The Greater Life

A simple question, if you had to choose between saving a five year old that would live to be a hundred and a hundred year old man that would live to be a thousand who should be saved?

On one hand, the man has nine times more life to live then the child. However on the other hand, the child has yet to live life.

Assume that both the child and man have been relatively good thus far in their lives and both will live good lives.

Persoally I believe the man should be saved, his life is more valuable. He has a hundred years of experience and many more years left which to contribute. And just numerically 900 years lost is greater then 95.

I can think of no truly rational reason to choose to save the child.

So, physically is the old man like...10? Or has his body already aged to 100?

Assume he is physically a young man. He aged through puberty at a normal rate and just stayed around 21 and will stay like that until he is around 940, then he will seem to begin aging again.

heartless devil I would save the little kid and hope the old man had learned enough to save himself in his long life

Keep the man.

If his body was already post post-middle age, I would have said the kid.

What if that child grows up to create a cure for cancer? Or ends world hunger? Or is the next greatest thinker and can take the human race to other solar systems?

The question to me isn't who do I think is most deserving, the question to me would simply be who could I get to the quickest.

Edit: I forgot to say, that just because the man has another 900 yrs to live does not mean he will benefit anyone for the rest of his life. What if because he has so long to live he becomes the next Hitler? You simply do not know until after the fact what a person is going to do with the rest of their life, so you cannot save someone on the premise of experience and much more life to live. You save who you can when you can and that's all it comes down to.

No human soul is greater than another so i would either a)not get involved or b) find a way to save them both

I would say to save the child. The old man may be wise, but if he is already 100, than he would have already out lived his youth, no? So he has already seen 100 years of life, grown up, and seen the world. If you didn't save the 5 year old child, you would be denying him a chance to see and learn. Also, children have an innocence that no adult has.

edit: i also agree with brown chocolates post above

This isn't a soul mumbo jumbo thread.

I choose the 100 year old 21 year old man because he will have more years to spend in the time of his peak physical life. I don't think twice about which of the two might do what or be whomever, because that's another load of hypothetical baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

A simple question, if you had to choose between saving a five year old that would live to be a hundred and a hundred year old man that would live to be a thousand who should be saved?

On one hand, the man has nine times more life to live then the child. However on the other hand, the child has yet to live life.

Assume that both the child and man have been relatively good thus far in their lives and both will live good lives.

Persoally I believe the man should be saved, his life is more valuable. He has a hundred years of experience and many more years left which to contribute. And just numerically 900 years lost is greater then 95.

I can think of no truly rational reason to choose to save the child.

---

It depends on how each person is... Who they really are.

If the "old" man is some heartless ******* who murders kitens, and takes pride in doing horrible stuff, then I say let him die, and save the child.

If the reverse is true, then save the old man.

If they are both nice, then it is a toss-up. The man himself is considered a child (or could be), having yet to live a tenth of his life.

The child is a child, having lived less then a tenth of his (or her) life.

It also depends on what they are going to accomplish in their life (cure cancer, world peace, etc. etc.)...

In short, it is a tossup, and too many factors (such as who they are... personality wise) are left unaccounted for.

~John

You don't know what they could accomplish, don't try to look at this from the perspective of hindsight or try to think about forresight.

There you are, with this choice. A child or a man, and all you know about them is what they have done thus far, which is relative good and how long they have to live should you save them.

If you want a situation, lets say they both have a terminal disease and you only have enough medicine to save one. They are in a coma so you can't learn anything about them personally.

Quote:

---

What if that child grows up to create a cure for cancer? Or ends world hunger? Or is the next greatest thinker and can take the human race to other solar systems?

---

What if the Man does the same?

Quote:

---

The question to me isn't who do I think is most deserving, the question to me would simply be who could I get to the quickest.

---

Both the same.

Quote:

---

I would say to save the child. The old man may be wise, but if he is already 100, than he would have already out lived his youth, no? So he has already seen 100 years of life, grown up, and seen the world. If you didn't save the 5 year old child, you would be denying him a chance to see and learn. Also, children have an innocence that no adult has.

---

An innocence? I have seen no innocence. They throw tantrums when they don't have their way, they gleefully abuse their peers, they are selfish, ignorant and cruel.

Quote:

---

In short, it is a tossup, and too many factors (such as who they are... personality wise) are left unaccounted for.

---

Lets say you don't know.

Um.....this one is so easy and you all are making it so complex. It isn't about the value of the life. In fact, in a life or death situation I doubt you would be in a position to ascertain their health, mental stability, future value to society, etc. However, I do know one thing:

A man who has lived to 100 years old is a grown adult. In 100 years, I would assume he's learned a few things like how to swim, how to duck when someone is shooting, how to stop drop and roll, etc. A 5 year old child has not got so many years of survival experience.

