Morality- which is the better choice?

My answer to this question is : Only those who have been in the said situation would know their own answer.

Others can imagine, and try to visualise what they would do, but there is only one possible litmus test.

We can moralise on what is right and wrong, but it is meaningless once the test is faced, except perhaps to enhance any feelings of guilt that the survivor/s may have.

Interesting question. The truth - yes, I would die to save 50 strangers except if all these strangers were on death row in prison. There might be other exceptions it depends on what you are thinking.

I am not so sure this is a moral question. Certainly, I would want to save the 50 people, and given the events of any particular day, I might be willing to die to do that. But, we are programmed to live, and the mind is not always able to overrule the biochemical being.

I would never sacrifice myself for people whom I did not know. The scenario might be different if some of the people were those that I loved.

I ride the New York City Subway system everyday usually with a couple of thousand people I don't know.



Joe(I'm thinking)Nation

I agree with phoenix. I would not give up my life for fifty strangers. I'd walk away and not feel guilty. I may do it for one person I love though.

I agree with Tico-who can know either way?
Because if you say you absolutely wouldn't, that means that if you came upon a school bus fire and had an opportunity to save children at the expense of your own life- you'd say, "Nope, not today- none of those kids are mine. I'll just sit here and watch them burn or drive away and try to forget I saw it- or maybe call 911 on my cell phone and let the poor emergency services guys give up their lives instead of mine-that's what they're paid for..."
What quality of life would you have after walking away from such a scenario?

I guess that's why it takes really exceptional people to be in emergency services. This is essentially what they face every day they go to work-the knowledge that if they're called upon to do it-they will sacrifice their lives to save the lives of people they don't know.

*There's a really interesting novel that addresses this exact issue (the opportunity to help or not help two strangers, an elderly man and his grandson who are in danger- and how six or seven able-bodied men react and the repercussions to each after it ends somewhat tragically). It's called Enduring Love, by Ian McEwan- it was made into an interesting but less affecting film starring Daniel Craig.

Re: Morality- which is the better choice?

Tico is right: that's not a moral question. Asking what would you do merely asks for a prediction of how someone will act in a given situation. That's not a question about morality, that's a question about behavior. The inquiry, rather, should be: "what should you do?"

ok joe and tico. What should you do in the given situation?

I'll assume that I have no special obligation to help those 50 people (e.g. it's not my job to save people in these kinds of situations and I did not put those people in danger in the first place). If that's the case, then I have no obligation to save even one of them, let alone 50 of them. My obligation, at most, is to do whatever I can to assist them without putting myself in any danger. For instance, if it would take little or no effort to call for assistance, then I might have an obligation to do that, but I certainly have no obligation to risk my own life. If I do attempt to save them, then I would be acting in a praiseworthy manner, but I would not be acting pursuant to a moral obligation.

Re: Morality- which is the better choice?


The 50 people:
a) Add up their ages and divide by 50
b) Add up their material net worth and divide by 50
c) Add up their IQ's and divide by 50

a + b + c = x

Chumly:
d) My age
e) My material net worth
f) My IQ

d + e + f = y

If x > y than I die
If y > x than the 50 people die

Re: Morality- which is the better choice?


Which highlights the truth about what I was thinking when people said they'd be more likely to save people they know and love than strangers.

That instinct to be more protective of what you love is another manifestation of selfishness, or self-preservation. You'd be more likely to save who you love, because it would have more of a negative effect on your life if they were to be hurt or killed than if someone you didn't know was hurt or killed.

Maybe pure altruistic intent without thought of harm or gain to oneself is very, very rare- although I do believe it exists.

But I also wonder if those who are unwilling to protect or save strangers would act without hesitation (at risk of danger to themselves) to save or protect a loved one. That hesitation speaks of fear- and if someone is unwilling (or emotionally unable) to risk harm to themselves to the point where they wouldn't help strangers-I think they'd also be afraid for themselves to the point that they'd at least hesitate to help someone they loved.

I heard about a seven year old boy who jumped through a hole in the ice (in January in Maine a few years ago) to save his five year old sister. When I heard that story, I had to honestly ask myself if I would have been able to do the same thing. I don't know that I would have- no matter who was under the ice-but I think this same boy would have-even if it had been a stranger and not his sister, because he possessed courage (and maybe was young enough not to consider the full consequences to himself).
But if you don't possess enough courage to help strangers, why would you suddenly possess enough courage to help someone you know or love? Does love also automatically instill courage in a person- or again is it just selfish preservation of what you value in your life or self- and does that self-preservation always trump fear?

