An Ethical Dilemma

[Eidolon]

Here is a dilemma for you. What value do you assign to human life?

Say there is a building burning to the ground and two people inside, an infant, and a grown man. The grown man is a leading virologist and has discovered the cure for HIV but has yet to implement his findings. You are a firefighter who has been injured and have only the use of one arm and can therefore only save one before the gas lines rupture causing the house to explode. Both victims are completely incapacitated and have to be carried out. Which do you chose, the infant? Or the Adult with life saving credentials?

What would you do? Bear in mind, future and immediate consequences in evaluating you choice, and explore all avenues of logic in regards to the limitations set. Which life is more valuable in this case, and why?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm pitching the baby out the window and trying to save the guy.

 

[Doc.]

if you said that that I have a choice between 50 infants and that man I would give it a think.

 

[Eidolon]

if you said that that I have a choice between 50 infants and that man I would give it a think.

Well it wasn't a question of quantity of life saved, but the value placed upon life which would be how we decided which life to save.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You know, I really hate these hypothetical contrived situations for ethical "dilemmas". They always feel too unreal to be useful to anyone.

That's like asking "you have a one-use time machine... kill Hitler or get the cure for cancer from the far future?" That doesn't measure ethics, it measures nothing except which way your imagination runs.

The reality of these sorts of hypotheticals is that you are making snap judgments based on limited information, and all choices are bad.

 

[RichardMNixon]

if you said that that I have a choice between 50 infants and that man I would give it a think.

Well it wasn't a question of quantity of life saved, but the value placed upon life which would be how we decided which life to save.

I'm not sure I follow your distinction there. Is value not additive?

 

[Ozymandyus]

I'd do my best to save both, but while I would prefer to save the virologist, if he was unconcious it would be far easier to save the baby, and I would have a far lesser risk of having us both die. If he wasn't unconcious, he can carry the damn baby out, or try to protect himself by breathing through a wet cloth or whatever while I rush the baby out and get more help..

I don't really like ethical dilemmas like this because the scales are never balanced so neatly to be a choice of saving this person or that person. You are simply faced with a quick decision and its more likely that you will make it based on their chances of survival or of being able to save both than some sort of calculation of their societal value.

Sorry that I didn't answer exactly, but there can be no doubt that the life of virologist is 'worth more': for god's sakes, society has already invested millions of dollars into him. To make the baby into a virologist you would have to spend millions, and wait for decades! Could that baby be even better? Maybe... but if you instead invested those resources into another baby, that baby could also be better. That is the cold calculus of the matter.

 

[Jotto999]

I dunno, did they have a ladder set up? Is my firefighter suit slightly big on me so I can stuff the baby in there? Any chance I could drop someone out a window without it being fatal? Well, I'd know if I was actually there.

Since you probably meant that choosing one means leaving the other, I'm obviously grabbing the virologist.

 

[Eidolon]

I think most people missed the point. I may not have been detailed enough in my post.

It was primarily a means to see how people judge their emotional value against their logical value. Logic would state that of course you save the scientist because he has the potential to in turn save millions of lives. Whereas the infant bleeds off the emotional side of save the baby. Since humans tend to respond more emotionally to things than logically, I figured it would be a test of how much value humans place on other humans in terms of achievement or our natural instinct to protect the younger of the species.

While it would make the most sense to save the scientist, what would the rest of the world think of a firefighter who chose to save a grown man over a baby? How would the rest of humanity judge the firefighter knowing that his actions result in the death of a baby and saved a grown adult. Most people tend to emotionally disconnect from adults as adults tend to lose "value" as they age. Whereas alot of people would automatically place a much higher value on the baby's life, just because its an infant.

When it comes to humanity, people get all warm and fuzzy over any random baby, but couldn't give their own shit about a random adult. At what point in human aging does life suddenly become less valuable? Its as if we treat human life like a new car that loses half its value the moment it drives off the lot.

I apologize if I'm not making sense here, but there is alot of logic to apply and I can't list every scenario that can develop from either choice.

 

[Case]

I have to second IJ's notion of hypothetical situations being useless, as
a) in emergency situations, we do not behave rationally
b) we sure as hell don't know the outcome beforehand and
c) there is no way to sufficiently frame a situation hypothetically.

What you're really asking is a different question, and I'm not entirely sure which.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think most people missed the point. I may not have been detailed enough in my post.

It was primarily a means to see how people judge their emotional value against their logical value. Logic would state that of course you save the scientist because he has the potential to in turn save millions of lives. Whereas the infant bleeds off the emotional side of save the baby. Since humans tend to respond more emotionally to things than logically, I figured it would be a test of how much value humans place on other humans in terms of achievement or our natural instinct to protect the younger of the species.

While it would make the most sense to save the scientist, what would the rest of the world think of a firefighter who chose to save a grown man over a baby? How would the rest of humanity judge the firefighter knowing that his actions result in the death of a baby and saved a grown adult. Most people tend to emotionally disconnect from adults as adults tend to lose "value" as they age. Whereas alot of people would automatically place a much higher value on the baby's life, just because its an infant.

When it comes to humanity, people get all warm and fuzzy over any random baby, but couldn't give their own shit about a random adult. At what point in human aging does life suddenly become less valuable? Its as if we treat human life like a new car that loses half its value the moment it drives off the lot.

I apologize if I'm not making sense here, but there is alot of logic to apply and I can't list every scenario that can develop from either choice.

The real reason you're not making sense is that you've decided which decision is logically correct and which is emotionally correct, even though you admit that you can't list every possible outcome.

