CDZ Can you be rational?

[ChrisL]

The question, without considering such factors, is just not a "rational" question to begin with, so it should not have been asked in such a way.

Say what? The substance of that remark is "the question is not rational; therefore it should not be asked irrationally." Surely you don't mean that the way you wrote it?

If you truly do, please spend a good deal of time here: Logically Fallacious

What is it going to take for you to understand that a hypothetical question/scenario need not at all present real, plausible, possible, or probable situations? You know, whatever it is, you don't need to share with me. I'm done trying to explain it for I'm now weary of the intellectual intransigence you're showing in this discussion.

TY for the chit chat.

If a person is expecting "rational" and "logical" responses, then there wouldn't be a need to put those kinds of limitations because that is not using logic or rationale.

 

[320 Years of History]

The question, without considering such factors, is just not a "rational" question to begin with, so it should not have been asked in such a way.

Say what? The substance of that remark is "the question is not rational; therefore it should not be asked irrationally." Surely you don't mean that the way you wrote it?

If you truly do, please spend a good deal of time here: Logically Fallacious

What is it going to take for you to understand that a hypothetical question/scenario need not at all present real, plausible, possible, or probable situations? You know, whatever it is, you don't need to share with me. I'm done trying to explain it for I'm now weary of the intellectual intransigence you're showing in this discussion.

TY for the chit chat.

The question was "can you be rational" yet the question is NOT rational. Better? Why put "limitations" on it otherwise?

If all one is of a mind to do is answer the question, "Can you be rational," the scenario given in the OP is irrelevant. One can answer that question without the scenario.

 

[ChrisL]

It's nothing more than a question designed to get the answers that the OP wishes for. HE put the limitations in place and then uses the term "rational" when the OP is far from rational to limit us in such a way.

 

[ChrisL]

The question, without considering such factors, is just not a "rational" question to begin with, so it should not have been asked in such a way.

Say what? The substance of that remark is "the question is not rational; therefore it should not be asked irrationally." Surely you don't mean that the way you wrote it?

If you truly do, please spend a good deal of time here: Logically Fallacious

What is it going to take for you to understand that a hypothetical question/scenario need not at all present real, plausible, possible, or probable situations? You know, whatever it is, you don't need to share with me. I'm done trying to explain it for I'm now weary of the intellectual intransigence you're showing in this discussion.

TY for the chit chat.

The question was "can you be rational" yet the question is NOT rational. Better? Why put "limitations" on it otherwise?

If all one is of a mind to do is answer the question, "Can you be rational," the scenario given in the OP is irrelevant. One can answer that question without the scenario.

The only "rational" response is that you would save the one that you could get to the quickest.

 

[OldLady]

The question, without considering such factors, is just not a "rational" question to begin with, so it should not have been asked in such a way.

Say what? The substance of that remark is "the question is not rational; therefore it should not be asked irrationally." Surely you don't mean that the way you wrote it?

If you truly do, please spend a good deal of time here: Logically Fallacious

What is it going to take for you to understand that a hypothetical question/scenario need not at all present real, plausible, possible, or probable situations? You know, whatever it is, you don't need to share with me. I'm done trying to explain it for I'm now weary of the intellectual intransigence you're showing in this discussion.

TY for the chit chat.

The question was "can you be rational" yet the question is NOT rational. Better? Why put "limitations" on it otherwise?

If all one is of a mind to do is answer the question, "Can you be rational," the scenario given in the OP is irrelevant. One can answer that question without the scenario.

The only "rational" response is that you would save the one that you could get to the quickest.

Did 320 answer my question? I'm always willing to learn why I'm wrong, but if there was an answer in there, I guess I missed it. You seem to know what he's talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

 

[320 Years of History]

The question, without considering such factors, is just not a "rational" question to begin with, so it should not have been asked in such a way.

Say what? The substance of that remark is "the question is not rational; therefore it should not be asked irrationally." Surely you don't mean that the way you wrote it?

