This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Q&A with MyTie
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I know you want MyTies opinion, but my own opinion is that I think there are things that are good and evil, but that some people are too selfish to look beyond their own self-interest and really see the truth of things. Then they use things like "subjective morality" to justify themselves. I just think its a joke when people kill other people in the name of their god, or their cause, and still consider themselves moral people.
All opinions are welcome here!
Post by
149424
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Which would you save from getting run over by a bus:
Senior citizen or a baby/toddler?
Baby/toddler. The senior citizen has lived most of their life already and it can be logically assumed that they won't live another decade. On the other hand, the baby/toddler has yet to experience life.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
421339
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
IMO
They both deserve saving equally. Putting a numerical value on a persons life is degrading and wrong.
If the Senior citizen was either trying to save the baby himself or made some sign that he'd rather the baby were saved, I'd grab the baby.
If not, I would do everything in my power to save both of them.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think you're rather missing the point. Of course EVERYONE would try to save them both, but the question is not ''How awesome are you at saving people's lives'' it's simply the morality of the question that matters.
And it's not degrading or wrong saving a baby's life over the old man's - It's not like you're just sitting down and judging them for no reason. You're having to make a snap decision to save someone's life. Going by pure logic, the baby has so much life to live, whereas the elderly man has few years left, like Queggy said. I bet most people in that situation would choose the baby.
And while you're standing there taking the moral high ground saying ''Bleh this is degrading and wrong and I shall not put a value on anyone's life!'', two people just died. Well done.
Yes it is degrading to life, why? Because in that model life's only value is it's length.
And on that last sentence. You're the only one standing there making a decision. In my case there is no decision to be made, run out there and grab them both.
Let me ask you something else. If you're a fit 20 and you see a 50-year-old about to be hit by a bus, would you not risk your own life for him even though you're "more valuable" than him.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Gah. The question was not about if you could save them both, infact the context of the question doesn't even matter, it's simply about the morals of it. You CANNOT save them both for whatever reason, so stop saying you would, we all know you would, everyone would try to save them both, but in this certain hypothetical situation, you cannot.
There are no absolutes when trying to predict human activity. I'll throw out a couple of examples:
The baby is about to be hit by the bus and the old man is 10 yards down the road. If my decision is based on the principle that I need to save both of them, then I'd grab the baby. Why? Because 10 yards should enough time for the bus drive to swerve out of the way.
A terrorist has two hostages and as a game tells me to choose which one to shoot while the other goes free. Assuming neither one signals me to pick him, I would remain silent. It's not my place to decide, and I have absolutely no way opf knowing that the terrorist will hold up his end.
I would not be standing there making a decision, I would go for the baby and of course I'd be saddened by the man's death but I'd just have to live with that.
The point is your method involves a decision, mine doesn't.
And at no point did I say that I believe that life's only value is length.
Then what's all this:
The old man, let's say he's 80, and he's expected to die in 5 years, or something (The numbers do not matter). He has already lived a long life, which we can assume has had at least some good moments. This toddler has so much more potential. The man has 5 years left, this toddler could have as much as 80. And while I did say some people live more in 1 year than in 10 - You can only assume in this situation that the baby will live a life equal to that of the old mans, and therefore will live a lot more in 80 years than the man will live in his remaining 5.
The only thing I can see you taking into account that entire paragraph is length of life.
I bet most people would save the baby, given the choice.
Argument from authority is the weakest kind of argument.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm going to leave this discussion as is, because all I see are contradictions in your posts. I'll leave you with this:
The whole paragraph was about how you know NOTHING about the man or the child so the ONLY thing you have to work with is the length.
You know they are both living human beings. If that's true there must be something intrinsically equal between them. According to your explanations, length of life is the only thing. If it's not, then you need to take anything else into your decision as well. (And we're talking about human nature in general here, particulars have no place in the argument.)
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
1. I do not think that length is the only important thing about one's life.
2. However, in this entirely hypothetical situation, age is the only thing we're given to work with, therefore I can only fairly assume that the question in question (Harhar) is one that is trying to collect our views on the moral implications of saving someone old over someone young, or vice versa.
3. As a result of this, I based my answer around the length of life, as that, I believe, is what the question was getting at,
even though I do not think that that is the only important factor in one's life.
This is a perfectly valid hypothetical question, and we can only treat it based on the information we are given.
4. ''If it's not, then you need to take anything else into your decision as well'' as I was trying to get at above, in this situation we cannot take anything else into our decisions as the question was not about anything else. Again, if the question had added that the baby would be a terrorist or something like that, then that would add another element to my decision, but it didn't.
Again, I'm not exactly a politician or lawyer or anything like that (Nor am I even of an age where I could even hope to be such), so I apologise that what I'm saying isn't quite clear. But hopefully you can see what I'm getting at now.
You think length of life left to live is the only thing we have to work with?
