody made a choice. With the chairs, for example, you can't just bust out, or else you would all be killed, or if you did not make a choice, the same fate would befall you.

The Fox scenario shows that sometimes out of the box thinking is necessary to solve a problem. It's not "Oh, it's just the solution so it's not out of the box" The scenario doesn't say that you can take something back with you, only that you can take something there.

My main point in this debate is that you shouldn't get mad when someone picks option D because you allow for it.

"Option D":

You cannot choose, because it's not you with the gun.

You might say that I want to die, but he could still shoot the baby.

The gunman has no opinion, he will shoot EXACTLY who you tell him to.

This means that I can tell him to shoot himself.

Why did you even bother to put in a scenario?

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bryan

[Freohr Datia]

*reads topic*

*can't believe Tator Tot is one of the people not being idiots*

Welp...

The baby has a family. They will have feelings about the baby as well if it is killed. They would say I didn't give it a chance to grow up to its full potential. And whatever happens to it, whatever it does will affect the whole world since he/she is so smart.

The man is apparently average and it is foretold (as in the first post is saying that he will definitely not, but apparently we're aware of that? XD) that he will not have any affects on the whole world together. He knows his family though and has a child to help raise of his own.

The baby's family and the man's family are both very small portions of this world and there are deaths going on all the time so there will always be another grieving family. But the baby's death may affect the entire world. So would it make it better if I want the person with very little influence die? But I would also be aware of each of their families and their pain. The mother would have a child and suddenly it is gone with barely a chance to grow. The man's child would have to be told eventually in his/her life, unless he/she were already old enough to be aware of what happened, which would make it even worse, that they used to have a father and that would be painful to learn.

As for myself, my plan is to become a volcanologist and if I were to ever possibly succeed in that I may be of use to this world.

But there's no way I could imagine it to be emotionally possible for me to continue living normally, thinking that I hadn't risked my life to save another life when that life really mattered. I probably wouldn't accomplish anything in the state of mind that would put me in.

But then there come the people who mean the most to me out of everyone in the entire world: my family and friends. I couldn't bear the thought of causing them pain, and even if I were planning on letting myself die so that I wouldn't be alive to realize or be aware of their pain in the end, they'd still be in pain nonetheless and that would seem selfish of me to try to just make myself unaware knowing what I would cause for those I know (although it's also selfish of me to think more of those I know than others but that I just can't help at all). So those thoughts would stop me dead in my tracks for letting myself be killed.

Putting these together, I might think that I would probably have the man die because he has the least influence in the entire world overall, imo. The child and I have a chance at influence and I also care too much about those I love.

Noooooow if this were really really really really real and happening right now, I'm those types that can't be put under stress or anything and have huge responsibilities shoved upon me and I would just be entirely, mentally and possibly physically, paralyzed.

[Aere]

Bryan, I only gave three options. 'Option D', while it may theoretically exist because I allowed it to, is not a suitable answer. Logically, of course you would try to shoot the shooter, but this isn't really a question of logic.

[Ring Wraith]

My life is mine and their lives are theirs. How can I take something that is not mine? I'd kill myself.

I am curious to know if people would kill their wife, themselves, or their child in a similar situation. My answer remains the same.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Ring Wraith

[Aleph]

*can't believe Tator Tot is one of the people not being idiots*

Such a horrible judge of character to have anything less than the utmost respect for me.

Logically, of course you would try to shoot the shooter, but this isn't really a question of logic.

I made it one!!

I am curious to know if people would kill their wife, themselves, or their child in a similar situation. My answer remains the same.

As I've said we can always make more children; it takes much less time than creating an upstanding adult. Since the "average man" was declared average I can only assume he's not a horrible person and is prabably doing fine for the world.

Also, consider this: families that lose their children are super emo but eventually can get over it. Children that lose parents are prone to losing their shit and growing up with all kinds of prablems that make them into a prablem themselves.

"Free's argument turned around and slapped her up a bit, then proceeded to stomp away in disgust."

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Edited November 24, 2011 by Obviam

[Original Alear]

I said can't, not don't. I will concede that certain animals and perhaps even some insects are less pitiful than robotic people.

Are you trying to be funny? If someone does something, they can do it. Saying animals can't do something also implies saying they don't do something. Unless you're going to make the utterly unprecedented argument that killing infants revokes animalhood, which IMO makes no sense but I guess you could say that if you wanted.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

[Rehab]

I scorn your decision to admit the bias of yourself, let alone others.

