-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
You're on a sinking boat with 500+ passengers and there's not enough time to get everyone into a lifeboat: would you let kids go first?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
That's why you spartan kick the parents into the sea to join their kid.
I'm half tempted to make a thread with a poll about this moral scenario but from the perspective of someone reading the news story, just to see how people would judge an adult stranger for taking the seat of a child stranger.
I won't because I already know what those results look like.
I won't because I already know what those results look like.
I voted save myself, but that is because that kid is not getting that seat. My SO is going to get that seat if I'm sacrificing myself.
and if my SO is already safe on that boat I'm not giving my seat to a kid to leave my SO all alone. I care about my SO far more than myself or any kid.
and if my SO is already safe on that boat I'm not giving my seat to a kid to leave my SO all alone. I care about my SO far more than myself or any kid.
I'll do the honorable thing of course but in reality I think 👇
This but in a boat
Interesting... Interesting...
Well, who am I to say that history was wrong? *Chuck's the baby overboard*
I think it's going to be tuned differently per person and situation. The longer people think about danger the more rational or afraid they're going to become - and the longer they'll have to overcome their first instinct - maybe even realize that they're not saving their own genes.
Ironically this thread has loads of opposite day "not my kid /problem" antiheroes saying they wouldn't risk their necks - but I bet a significant chunk of those guys actually WOULD jump to help in the instant. The flipside of the "I'd have kicked his ass" keyboard warriors that sometimes docpan those threads.
Id hate to have to hear kids whining when Im trying to enjoy the rest of my vacation on the lifeboat so off to the sea with em snot nosed lil banshees
I think this is where I land. If I didn't have kids, I'd like to think I would let the kid go in place of me - but my life isn't about me alone anymore.
he could probably fit 12 kids in his place on the lifeboat, and he'd still be like "fuck em, kids can float anyway."
The core of the question is "under duress, would you choose your life over a random kid?" which is an unlikely scenario, but not too absurd. I think I'm more likely to be in that scenario than somehow outside a burning building where both my dog and a stranger were trapped under mysterious circumstances (probably after being struck by lightning and the victim of an islamist terror attack.)
I mean, if you have to weigh how much you value your life over the kid's, I understand that. But there's a definite idea of "I save myself because I can rationally determine an objective difference in worth in human life" floating around here. You can see it in other topics, ranging from silly hypotheticals like these to topics about crime and justice. It's something I notice in places with larger populations of internet atheists.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55701647/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.0.png)
That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of. I am an atheist, so I am weighing the end of my existence vs the child's life. I suppose if I were spiritual and believed that I would continue to exist in some form after death, the weight of that decision would be very different.
Does you presume your gf would also rather she live than you (and 'most women would agree')?
I'm an atheist and don't believe in an afterlife but voted for saving the kid above myself.
That said I don't think your read of internet atheist communities here is wrong.
If I knew 100% I was going to die, fuck the kid. He dies, I live.
In reality, I would probably convince myself there would be some other way I could survive until help comes and save teh kid. Then I would probably die.
In reality, I would probably convince myself there would be some other way I could survive until help comes and save teh kid. Then I would probably die.
Yeah, it's a hard choice. I'd feel like if there was a reasonable amount of risk to save a stranger's child I would. (Like kid is drowning, I'm going in). But if it's a 100% kind of thing, no.
I'd try to send the kids first. Also I think people like trolling these sorts of topics, lol.
In reality, other than some fringe cases, my guess is that a large majority would go with the old "women and children first" rule, and force others to comply. Different situations may lead to different decisions too.
Like, if you're the only one who would be left behind. How might that change your mentality? Would you be the first to volunteer to go down with the ship?
In reality, other than some fringe cases, my guess is that a large majority would go with the old "women and children first" rule, and force others to comply. Different situations may lead to different decisions too.
Like, if you're the only one who would be left behind. How might that change your mentality? Would you be the first to volunteer to go down with the ship?
I mean its an easy choice for me unless the water is absolutely infested with sharks right there at the surface.(still the obvious choice but more scary to make)
Im a great swimmer, i'll take my chances swimming, riding a door, etc over a kid.
Im a great swimmer, i'll take my chances swimming, riding a door, etc over a kid.
depends on the situation really,(do I have kids, do they, are they a healthy person, etc)
Last edited:
