The Greater Life

[japanpimp]

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.

[Humility]

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.

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.

What if the man was pregnant?

WHAT!?

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.

[PREDETOR]

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

[FoxyBunny]

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.

[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.

[Humility]

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.

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.

[Arathorn136]

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.

[Nomanis]

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.

[FoxyBunny]

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.

[Humility]

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.