Chumly by your equation, you'd sacrifice the younger sooner than the older. Interesting-I'd tend to do just the opposite I think.
What attribute are you ascribing to material wealth that would be more worthy of saving?
Would higher IQ speak to your belief in survival of the fittest?

It seems like you have the opposite view of most men-who would tend to save the young or most helpless first.

Where do you stand on the whole chivalry issue? :wink:

Shoot, I made a mistake about the ages! It should have read: add up their ages, divide by 50, invert, then multiply by 100. Then the lower average age would give the higher score (same idea applied to the Chumly calculation).

The point is to suggest (as crude as it may be) you can quality/quantify the value of human life. In fact you could argue you must quality/quantify the value of human life when forced with such decisions (although you could avoid the whole issue and flip a coin).

I am not sure I would say 'higher IQ speaks to my belief in survival of the fittest' as much as I believe the future success/survival of mankind as a whole is pivotal on science/technology playing a crucial role.

A science/technology person able to develop FTL (faster than light) space travel is an immensely valuable asset to mankind. I suggest a life-death critical decision of this nature should involve "future think".

As to where I stand on chivalry: when the call to abandon ship rings out, woman children are first to the life boats and the captain goes down with the ship. At least that's the romanticized idealized thought that pops into my head because on a regular basis, the word chivalry evokes white knights and fair maidens much more than ugly-pragmatic life and death choices.

This is an imperfect segue for an enormous spendi rejoinder on the moral days of yore! I'll go call his royal non-sequitur-ish-ness.

That is what I thought as well. I would do everything within my power to help them, but if that required the sacrifice of my own life I would not do it, since I cannot see how I am obligated to do so. (Unless I was a policeman or fireman or some other man that had sworn an oath to serve and protect).

But with this attitude, you most probably would not have chosen to become a member of a police force or a firefighter- I'm not criticizing you-I didn't choose to do either of those things either. But I'll admit it's because I would be afraid to place myself in that kind of physical danger, at all, much less on a day-in, day-out basis.
If I came upon a bus accident, I wouldn't choose not to act because I didn't think it was my obligation to help-I would consider it my obligation, especially if children or elderly people who were less able-bodied than I was were involved- and I would desperately want to be brave enough to help. But I can honestly say that if I didn't help, it would be because I would be afraid to help- afraid of being burned, or of burning to death.

Most people I know who have chosen emergency services work as a profession don't view saving peoples' lives as a work-related obligation. They chose those professions because they view the situations that come up in their work as opportunities to help people, save lives, and view the possible sacrifice of their own life as part of the job.
I also see, in those I've known as friends, a common tendency among them to be risk-takers and into adrenalin rushes, so it may not all be down to altruism.

Chumly- I didn't even think of the whole knight/maiden chivalry thing you're talking about. And honestly, especially in this day in age, if I were a man- I'd have to think twice about giving a woman my seat on the lifeboat just because she's a woman. When I watched the Titanic, I remember thinking- "God, it sucked to be a guy back then"- and even as a woman, I questioned the reasoning for that standard.

This reminds me of that film, 'Vertical Limit', the opening to the film sees a group of mountain/rock climbers run into problems. The group consists of a father and his two grown up children. They end up with one support in the cliff holding all three of them and the father recognises that this isn't enough and won't hold for long. The ordering of the three is the girl first, her brother second and the father is at the bottom. At first they try to add another support into the cliff but they're unable to. At this point the father starts shouting at his son to cut the rope below him which will of course send the father to his death but save the other two. It's brutal stuff. Send your father, who is right next to you, to his death to save your sisters life. That's essentially the position the father puts the son in.

Some people--soldiers, police officers, firemen, mountain rescue teams, etc.--intentionally risk their lives on behalf of strangers. But there is something in the American psyche that values life. While many are willing to assume risk, all try to survive their tasks, and few plan to intentionally die.

On the spur of the moment choices, however, I am in the camp of not knowing the decision we'll make until we have to make it. How many people know whether they would run into the burning building to save a child or jump into a flash flood to try to snag somebody who will otherwise drown until we have to make that choice? Even then, we may not be certain we would die if we make the effort.

If we absolutely DID know we would die to save somebody else, I don't think we can know for certain what we would do. A loved one would surely prompt sacrifice more than a stranger. A child would certainly evoke a much stronger urge to act than would say a serial killer.

I think all of us would like to thnk what we would and would not do in a situation of extreme emotion and crisis. I don't think any of us can know for sure how we will react until tested however.

Good point! There is no inherent implication of altruism in auto-racing or skydiving either.

But the scenarion isn't to put oneself at risk. I've done such things; put myself at risk to help someone who were in worse trouble.

The scenario is to sacrifice one's own life to save others. That's different, because it is not the possibility of har, it is the certainty of death.