If you truly do, please spend a good deal of time here: Logically Fallacious

What is it going to take for you to understand that a hypothetical question/scenario need not at all present real, plausible, possible, or probable situations? You know, whatever it is, you don't need to share with me. I'm done trying to explain it for I'm now weary of the intellectual intransigence you're showing in this discussion.

TY for the chit chat.

The question was "can you be rational" yet the question is NOT rational. Better? Why put "limitations" on it otherwise?

If all one is of a mind to do is answer the question, "Can you be rational," the scenario given in the OP is irrelevant. One can answer that question without the scenario.

The only "rational" response is that you would save the one that you could get to the quickest.

That isn't the only rational response, but that is the substance of why I chose the infant. In choosing as I did, however, I had to make one assumption that is only arguably allowed, but strictly isn't: that by the burning car being in front of me, the rear of it is nearer to me than is the front of it.

 

[Bonzi]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

 

[sealybobo]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

So if a Christian is in the front and atheist in the back you'd save me? I love you too.

You'd be a great wife for an atheist. You would even take a bullet for me because you're going to heaven and I'm not saved yet.

 

[320 Years of History]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

You can incorporate thoughts driven by your belief system. What you cannot do, given the scenario rules, is speculate about that which is unknown about the individuals whom you have the opportunity to save. The scenario only offers that one is a teen female and the other is an infant male. That's all you can use as go the individuals in need when making your choice.

 

[Bonzi]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

So if a Christian is in the front and atheist in the back you'd save me? I love you too.

You'd be a great wife for an atheist. You would even take a bullet for me because you're going to heaven and I'm not saved yet.

I am not sure that I am saved. I don't have assurance of salvation. Not because I doubt God, but, because I doubt my commitment and sincerity of heart.
Even so, yes, I would like to think I would be able to do that (sacrifice my life for someone else, especially if I know for sure they are not in right relationship with God). I'm going to die eventually anyway. I wish I could be as brave as I talk, but, have not had the chance to "test" my resolve.

 

[sealybobo]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl...

She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

So if a Christian is in the front and atheist in the back you'd save me? I love you too.

You'd be a great wife for an atheist. You would even take a bullet for me because you're going to heaven and I'm not saved yet.

I am not sure that I am saved. I don't have assurance of salvation. Not because I doubt God, but, because I doubt my commitment and sincerity of heart.
Even so, yes, I would like to think I would be able to do that (sacrifice my life for someone else, especially if I know for sure they are not in right relationship with God). I'm going to die eventually anyway. I wish I could be as brave as I talk, but, have not had the chance to "test" my resolve.

Hopefully you never have to.

 

[Bonzi]

Good, a little twisted getting there but that is the rational, therefore correct, choice.

Who's more likely to give me a reward a person or a baby? Jk. Id save the baby.

What about a dog in the back or person in the front? I mean a really cute dog looking at you and she's unconscious?

It's hard to make a decision without including your belief system.
My Christian belief is that a baby is not at the age of accountability, and, therefore, if they die, they go to Heaven.
A teenager may be at the age of accountability, and, if they do not have a relationship with Christ as their Savior, well, eternity in Hell is a long time.
Dogs? Pfft.

But that's just my belief.... most people don't agree

So if a Christian is in the front and atheist in the back you'd save me? I love you too.

You'd be a great wife for an atheist. You would even take a bullet for me because you're going to heaven and I'm not saved yet.

I am not sure that I am saved. I don't have assurance of salvation. Not because I doubt God, but, because I doubt my commitment and sincerity of heart.
Even so, yes, I would like to think I would be able to do that (sacrifice my life for someone else, especially if I know for sure they are not in right relationship with God). I'm going to die eventually anyway. I wish I could be as brave as I talk, but, have not had the chance to "test" my resolve.

Hopefully you never have to.

thanks sealy ....