If you save the child, the man probably has a fairly solid chance of saving himself. If you save the man, you may well be condemning the child to certain death. So, do you save one for sure and possibly two? Or one for sure and probably not the second no matter what? I save the child and hope the guy can swim (or whatever it is he must do to survive.)

Foxy, you're changing the situation. You get to pick one. We assume the other one just...dies. Right then and there. Or is shot in the heart a few moments later. Or is injected with an incurable disease that cannot be cured before the individual dies a painful and gruesome death 1 year later.

I'd have to agree with foxy, to me just because the "old" man has a lot more life to live and is in physically good shape, doesn't mean he should be able to live. He's lived 100 years of life, which is far more than the child has lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

What if the Man does the same?

---

If he's lived 100 years of life and hasn't done something extraordinary or found a cure to cancer yet... the chances of him doing it later on are slim. He's lived 100 years and we know for fact he hasn't done a thing except be normal, the child on the other hand will not even get a chance to show the world what he can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gottibabe1

I'd have to agree with foxy

---

Hey now I said the exact same thing in one sentence instead of three paragraphs, so why can't you agree with daddy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesterus

Hey now I said the exact same thing in one sentence instead of three paragraphs, so why can't you agree with daddy?

---

She made me do it...

>.>

<.<

i would save the man he has morej
The man could help alot

oh and yea we can learn why he lives so long and maybe we will too

What if the man was pregnant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasterbee

What if the man was pregnant?

---

Hmm... good call... thats a tough one... we can either save the child knowing we saved 1 life for sure... or... we can save the man WITH a baby one the way but we don't know if he'll mis-carry or even baby and him will die during labor.


But seeing as that would be a bit rare... I think I would save the man if he was pregnant

What if the man's baby was the next Hitler, but the man himself cured AIDS and cancer next year and healed 10x the number of people that the baby Hitler killed later on, with some of those who were murdered only still around because their AIDS and cancer were gone?

i lol'd
Baby hitler
And teen stalin
And man napleon

First of all... your getting way to technical... second of all If I knew all that information upon deciding I would choose the kid... obviously...

I would try to save both.

Even if it was impossible, I would try to save both.

One life is not inherently more valuable than another...

The exception would be if the old man was a terrorist or something. Then I'd just kill him myself.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica....hreadroads.jpg

Yeah...that started right about here, Nest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abracax

What if that child grows up to create a cure for cancer? Or ends world hunger? Or is the next greatest thinker and can take the human race to other solar systems?

The question to me isn't who do I think is most deserving, the question to me would simply be who could I get to the quickest.

Edit: I forgot to say, that just because the man has another 900 yrs to live does not mean he will benefit anyone for the rest of his life. What if because he has so long to live he becomes the next Hitler? You simply do not know until after the fact what a person is going to do with the rest of their life, so you cannot save someone on the premise of experience and much more life to live. You save who you can when you can and that's all it comes down to.

---

who cares
Even if anyone of them makes ww3 he will be defeated and no one is stupid to go against russia usa and china and those countries will never be natzi

I would save the kid as the 100 year old man has already experienced life and the child should have the same right.

no i mean if the man survives he would give more knowledge soo there is more chance he will save humainty from something suitably evil.

I'd have to say: If he also got a choice on whether or not to save the child, I'd save the man. If he didn't, I'd save the child.

The first would give the possibility of being able to save everyone, (yes, I do know he could pick not to, but that's a risk, with him living a good life, I'd be willing to take) and that would be what I'd hope for.

The second, I'm sure the gentleman would understand that it wouldn't be because I didn't care for him as a living being, but because somewhere, that child would have worried parents, if the gentleman wasn't the father already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

A simple question, if you had to choose between saving a five year old that would live to be a hundred and a hundred year old man that would live to be a thousand who should be saved?
....I can think of no truly rational reason to choose to save the child.

---

I've read through some of the posts. There are no circumstances to this. It is an A or B question. One of them WILL die. Neither has a better chance of survival than the other. Like a special room is going to squish one of them to death... like in the movie Saw XXXIIVV.
And you have a choice to take only ONE person out of the room. Yes, an interesting question that tests the love and compassion of human nature. And everyone has different levels and depth and sides to their love and compassion. So I can only decide by placing myself in the shoes of the older person as I am not 5. And if I was in a room that was going to squish myself or a 5 year old to death, I would ask them to save the 5 year old and sacrafice my life so the little guy can live. Why? Because it would go against my spirit, my human nature if I did otherwise.
It would suck to die. But I think most older people would think and do the same.
It's not about making a rational decision. It is about making a decision based on your nature and values. And sometimes people do not make rational decisions because sometimes our values and nature are not rational. For example, love is not rational at times. And compassion.. is that rational?

