Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I stand by that last sentence. Pick a child to save and get the job done. If that troubles you, I'm sorry, but that's the best that can be done given the rules set up by the OP. In high stress situations, sometimes it's best to be calm and in control. Consider how the astronauts of Apolo 13 handled their crisis. Panic can result in disaster in an emergency. One can be emotional after the emergency is over.Perhaps! But if only one child can be saved then the last sentence is the optimum. Being emotional or grief stricken will no in any way improve the situation. I suspect that if I were involved in such a situation, I would need professional counseling because I would beat myself up for the child that did not survive even though I know that such grieving to be irrational.I do not accept PaintMyHouse as being an authority on being rational. Given the situation, it's not more rational to save either child rather than the other for there are many ways to rationalize the situation in the favor of either. Just pick one and get the job done.
I agree with the post above, overall. Your last sentence, however, made it considerably more difficult for me to do so, whereas minus that remark, I'd have had no cause to pause before thus concluding. The matter and choices aren't nearly as desultorily determined as that statement, which connotes a blase, perhaps even serendipitous, tone, implies.
I agree with you. It was solely the tone of that final sentence that troubled me.
Personally, I think the final sentence weaken the paragraph as a whole, that is, the paragraph was far more poignant without that final sentence in a "less is more" way.
That probably comes as a shock to some readers for I often write long posts that attempt to comprehensively express the overt and subtle elements of my ideas, but I do understand the "less is more" principle too. I just don't take it to the extent whereby I use it as a reason to be less than fully clear and expressive.
So, you lack all morals and rational thought.
As I said, the thinking of an infant, and I very much doubt you were taught that. That is the teachings of a sociopath...So, you lack all morals and rational thought.
What I lack is any desire or need to unnecessarily put myself at risk qithout a GUARANTEE of support if things go wrong and reward if they go well.
The Morals I was taught tell me that my personal safety is paramount in every situation.
I was never stupid enough to be cannon fodder, and got well paid to build death machines instead.Ten to one, 50 to one and you don't fight back? Fuckin' pussies.To fight them in that case would have meant you and the children would have all died then and there, which is irrational. It was too late to do anything but choose.No, the rational answer and the only one that matters, is to attack the Nazi and kill him. The reason why a few hundred thousand scumbags were able to kill millions is the millions acted like sheep when they should have acted like lions and attacked. You see your choices are not choices based on reason. They are false choices based on fear and an unwillingness to think.
And yes, the Jews died like schoolgirls, not men.
The Jews would have been forced to take a knife to a gunfight since their guns had already been confiscated. Does that remind you of the present day at all?
I served in the military, did you?
Tell us, why didn't the Jews fight back? They were slaughtered like lambs, outnumbered the men with guns ten to one, sometimes 100 to one, and yet they died like pussies. Why?I was never stupid enough to be cannon fodder, and got well paid to build death machines instead.Ten to one, 50 to one and you don't fight back? Fuckin' pussies.To fight them in that case would have meant you and the children would have all died then and there, which is irrational. It was too late to do anything but choose.
And yes, the Jews died like schoolgirls, not men.
The Jews would have been forced to take a knife to a gunfight since their guns had already been confiscated. Does that remind you of the present day at all?
I served in the military, did you?
That explains your utter stupidity about who fights back and who doesn't, since you never had too.
Tell us, why didn't the Jews fight back? They were slaughtered like lambs, outnumbered the men with guns ten to one, sometimes 100 to one, and yet they died like pussies. Why?I was never stupid enough to be cannon fodder, and got well paid to build death machines instead.Ten to one, 50 to one and you don't fight back? Fuckin' pussies.The Jews would have been forced to take a knife to a gunfight since their guns had already been confiscated. Does that remind you of the present day at all?
I served in the military, did you?
That explains your utter stupidity about who fights back and who doesn't, since you never had too.
Yep. If you won't die like a man, on your feet, death hardly being the worst fate, then you're a pussy. Clear?Tell us, why didn't the Jews fight back? They were slaughtered like lambs, outnumbered the men with guns ten to one, sometimes 100 to one, and yet they died like pussies. Why?I was never stupid enough to be cannon fodder, and got well paid to build death machines instead.Ten to one, 50 to one and you don't fight back? Fuckin' pussies.
I served in the military, did you?
That explains your utter stupidity about who fights back and who doesn't, since you never had too.
I wouldn't expect a big, brave builder of death machines to understand that the Germans had more than a hundred bullets and the Jews didn't even have a knife. I suspect that a pussy like you wants to know why captured American GI's didn't fight back on the Bataan death march and would call them pussies as well.
As I said, the thinking of an infant, and I very much doubt you were taught that. That is the teachings of a sociopath...
No, because that's an utterly stupid thing to think. Live as a selfish infant if you like but don't attempt to call it moral or rational, it's neither.As I said, the thinking of an infant, and I very much doubt you were taught that. That is the teachings of a sociopath...
I was most definitely taught that. Ever think that you, and many others may be over-analyzing life?
To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.
A test (and feel free to post your own of course):
In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?
You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...
FYI:
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physically or Emotionally?To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.
A test (and feel free to post your own of course):
In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?
You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...
FYI:
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd save whomever is closer to me.
Irrational...To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.
A test (and feel free to post your own of course):
In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?
You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...
FYI:
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd save whomever is closer to me.
Enough was provided to make a rational decision. There is no End of The World scenario, that was from someone who didn't understand the question.In the original scenario, not enough information is available to make a 'right or wrong' answer.
To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.
A test (and feel free to post your own of course):
In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?
You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...
FYI:
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, TY, and you failed BTW, you are not rational in this case.To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.
A test (and feel free to post your own of course):
In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?
You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...
FYI:
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If they were both on the passenger side of the car I would open the front door so the teen could possibly get out on her own but my priority would be to get the infant out of the back seat. If they were on opposite sides, the infant gets the priority.
Enough was provided to make a rational decision. There is no End of The World scenario, that was from someone who didn't understand the question.In the original scenario, not enough information is available to make a 'right or wrong' answer.
Based on the very limited information, which one do you save, AKA, which one has more value to society? The answer is easy, and brutal as life tends to be in these situations.