If you're looking for us to fulfill your belief that we value children more than adults, that's one thing. Setting up an impossible situation is a whole other thing. Maybe I try to save both, I shove the kid in my shirt or tie the guy to my belt and drag him. Maybe I save neither and get the hell out of there before the building collapses. Maybe we all just die... but none of those options show someone's ethics, they only show their style of risk assessment.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I have to second IJ's notion of hypothetical situations being useless, as
a) in emergency situations, we do not behave rationally
b) we sure as hell don't know the outcome beforehand and
c) there is no way to sufficiently frame a situation hypothetically.

What you're really asking is a different question, and I'm not entirely sure which.

Well, your concise list made me think of another point. If someone makes the wrong choice, why would that make them unethical? Someone making the best of a bunch of bad options isn't being more or less ethical, they are just being a normal, fallible human being.

BTW Eidolon, I'm not going after you personally. I'm rejecting ALL of these hypothetical "ethical dilemmas", the entire bunch of them that I've ever stumbled across. Your personal example isn't especially bad, the problem is that the entire format is broken from its conception.

 

[RichardMNixon]

If you're looking to compare emotion to logical response, I don't think a forum is a good place to do. It's hard to be emotionally attached to an imaginary baby.

 

[Eidolon]

BTW Eidolon, I'm not going after you personally. I'm rejecting ALL of these hypothetical "ethical dilemmas", the entire bunch of them that I've ever stumbled across. Your personal example isn't especially bad, the problem is that the entire format is broken from its conception.

I understand. But thats the point of a hypothetical, is that it tests the logic at its most fundamental level without the noise of other factors. It serves to demonstrate 1 particular logical path based on an elemental choice of one over the other without other factors to influence choice. Every situation is vastly complex in terms of choice, cause and effect, and outcomes. But when you introduce a hypothetical, you can remove every other determining factor and stick to the elemental choice.

If you're looking to compare emotion to logical response, I don't think a forum is a good place to do. It's hard to be emotionally attached to an imaginary baby.

Its subjective based on the forum. A forum like this will side with the scientist because they can see that saving his life will ultimately lead to saving the lives of many others, whereas another forum may be more emotional and side with the infant. If this was a more emotional forum, and someone sided with the scientist, he/she will ultimately be scorned as not caring for babies or some crap like that. Likewise, if someone here were to chose the baby, they may be ridiculed for basing judgment on emotion or some other predisposition that is not logical. Ultimately, it depends on what value an individual puts on a life as to whether or not they will respond emotionally or logically.

BTW, I would save the scientist because it has a guaranteed positive outcome, vice saving the infant which has no definite outcome at all. It could very well grow up and continue the work of the scientist, and validate the emotional choice, or it could grow up to be the next great terrorist and thus makes the decision rather shitty, or it could just be average and have no dramatic effect on the future.

 

[Case]

Wrong, sweetheart.

Its subjective based on the forum. A forum like this will side with the scientist because they can see that saving his life will ultimately lead to saving the lives of many others, whereas another forum may be more emotional and side with the infant. If this was a more emotional forum, and someone sided with the scientist, he/she will ultimately be scorned as not caring for babies or some crap like that. Likewise, if someone here were to chose the baby, they may be ridiculed for basing judgment on emotion or some other predisposition that is not logical. Ultimately, it depends on what value an individual puts on a life as to whether or not they will respond emotionally or logically.

You just contradicted yourself. But that isn't much of a problem, as your whole argument is as solid as swiss cheese. Let me show you.

I would save the scientist because it has a guaranteed positive outcome, vice (?) saving the infant which has no definite outcome at all. It could very well grow up and continue the work of the scientist, and validate the emotional choice, or it could grow up to be the next great terrorist and thus makes the decision rather shitty, or it could just be average and have no dramatic effect on the future.

1) Saving the scientist does NOT have that "definite" outcome, because you cannot know any ultimate outcomes, only the proximate. He could implement an immunization technique for HIV, which after a couple of years turns out to kill everyone who took it. And don't reply with "but it's definite because I said it would be" please. Yes, if you depict a situation where everything is known and you leave only one option, there is only one option and it will have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.
2) Saving the baby has the proximate definite outcome of a live baby. That's more than none. Could be yours, which could make your wife happy. Say you saved the guy and your wife upon hearing the news kills herself, driving you insane... see... you just can't know. Certainly not if you "remove every other determining factor and stick to the elemental choice".

 

[Unwardil]

The baby. I can quite easilly carry a baby in one arm, not so much a fully grown man who is completely incapacitated.

 

[Skillbus]

Even if the grown man was not a virologist and could not save 40 million lives and lift entire nations out of poverty, I would still save him. I think adults are more "human" than babies. They have lifetimes of experiences and definite personalities. I do place value on the lives of babies, just not as much as adults.

 

[Ibis3]

The problem with this hypothetical is that you've made the adult more valuable with the same measurement of value, because saving him means saving potentially millions of babies. So the question becomes do you save this one baby you can see or millions of babies you can't.

 

[Demojen]

Which life is more valuable in this case, and why?

The value of a life? Life has no value.

Which would I choose? I would choose the one I believe in the situation is more likely to survive.
If they have an equal opportunity to survive, I would choose the one that more appeals at the time to my own view of priorities for humanity.

Replace the virologist with the Prime Minister of Canada and they have an equal chance of survival, I would choose the child.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

This isnt really a hard question .

To simply put it i would just throw the baby in the fire ( Atleast it will die quicker that way ) and carry out the man.

That is because in real life there isnt any action that is directly good or bad.Even when we make choices where we think they are solely
good we ussually have hard times in the future because of those actions.

And this hypothetical situation isnt really that good.

Someones gona die in that situation whatever you do and one of the choice will most likely save 40 million people
while the other will just make a few people happy.