Humans evolve, we are not cavemen anymore. Not only does technology evolve but human nature does as well. When the caveman family would get food the males would eat until they were full, then pass it on to the women. And when the women got full they pass it on to the kids. Completely rational system. The males needed the most energy to hunt and protect. Next the women, to care for the kids. Last, the kids. It makes sense, their eating system. Very rational. But not compassionate or humane according to me. If I was a caveman, which, at times I am, I would not operate my cave in that manner.

Quote:

---

Everyone keeps insisting for more information, but more information defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. I was originally going to word it, "If you had to choose between killing a man, and killing a child or letting both die, what would you choose? You have no other choices."

But I got afraid of mods so I tried changing the wording.

The purpose of this was to see people's opinions on whether they think what was more valuable, the experience of life or the life itself.

The child has less life to live, but he has more to experience.

The man has more life to live, more chances to do, but less to experience.

A man who has lived to 100 years old is a grown adult. In 100 years, I would assume he's learned a few things like how to swim, how to duck when someone is shooting, how to stop drop and roll, etc. A 5 year old child has not got so many years of survival experience.

If you save the child, the man probably has a fairly solid chance of saving himself. If you save the man, you may well be condemning the child to certain death. So, do you save one for sure and possibly two? Or one for sure and probably not the second no matter what? I save the child and hope the guy can swim (or whatever it is he must do to survive.)

---

Assume you know this is wrong.

Quote:

---

If he's lived 100 years of life and hasn't done something extraordinary or found a cure to cancer yet... the chances of him doing it later on are slim. He's lived 100 years and we know for fact he hasn't done a thing except be normal, the child on the other hand will not even get a chance to show the world what he can do.

---

You ever heard people say, "Oh to be young again, with what I know now?"

The old are just as prone to epiphanies as the young.

Quote:

---

What if the man was pregnant?

---

WHAT!?

Quote:

---

I would try to save both.

Even if it was impossible, I would try to save both.

---

And thus you've condemned them both to die.

So far its

Old man because he has more time to do things with his life: 3

Child because he has yet to experience life: 2

Child because people are made more sad at the death of a child: 2

Child because the old man had his chance: 1

Number of people not willing to make a choice: 5

Biggest thing I seem to be learning here is that people don't like to have to make choices like these.

id kill both take their money
burn down their houses walk away with their wifes
kill their sons take their sons money burn their sons houses and again take their money
soo..i stay rich and pay scientists to do all what those 2 couldve done

I think one thing becomes perfectly clear whenever I have heard this philosophical question asked: Those who have children almost never choose the old man. Those who do not have children are split about evenly in which they choose.

Look, there are so many fallacies with this whole scenario anyways that it becomes a difficult question to answer. For example: you said the man will live to be 1000. How do you know? How on earth would you know such a thing going into this situation? And if you DID know, would you take the time to stop and ponder this and do the math to calculate lifespans before acting? Maybe you could use your Phone-A-Friend option before you give your final answer?

Now, assuming you DO know the man will live to be 1000, how on earth are you not to assume that this is a normal lifespan and therefore so will the child? Or do you know that he is due to die of a freak accident at 100? If so, you're psychic and prophetic and I would think you could have found a way to avoid this whole situation! Maybe the child won't live as long because he is a different species. In that case, you need to add in what species YOU are in relation to the old man and child, because people tend to empathize most with those who are most like them.

If it isn't a species thing, how does this guy get to live to 1000? Is he the result of a freak genetic experiment? Maybe they are TRYING to kill him because he's a madman with super powers! You might be condemning the whole world by saving him. And if the genetic thing made him live to 1000, did it do other stuff too? Like, if he has an extra rear end growing out of his forehead, that might make it harder to feel a real connection with the guy and want to go save him, right?

This is open to endless speculation by the simple lack of information. I still say though, that if you poll again and check whether or not the respondents are parents when you do so, you'll find most parents will choose the child, leaving those who are childless or children themselves split in their answers.

I would save the Child.

For the man to live 1000 years is, in my opinion, cruel. For him to watch his loved ones grow old and Die 10x over may be more then he can handle.

The mentality of the man may be lost within those 1000 years, whereas the child will be a normal human.

The child has a normal life span, the man does not.

Quote:

---

I think one thing becomes perfectly clear whenever I have heard this philosophical question asked: Those who have children almost never choose the old man. Those who do not have children are split about evenly in which they choose.

