If you could save the life of two 10 year olds or three 75 year olds...

[WillJ]

Given the general nature of the question, I'll give a general answer: I'd save the kids. More years saved (in general), as others have said.

What if the 75 year old was due to cure cancer in his lab next year? What if the kids, unbeknown to you, were terminally ill with cancer while the 75 year olds totally healthy? What if the kid you saved turned into another (Godwins Rule) Hitler?

A whole lot of what ifs flys that could land on your logic pie and strut around as conquerers.

And people who give out vaccinations have to ask themselves these questions each and every day.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

... and who would the tie breaker go in favour of?

Whichever team makes the best Lime Ricky can live.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

What if the 75 year old was due to cure cancer in his lab next year? What if the kids, unbeknown to you, were terminally ill with cancer while the 75 year olds totally healthy? What if the kid you saved turned into another (Godwins Rule) Hitler?

A whole lot of what ifs flys that could land on your logic pie and strut around as conquerers.

Not a problem at all!

One of the many high-points of logic-based morality is its unlimited ability to adapt as the situation changes or as in this case new data becomes available, unlike say a morality system that tries to put everything into one unchangeable form, like say, oh, um, maybe a specific 2000 year old book.

Now watch closely young man and I'll show you what actually answering a morality-based question really is. Note: No rofl, no cute "" smiley, no just saying "well, I'd do the right thing" or "I'd do the moral thing" or "The decision is based upon love of man." or "take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.". Yes, this is called a real answer:


As a baseline let's see where we started:

Using my non-religion dependent, logic-based morality (see this thread) I would choose the kids because that would maximize the years of life lived.

A kid that made it to 10 has a 80(?) year life expectancy. 70 years left x 2 kids = 140 years of life saved.

A man that made it to 75 has a 85(?) year life expectancy. 10 years left x 3 men = 30 years of life saved.

Added to the equation:

What if the 75 year old was due to cure cancer in his lab next year?

If I am aware of this fact then I would save the man and one of the children. The 'years of life saved' data as from the baseline would now be maximized based on this new information by saving the scientist and not both kids.

What if the kids, unbeknown to you, were terminally ill with cancer while the 75 year olds totally healthy?

If it was unknown to me I couldn't be expected to use this data as a variable in my equation. Just so there's no accusation that I didn't fully answer the question I'll even say that if I did know the kids were terminal, this data would mean their '80 year life expectancy' from above would now be an 11 year life expectancy. I would now save the three adults instead.

What if the kid you saved turned into another (Godwins Rule) Hitler?

Are you asking if I'm psychic? If I didn't know, then as above I couldn't use this data as a variable in my equation. If I did know, for sure, he would turn into Hitler I'd just save the other kid only. This would again maximize the 'years of life saved' as the one kid is worth more than the three old men and Hitler Jr. would be a huge negative 'years of life saved' so he gets to die.



See how easy it is to just answer the questions? <Image of Sahkuhnder with a fly-swatter, strutting around as a conquerer, eating a nice big piece of victory pie>

--------

What would Daniel Dravot do? Or Peachy?

They have slightly, shall we say, skewed morality. Which combination of lives would make them the most money? Are any of the older men rich or do any of the kids have rich parents?

Could they get paid for their story by a certain correspondent for the Northern Star? Saving the kids might make a good tale with the right author.

Trump card above all else: Are any of the men Masonic brothers?


EDIT - corrected typo.

 

[Stile]

The kids: not for most years left, but for fewest years lived. Everyone deserves to uhh... you know if... uhh possible...

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I'd go for the kids. Two more bodies that can serve the workforce and grow the economy, versus three older people who have already finished their contribution and are now drawing for the system. By looking at my signature, my answer shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Stile]

I'd go for the kids. Two more bodies that can serve the workforce and grow the economy, versus three older people who have already finished their contribution and are now drawing for the system. By looking at my signature, my answer shouldn't be surprising.

I'm sure the system pays more to educate the young than to care for the old. The benefits of the young are merely potential and require a significant investment. With only a slightly longer life span, your cold cost/benefit analysis would favor the old who the system has already invested in. My disdain for the system should be evident from my signature.

 

[blackheart]

I'd let them save themselves

 

[Sidhe]

Precisley God helps those who help themselves

With the OP it's impossible to make a decision, except as pointed out based on instinct(essentially you know nothing about the kids or the old geezers, so what are you basing your judgement on, maths is fine but it's not exactly the whole picture is it?) But if you give some logical precepts to work from the quesiton becomes easier and easier, that's morality in a nut shell, pity you can't philosophise over the issue when a cars coming screaming at a group of people at 75 miles an hour.

Nice work Sakuhnder, rationality triumphs again

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I'm sure the system pays more to educate the young than to care for the old. The benefits of the young are merely potential and require a significant investment. With only a slightly longer life span, your cold cost/benefit analysis would favor the old who the system has already invested in. My disdain for the system should be evident from my signature.

Yes, it pays more to educate the children but that is investment spending that will come back in their careers and contribution to the workforce. With the retired people, they have already made their contribution and are drawing off the system simply to prolong their life without making any more significant contributions.

 

[Till]

if I were one of the three 75 yo involved, I still would say save the children.
[size=-2] Or, at least, I would like to have the nuts to say so, if the moment of truth arrives[/size]

That's how i feel as well.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Yes, it pays more to educate the children but that is investment spending that will come back in their careers and contribution to the workforce. With the retired people, they have already made their contribution and are drawing off the system simply to prolong their life without making any more significant contributions.

All you need now is to start talking about a 10 years military service and to talk about the .X. (insert not-what-race-you-are here or jews) in a "negative way" and you'll be on the right track.

 

[Souron]

I'd save the kids. Not because they have more years to live but because the old people are more ready to die. A ten year old kid probably (hopefully) does not even fully comprehend the meaning of death. For a seventy-five year old death is never too far from his mind. He'd have been to many funerals of people he knew, including his parents.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

All you need now is to start talking about a 10 years military service and to talk about the .X. (insert not-what-race-you-are here or jews) in a "negative way" and you'll be on the right track.

Those damn Radioactive monkey's must perish! Join the fight against them!

 

[CurtSibling]

If you could save the life of two 10 year olds or three 75 year olds...

Depends.

If the 75-year-olds are nobel-winning scientists and the kids are
useless working-class scum: I would rescue the eggheads of course.

If the kids are somehow useful to society in the future, we would have
no way of knowing anyway. Just saving them because they are young
is silly - Most youth is corrupted anyway by this sick world, so perhaps
the 10-year-olds and 75-year-olds are all better off being worm food.

.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh you got it, good, ask questions before you make morality judgements, who are the kids who are the oldies, what value is there in either group, how can I make decision without knowing the ins and outs?

 

[CurtSibling]

Do you think I'll win a prize now?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Do you think I'll win a prize now?

For saying, "let them all die?" No, we would expect no less out of you. Glad you didn't let us down.

 

[Souron]

Oh you got it, good, ask questions before you make morality judgements, who are the kids who are the oldies, what value is there in either group, how can I make decision without knowing the ins and outs?

Sometimes life asks us to make choices without having all the information. Often times those are the hardest choices to make.

 

[blackheart]

Sometimes life asks us to make choices without having all the information. Often times those are the hardest choices to make.

In those instances, choose the evil you've never tried

 

[amadeus]

This is a perverse and disturbing question; I don't want any part in answering it or being part of this discussion.