|
Post by fretslider on Sept 6, 2012 15:55:44 GMT -5
Ditch the pregnant woman and the disabled boy. It's a toss up between the rest. Survival of the fittest. So you're in favor of capital punishment after all, Fret. Why Joseph, that's quite a leap, crime wasn't even mentioned. No I don't favour the DP, civilisation is, after all, a thin veneer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 16:04:09 GMT -5
Why Joseph, that's quite a leap, crime wasn't even mentioned. No I don't favour the DP, civilisation is, after all, a thin veneer. Well, the question is put to you who you would put to death out of personal expediency. How is that different from an execution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 16:06:50 GMT -5
Ooooo this is a standard question in college courses that involve critical thinking (what is .. how to .. etc.) and interaction with others. I remember being in one of those classes and the participation was so lively it took up class time 2 days in a row. Nothing wrong with the question. Random is probably as good a way to figure it out as any. Our teacher stressed that the idea was not to save those you liked, were attracted to or pitied. It was to take along people who could make survival more likely until a possible rescue. One I wish I'd chosen is the CEO because more people with reasources would be looking for him. As you say ... no right or wrong answers. I would ask if such a group was worth saving.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 6, 2012 16:07:32 GMT -5
Why Joseph, that's quite a leap, crime wasn't even mentioned. No I don't favour the DP, civilisation is, after all, a thin veneer. Well, the question is put to you who you would put to death out of personal expediency. How is that different from an execution? No the question was "Who would you save?"
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 6, 2012 16:09:55 GMT -5
Darwinism does not equal the death penalty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 16:26:53 GMT -5
No the question was "Who would you save?" Yes, but if the only choice to "save" someone is to kill someone else, the question is who would you kill?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 16:28:03 GMT -5
Darwinism does not equal the death penalty. That isn't Drawinism. It's murder.
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 6, 2012 16:32:58 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a stupid question, except the one that goes, "Why am I drowning?" What kind of person would even ask that question? Perhaps one who didn't know how to swim, but in any event, it was just a joke. Try to keep up. The ages and occupations (or condition) are at the heart of the question. As I said, it's an exercise in "critical thinking". I also said, how you answer says something about one's personality. It says something about you that you would ask, Thunder. It isn't critical thinking. It's trying to find out who wants to play god when given the chance. While it's intended to teach people about critical thinking, I'll lower the standards for you and say that it's just about thinking. There are several approaches. As Beth mentioned, taking along those who would be helpful in surviving until rescue... Discarding those who could hold you back and be a burden on the group... I went through an exercise in military training where it was demonstrated how it took two additional people to care for one who was injured. And then, there's the flip a coin method. While there may be some advantage in approaching decisions like this from a practical stand point, say... like Mister Spock... I wouldn't trust a leader without a heart. If during the life boat trip to the island, someone fell overboard in shark infested waters, such a leader might be tempted to not save them because it would be one less mouth to feed, or because that person challenged their decisions too often.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 16:42:38 GMT -5
Perhaps one who didn't know how to swim, but in any event, it was just a joke. Try to keep up. It says something about you that you would ask, Thunder. It isn't critical thinking. It's trying to find out who wants to play god when given the chance. While it's intended to teach people about critical thinking, I'll lower the standards for you and say that it's just about thinking. There are several approaches. As Beth mentioned, taking along those who would be helpful in surviving until rescue... Discarding those who could hold you back and be a burden on the group... I went through an exercise in military training where it was demonstrated how it took two additional people to care for one who was injured. And then, there's the flip a coin method. While there may be some advantage in approaching decisions like this from a practical stand point, say... like Mister Spock... I wouldn't trust a leader without a heart. If during the life boat trip to the island, someone fell overboard in shark infested waters, such a leader might be tempted to not save them because it would be one less mouth to feed, or because that person challenged their decisions too often. Having thought critically upon my first response, I'd say save them all or die trying. I don't see how an ethical person can rationalize cold-blooded murder.
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 6, 2012 16:52:56 GMT -5
Perhaps one who didn't know how to swim, but in any event, it was just a joke. Try to keep up. It says something about you that you would ask, Thunder. It isn't critical thinking. It's trying to find out who wants to play god when given the chance. While it's intended to teach people about critical thinking, I'll lower the standards for you and say that it's just about thinking. There are several approaches. As Beth mentioned, taking along those who would be helpful in surviving until rescue... Discarding those who could hold you back and be a burden on the group... I went through an exercise in military training where it was demonstrated how it took two additional people to care for one who was injured. And then, there's the flip a coin method. While there may be some advantage in approaching decisions like this from a practical stand point, say... like Mister Spock... I wouldn't trust a leader without a heart. If during the life boat trip to the island, someone fell overboard in shark infested waters, such a leader might be tempted to not save them because it would be one less mouth to feed, or because that person challenged their decisions too often. Having thought critically upon my first response, I'd say save them all or die trying. I don't see how an ethical person can rationalize cold-blooded murder. In that case, I'd want you on my boat, but you see... there you go again. Now you're thinking too much. That's outside of the parameters set by the question. Obviously, you'd have some priorities. You might want all women (there are four to choose from) and the monk, so no one would challenge your masculinity, or lower class, less educated people so you could easily remain above them. You must have some serious ideas other than kill them all, or save them all. Try to play along, you might enjoy it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 17:02:18 GMT -5
In that case, I'd want you on my boat, but you see... there you go again. Now you're thinking too much. I'm making an ethical argument. That isn't overthinking anything. That's outside of the parameters set by the question. The question isn't legitimate. Obviously, you'd have some priorities. You might want all women (there are four to choose from) and the monk, so no one would challenge your masculinity, or lower class, less educated people so you could easily remain above them. You must have some serious ideas other than kill them all, or save them all. It seems to me the question is meant to bring out the worst in a person. You might as well ask me which one of the Cocktail Slippers I'd most like to rape. I don't accept the parameters, and I don't want people thinking that I could.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Sept 6, 2012 17:10:20 GMT -5
Look at it this way, Joe. From the minute that the ship starts to sink they are all doomed. You are the one that is in the lifeboat and you can save yourself and 6 more.
What kind of choices are you looking at? You can leave and try to get to the island and save yourself only. You can punch a hole in the life boat and commit suicide on the spot. You can take the maximum you can and get somebody else to pick who goes. You can pick the survivors yourself. If you think the last one is murder then what would YOU do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 17:23:59 GMT -5
Look at it this way, Joe. From the minute that the ship starts to sink they are all doomed. You are the one that is in the lifeboat and you can save yourself and 6 more. Are there any circumstances where that is an accepted, incontrovertible fact? What kind of choices are you looking at? You can leave and try to get to the island and save yourself only. You can punch a hole in the life boat and commit suicide on the spot. You can take the maximum you can and get somebody else to pick who goes. You can pick the survivors yourself. If you think the last one is murder then what would YOU do? I would not accept as a given that a set number of people, no more, no less, will survive and that the rest will die. If the members of the group are so craven and depraved as to kill each other rather than fight for the group, perhaps the death of that group is the best outcome. Save them all, or die trying. That's my choice, and I would hope my shipmates felt the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 17:35:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thunder on Sept 6, 2012 18:43:41 GMT -5
Sometimes the lights are on, but there's no one home.
|
|