Look, there are so many fallacies with this whole scenario anyways that it becomes a difficult question to answer. For example: you said the man will live to be 1000. How do you know? How on earth would you know such a thing going into this situation? And if you DID know, would you take the time to stop and ponder this and do the math to calculate lifespans before acting? Maybe you could use your Phone-A-Friend option before you give your final answer?

Now, assuming you DO know the man will live to be 1000, how on earth are you not to assume that this is a normal lifespan and therefore so will the child? Or do you know that he is due to die of a freak accident at 100? If so, you're psychic and prophetic and I would think you could have found a way to avoid this whole situation! Maybe the child won't live as long because he is a different species. In that case, you need to add in what species YOU are in relation to the old man and child, because people tend to empathize most with those who are most like them.

If it isn't a species thing, how does this guy get to live to 1000? Is he the result of a freak genetic experiment? Maybe they are TRYING to kill him because he's a madman with super powers! You might be condemning the whole world by saving him. And if the genetic thing made him live to 1000, did it do other stuff too? Like, if he has an extra rear end growing out of his forehead, that might make it harder to feel a real connection with the guy and want to go save him, right?

---

Philosophy isn't supposed to be rationalized like that. You add more details it changes the situation entirely defeating the entire purpose of the question.

The core issue here is what is more important?

Life itself or the experience of life?

Placing it in the context of a choice simply allows for... I'm not sure. I'm sure there is a reason philosophers like to place things in the context of a situation... though it seems to just confuse things. I don't think I'll ever use an illustration again.

Quote:

---

For the man to live 1000 years is, in my opinion, cruel. For him to watch his loved ones grow old and Die 10x over may be more then he can handle.

---

Sorrows don't actually compound as you age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSal

I would save the Child.

For the man to live 1000 years is, in my opinion, cruel. For him to watch his loved ones grow old and Die 10x over may be more then he can handle.

The mentality of the man may be lost within those 1000 years, whereas the child will be a normal human.

The child has a normal life span, the man does not.

---

This also is a good point. i never thought of this before. Yes imagine, having to see your wife die, kids die, brothers, sisters, everyone who is dear to you die. The man may consider remarrying, but by the time he is 300 years old, chances are no one will want to marry such an old man, esecially knowing he will outlive them all, and cause himslef such pain.
Also, he woudl have no one else to relate to, as he woudl be one of a kind.

So thus, I woudl save the child.

This is an interesting question- but it is simple to answer.

If you make the judgement from a purely emotional perspective you will choose the child (unless you hate children, lol).

If you make the choice based on rational processes, then it depends entirely on whether the age that the man will live to, is a normal life span in this hypothetical world, or if it's extremely abnormal.

If i was being rational, with no emotion, and it was abnormal for the man to love to 1000, I would have to save the man for the simple reason that saving him may result in being able to extend the lifespan of every living person, including the girl (although I know we are supposed to 'know' that she can only live to 100).

And from a purely rational perspective, people living to 1000 may be the difference between the survival of the human race, or our demise. If we dont learn to live that long, inter-stellar travel, or even travel between galaxies may never be possible for humans- which will mean our extinction eventually. However long that may take!

I repeat though, emotionally, I'd save the little girl, for no other reason than it's my moral duty to protect a minor from harm, since she is unable to do so herself. The man is responsible for himself whereas the girl can't be at the age of 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

Philosophy isn't supposed to be rationalized like that. You add more details it changes the situation entirely defeating the entire purpose of the question.

The issue here is what is more important?

Life itself or the experience of life?

---

But what is philosophy?

Main Entry: phi?los?o?phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈl?-s(ə-)fē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher


Where in that definition does it say that we can't rationalize? Where does it say details have no relevance? We are talking about the core beliefs of human beings, and those core beliefs are forever entwined in the human experience. Everything we encounter in life affects us and changes who we are and how we think and what we feel. Our values shift as we age as a direct result of our environment and experiences.



You are trying to pose an abstract question in a concrete way. If you wanted to know whether life itself is more valuable, or life experience, then you should have asked that. :)

Quote:

---

This also is a good point. i never thought of this before. Yes imagine, having to see your wife die, kids die, brothers, sisters, everyone who is dear to you die. The man may consider remarrying, but by the time he is 300 years old, chances are no one will want to marry such an old man, esecially knowing he will outlive them all, and cause himslef such pain.
Also, he woudl have no one else to relate to, as he woudl be one of a kind.

So thus, I woudl save the child.

---

You are again adding more information you don't know is there. He may not be the only one of his kind.

Also the human brain doesn't allow sorrow to compound. Elsewise everybody would be miserable all the time. Every pet that has died, every rejection, every bit of disappointment would just build adding onto itself until you commit suicide by time you are twenty.