You think so? I would assume that you can only overcome bias by admitting it, or at least acknowledging the possibility of its existence. How could one be immune to a bias slanted in one direction, whose existence they're not aware of, without having an opposing bias in the first place? Or do you scorn, rather than the bias itself, the idea that anybody would ever admit to possible bias, or maybe the idea that one person presumes to speak for others?

Edited November 25, 2011 by Rehab

[Aleph]

Have your bias and the universe will have its in my favor. As you wish

Are you trying to be funny? If someone does something, they can do it. Saying animals can't do something also implies saying they don't do something.

As far as I know "can't" is "can not" and "can" is a polyseme meaning things like "able to" and "allowed to" or "may afford".

(Most, though apparently not all) stupid little animals can't afford to have their young do much else but reach adult hood no matter the cost if they wish to propagate. Hungry insects that eat their children and adults who can do many things including use their longer life expectancy to have another chance at raising a child don't have such limitations.

Some animals are programmed to die upon bearing their replacements and are good for fuck all else. We are not them (I hope). Some of us might be; butt fuck them.

Unless you're going to make the utterly unprecedented argument that killing infants revokes animalhood, which IMO makes no sense but I guess you could say that if you wanted.

Arguments are what people form in detest of my shining words; I make only observations and declarations. Killing infants does not revoke animal hood, but removing a species from animal hood entails things like being able to accurately weigh the costs and gains of choosing one life over another (hence this question) and also having increased worth at an older age rather than less.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Obviam

[Rehab]

Have your bias and the universe will have its in my favor. As you wish

As far as I know "can't" is "can not" and "can" is a polyseme meaning things like "able to" and "allowed to" or "may afford".

(Most, though apparently not all) stupid little animals can't afford to have their young do much else but reach adult hood no matter the cost if they wish to propagate. Hungry insects that eat their children and adults who can do many things including use their longer life expectancy to have another chance at raising a child don't have such limitations.

Some animals are programmed to die upon bearing their replacements and are good for fuck all else. We are not them (I hope). Some of us might be; butt fuck them.

Arguments are what people form in detest of my shining words; I make only observations and declarations. Killing infants does not revoke animal hood, but removing a species from animal hood entails things like being able to accurately weigh the costs and gains of choosing one life over another (hence this question) and also having increased worth at an older age rather than less.

>:

Troll logic may absolve you from having to elaborate your point, but it doesn't make you much more convincing. It's not like you don't have a point at all, but you're making it hard to follow.

The abilities to plan ahead and understand symbolism might be some identifying characteristics of abstract thought, and those characteristics might give reasonable causes to categorize those having them differently from other parts of nature, but how can it be certain that the choice to kill infants is a good display of those characteristics? How can it be certain that their situation relates well to this thought experiment? What makes that choice better?

[Original Alear]

As far as I know "can't" is "can not" and "can" is a polyseme meaning things like "able to" and "allowed to" or "may afford".

I still don't understand how you aren't wrong.

I said can't, not don't. I will concede that certain animals and perhaps even some insects are less pitiful than robotic people.

This statement indicates you are not forbidding, from a personalized standpoint, the killing of a population's young by members of that population, since you find it "less pitiful" for such things to occur. You yourself just said that you make declarations and observations, not arguments, and claiming otherwise would find you further in miserable contradiction. It is also absurd to attempt the complex ordering of behavior of animals through worded commands such as saying "I allow/don't allow a lion to kill the young of another alpha male."

As for "may afford" and "able to", those things are contradicted by animals' observed ability to kill their own young. By the way, this includes humans: infanticide, while not exactly common, is not unknown either, and I even posted a case of it on this forum some months ago.

Have your bias and the universe will have its in my favor. As you wish

Is the universe as contradictory and deluded as you? (cannot break italics) Yes probably: the whole is a lie.

Edited November 25, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Aleph]

Apparently I'm banned from posting in this thread despite being the only person here with a serious answer to the original post.

Instead of reposting the post I made which was wrongfully deleted I will simply let you all fester beneath me

[Tangerine]

You are not "banned from the thread", I told you to stop making dumb posts in serious discussions. I am also in the process of PMing two other people.

I'm like delicious chocolate and you're like a couple of turpentine coated eggbeaters.

Posts like that are unacceptable. If you have a problem, PM me. Don't continue to make asinine posts in a serious discussions thread.