So the fact that if the baby dies it leaves the world completely guiltless, regretless (if that's even a word), and happy doesn't come into it? The fact that the old man can't necessarily? The fact that the old man has had time to make more connections and come into more people's lives than the baby, and thus that his death will have a greater impact than the baby's?
Those are just some of the things that need to be dealt with. If you don't think the amount of time they have left to live is the only thing, why is it all you mention?
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't know about you, but those things all kinda come under the length of life if you ask me. The baby would only leave the world as such because it is not yet of an
age
when it can make an impact. The old man has only had time to make connections because of the length of his life.
Nope, because instead of a baby we could throw in a mentally handicapped person, and then not even mention age. My questions would still be valid. They don't have anything to do with age
per se
, only with experience.
Besides, even if you had come up with examples that unarguably did not come under age, I would still reply with an answer based around decisions made upon the length of their lives, as I still think that is what the question was asking.
You get all anal if I try to interpret the question, but you can do it all you want? The question is asking if it's morally permissible to choose one over the other, and if it is, which one. And there is more than just age at play.
P.S Is it just me that thinks we're looking wayyyyyyyyyy too far into this? :P
If a person's life is at stake, is it really possible to look too deep?
You would rather just follow what come off the top of your head and hope that was the right thing to do?
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sorry, I don't really understand your point about the mentally handicapped person at all. You said ''The fact that the baby leaves the world completely guitless, regretless, and happy doesn't come into it at all?''. Are you saying it's ok for someone to die just because so far they're happy? I don't have too many regrets, and I'm at a pretty happy stage in my life. Doesn't make me any more happy about dying. And where does a mentally handicapped person come into that?
You're pretty good at missing points :P I didn't say it's "ok" for someone to die if they're happy. I'm saying it's better to die happy than not.
The mentally handicapped person comes in because you said my questions/examples were based in age too. I said no they aren't and gave a mentally handicapped person as an example. If you're going to attack one of my points you should be ready for a reply.
Secondly, I really am not trying to come across as ''anal''. I'm just geniunely enjoying a good ol' debate. Maybe that's just my nature. I also said ''
think
that is what the question is asking''. Also, after several times of reading the question, short as it is, I cannot see it ''asking if it's morally permissible to choose one over the other''. All it says is: ''Which would you save from getting run over by a bus:
Senior citizen or a baby/toddler?''. All I see is that it assumes that it is morally permissible and just jumps to asking which you'd choose.
Because morality is a code of conduct that a person uses to make decisions about what is right and wrong. So if someone is going to say "It's better to save the baby," that is a decision based in some morality, and thus needs to be explained.
Lastly, I cannot see any innocent citizens about to be hit by a bus anywhere near my computer desk, can you? This is a forum on the internet, based around a game, asking a hypothetical question. Of course you cannot look too deep if a persons life is ACTUALLY at risk. However, seeing as this is all hypothetical, I entirely can imagine us looking into it too deeply :P
Hypothetical by it's very nature deals with possibilities. Which is why people need to study ethics and morality when they are young, so than when/if the hypothetical becomes reality they can do the right thing. It's because people are walking around with a flawed morality that the world has become what it is today.
And yes people's lives are at risk every day because this. People are being euthanized without consent by the cartload in Holland because the doctor reserves the right to decide if the patient is worth keeping alive. They believe that their time is better spent caring for the younger patients. Also abortion...but I won't get into that.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
''I should be ready with a reply if I'm going to 'attack' your points''?.
I'm sorry, I simply said I did not really understand what you were getting at.
I don't mean attack in a bad way; if a point is wrong, attack it.
Secondly, you said the question asked if it was morally acceptable. No it didn't. It asked you who you would save.
The question simply assumed that you thought it was morally acceptable to choose one
, and simply asked you who you would save. If it didn't, it would say something like ''There are two people infront of a fast moving bus. Firstly, is it morally acceptable to choose who to save, and secondly, if it is, who would you save?''. It did not say anything of that sort.
You just agreed with me.
So there are 3 possible answers to the question. a) the baby is better to save because xyz b) the old man is better to save because xyz c) neither, because you disagree with the assumption that it's morally acceptable to choose one.
Lastly, I was making a light point about how much we've been talking about all this. People's lives are not at risk in this forum. ''P.S Is it just me that thinks we're looking wayyyyyyyyyy too far into this? :P
If a person's life is at stake, is it really possible to look too deep?''
No-one's life is at stake right here. If this conversation was taking place at the raodside with said bus, then fine, you'd be right. But it's not. We're sitting at computers hypothetically talking about it. Regardless of wether or not hypothetical situations deal with all possibilities by their nature, no-one is going to die if we (As in, Eluneril and Hyperspacerebel, not we as a society) just drop this conversation.
So you're 100% sure you or any one else who reads this isn't going to be faced with a choice that involves someone's life?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.