Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 S John's reply makes me think. What if a man, who we put behind a three year old child in the pecking order, was going to discover the cure for AIDS the next day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 "Women and children first" phrase is old, certainly old enough that it came to be in societies ruled by men.It's 162 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If someone has a really high IQ and has gone into the sciences, prioritize that person. Next would be those strongest and capable of ensuring that person can make it to shore. After that any children with potentially high IQ could be placed on the raft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Alexander Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 S John's reply makes me think. What if a man, who we put behind a three year old child in the pecking order, was going to discover the cure for AIDS the next day? Utilitarian vs Kantian moral problem, classic example if I'm not mistaken. If someone has a really high IQ and has gone into the sciences, prioritize that person. Next would be those strongest and capable of ensuring that person can make it to shore. After that any children with potentially high IQ could be placed on the raft. How utilitarian of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If someone has a really high IQ and has gone into the sciences, prioritize that person. Next would be those strongest and capable of ensuring that person can make it to shore. After that any children with potentially high IQ could be placed on the raft. You would have all drowned by the time you sorted that out :) There should be plenty of lifeboats now, so if it isn't time senstive it's a matter of queuing up. Sick and injured first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 How utilitarian of you! Well, I'd be consigning myself to drowning. But I'd die peacefully knowing we didn't foolishly waste raft space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Alexander Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Well, I'd be consigning myself to drowning. But I'd die peacefully knowing we didn't foolishly waste raft space. Once again, how utilitarian of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Haha. But there are other questions too. What if the kid, who we let drown to save the guy who would come up with the cure for AIDs, was going to conceive the kid who'd solve world hunger or find the cure for cancer? So many variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixodes Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What if the children are little bastards? I mean, a lot of kids act like total dicks. ETA: If you are going to be stuck in a life boat, it may be very advantageous to have kids with you. They will be easier to overpower, in case you have to eat them. So I guess it depends on what kind of survival situation you find yourself facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 They could be perfect angels who will one day conceive little bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What about a Fire? What if the firemen need to evacuate people one by one? Who would rather volunteer and say "me!" first? Would men say something like "save the women first" instead? Would the women rush first thinking men would be more than gladly to let them be saved first while they wait for the building to collapse and die like gentlemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Alexander Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 They could be perfect angels who will one day conceive little bastards. IMO is why utilitarian is garbage. Should be: -volunteers to die -remaining pool of survivors draw straws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Visenya Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Personally I'd put myself first,putting someone elses life before my own is a foreign concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Sick and injured first. Sick and injured last. We can't have them weakening the herd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Haha. But there are other questions too. What if the kid, who we let drown to save the guy who would come up with the cure for AIDs, was going to conceive the kid who'd solve world hunger or find the cure for cancer? So many variables. That's not even worth considering. If you tried to map that out mathematically I suspect the kid we let drown would have such a low probability of conceiving anyone important to human history that it wouldn't matter. Of course, we might also let string theorists drown for similar reasons. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 That's not even worth considering. If you tried to map that out mathematically I suspect the kid we let drown would have such a low probability of conceiving anyone important to human history that it wouldn't matter. Of course, we might also let string theorists drown for similar reasons. ;-) fair enough. obviously the only solution is to have this mapped out before anyone boards. No historically insignificant folks allowed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 fair enough. obviously the only solution is to have this mapped out before anyone boards. No historically insignificant folks allowed! To the actuarial tables! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaing Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Of course, we might also let string theorists drown for similar reasons. ;-) Please YES! Kudos to the poster that came up with this thread. I thought it would be a dud, but it sure has people responding! Honestly, the chances are MUCH higher of one of the kids coming up with an original idea that means something that any of the folks in the 30+ crowd, and original ideas are rare & precious things. Unless your talking about Hollywood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 In which case they're outright impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.