A warn will follow for anyone who continues after this post. The only thing asked of those who wish to participate in SD is that they contribute to the thread or current discussion with each post. If such an easy request cannot be fulfilled, do not participate in SD.

---------------------

Anyway, as for the thread at hand, I think it's pointless for me to answer. For one I dislike the way the scenario is presented, but I don't want to get into that since it's been gone over a few times already. I mean, we all think we know what we'd do, or know what we'd like to do, but whether or not we'd actually do that if in such a situation is a big question mark.

The baby's life is less valuable overall currently. I'm not going to say I would pick to kill the baby, but that's not what you should be asking to begin with.

The baby has no knowledge, no relationships, very rudimentary emotions. These are important parts of being human, more important, I think, then having the appropriate genetic code that says that you're human. And more important than being "useful" to other humans. So the baby.

I don't agree with this either. Babies have "relationships".

Edited November 25, 2011 by Tangerine

[Original Alear]

Anyway, as for the thread at hand, I think it's pointless for me to answer. For one I dislike the way the scenario is presented, but I don't want to get into that since it's been gone over a few times already. I mean, we all think we know what we'd do, or know what we'd like to do, but whether or not we'd actually do that if in such a situation is a big question mark.

That's an opinion...meanwhile, for my part I believe I can forecast what I myself would do in such a situation with reasonable accuracy, in fact to that rare degree of 100% certainty. Whether that's enough to convince you or anyone else that I would actually sacrifice myself in this situation is utterly and without question immaterial to my own conviction - this is the result of foolhardy commitment. The fact that I chose this without looking for alternatives like Celice and others did supports the likelihood of my willingness: martyrdom is the destiny a deluded idealist dreams of.

Edited November 25, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Tangerine]

That's an opinion...meanwhile, for my part I believe I can forecast what I myself would do in such a situation with reasonable accuracy, in fact to that rare degree of 100% certainty. Whether that's enough to convince you or anyone else that I would actually sacrifice myself in this situation is utterly and without question immaterial to my own conviction - this is the result of foolhardy commitment. The fact that I chose this without looking for alternatives like Celice and others did supports the likelihood of my willingness: martyrdom is the destiny a deluded idealist dreams of.

That's the part I think is dumb. Unless you have experienced something similar it is silly to say with certainty what you would do. It's just illogical to say "I'd do this" when you've never been faced with the same emotional impact of the situation in question.

Of course, I am not acknowledging the original post in this thread. I think Celice nailed it.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Tangerine

[Original Alear]

That's the part I think is dumb. Unless you have experienced something similar it is silly to say with certainty what you would do. It's just illogical to say "I'd do this" when you've never been faced with the same emotional impact of the situation in question.

Of course, I am not acknowledging the original post in this thread. I think Celice nailed it.

What's illogical about making a decision when asked to make a decision? It's merely alogical - there's no purpose to be derived from your decision, so it's foolish to assume that any decision, or not making a decision, makes any difference. If it doesn't make a difference what you choose, it's not logical or illogical to do anything. It merely is.

Furthermore, if, and this is an if, you've been suicidal, then you have been faced with the emotional impact of choosing, or wanting to choose, to end your own life. Logically or not. As though there's any reason that life is or should be lead according to the dictates of logic.

Finally, I dispute that people should not think about things that do not confront them face to face, though I agree that this particular instance would seem rather pointless to contemplate aside from the time it kills. But this is only because it is not likely to arise.

Edited November 25, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Parrhesia]

@ Furetchen, that's how one is supposed to answer the question. I'm sure the baby means a lot to his mother. What about the affect on your conscience that you selected a baby for death, rather that some random, normal man?

Right, but the baby doesn't really have much self-consciousness.

I didn't 'select a baby for death', I chose the target with the least value. Sure, sucks to know the child, but I just saved a grown man's life, as well as my own. My primary reaction would probably be relief.

[Original Alear]

What about the affect on your conscience that you selected a baby for death, rather that some random, normal man?

Why should anyone's conscience be affected by being forced to make such a choice? You've insisted that there's no other way out, meaning this is hardly a choice at all: a death will occur no matter what. Generally, my conscience assigns blame to me for things I could have feasibly done better, not places where I was screwed into making a bad decision.

[Aere]

Tang, you did EXACTLY what you were supposed to do. I'm fully aware the question is asked wrong (This has been made clear to me multiple times), but you understand the point to some degree, and give an answer.

Furet, but you didn't save the baby's life. I'm playing the other side to all and any responses, so... humor me.

[Kay]

Ignoring the point of the question and focusing primarily on the OP, in that situation, if attacking the gunman wasn't an option for whatever reason, I wouldn't choose anyone. Not because of external knowledge about the gunman's lack of motives or independent thought. Doesn't matter whether he would kill everyone, or no one. Regardless of my intent, answering would make me an active participant in an evil act.

Focusing on the actual question and ignoring possible scenarios, though, I would choose myself. Not because of any logic that the baby or the man would be able to do more in the long term - I've learned to not view people so objectively as that. Because letting another die to save oneself is wrong, regardless of reason, and because I would be too selfish to live knowing that my life had been bought with the life of an innocent.

Of course, as someone already said, it's impossible to really know how one would act in a given situation without experiencing anything comparable.

[Original Alear]

Regardless of my intent,

In this world, evil can arise from the best intentions, and there is good which can come from evil intentions. So always regardless of your intent....

answering would make me an active participant in an evil act.

Yet it's an absolutely, deliciously, even slaveringly undeniable problem that the most good may be argued to arise from what one considers an evil action. So where then is represented the good or evil of the actions themselves independent of outcomes? And the alternative to choosing is the alienation of your choice, a precious commodity indeed for one to discard in the name of guilt or conscience unless one actually believes that all outcomes are equal (which, since you admitted the interest in a particular answer, it seems you do not believe). Perhaps a further liberation of the impotent (that Thomas Covenant never bothered to foresee) is impending should a madman ever bring this question home to roost (I doubt it, but make no predictions)!

Inaction is a just a kind of action, especially when action is thrust upon you

[Rothene]

I dunno why but...I imagine your question as if you were IS and asking the player between choosing to sacrifice an early game unit with excellent growths and super crap base stats, yourself who's probably a mediocre unit and finally, a grown man...say a prepromote with below average starting stats and mediocre growth who's only real use is serving as a crutch character for FE12 H2 mode...

also, based on this line:

It is unlikely that he will affect the world in any significant way.

You are already implying that the man has no value. From many perspective, it's too easy to choose something of potential value over something with no value. Not affecting the world in any significant way is like saying he is just around to soak up resources that could have better been spent nourishing others who might be potentially good. Your question gives me the impression you're just waiting for an answer where people DO NOT sacrifice the man to pounce on. I see answers where the old man was shot, but you never took any stance against that idea and focus solely on questioning those who chose the baby.

You say that you are playing the other side. I don't really see that happening, and why should you even PLAY for the other side as the question opener? You either side them all, or none. By choosing one side, you show yorself off as someone trying to lay guilt on those who pick the baby in particular.

Personally, I would hold my silence. Let the killer choose. If the old man chooses someone, then well, the guilt will be on his hands. The baby can't choose, because the baby is unaware. If we all keep silent, then probably the killer will choose someone, and the blood will fully be on his hands. Of course there's the possibility that the old man or me would try to make a grab for the gun, we're not to delve into that possibility.

And don't go tossing in crap like, this old man might be a gambler and would spend his life wasting money, get poor, rob and stuff. Just by EXISTING this old man already has a lot of potential impact on the world, as does anything that exists. Everything that happens, is because of every bit of interference of every thing to each other.

Like, how were we to know that, a similar case scenario was presented to 3 Germans in the pre-world war days, and the old man was chosen. This old man might have been someone who managed to speak out against Hitler's ideas in such away that would cause everyone to stand up against it before it even took hold? Potential isn't just based on something people are inherently born to. It's just something that happens because someone was given the chance to act on something he/she had the full preparation on.

[Othin]

Ignoring the point of the question and focusing primarily on the OP, in that situation, if attacking the gunman wasn't an option for whatever reason, I wouldn't choose anyone. Not because of external knowledge about the gunman's lack of motives or independent thought. Doesn't matter whether he would kill everyone, or no one. Regardless of my intent, answering would make me an active participant in an evil act.

Focusing on the actual question and ignoring possible scenarios, though, I would choose myself. Not because of any logic that the baby or the man would be able to do more in the long term - I've learned to not view people so objectively as that. Because letting another die to save oneself is wrong, regardless of reason, and because I would be too selfish to live knowing that my life had been bought with the life of an innocent.

Of course, as someone already said, it's impossible to really know how one would act in a given situation without experiencing anything comparable.

Out of curiosity, would you feel any different if the question was instead worded so that you could choose two people of the three to save from being shot, and he would shoot whoever you did not save?

This goes for anyone.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Othin