CDZ Can you be rational?

[PaintMyHouse]

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

 

[Bonzi]

My immediate response/thought would be to save the teenage girl, but, it's based more on my religious beliefs.
I don't believe that infants go to hell, but, a teenager might be at the age where she could make a confession of faith.
Another rationale is, the teenager is probably more aware of what is going on and would be more traumatized by the entire situation (although it would likely be brief). She can also (presumably) bear children in the future.

If there is no chance of "problems" during the rescue or of failure, then weight of the teenager or trouble with getting the infant out of the car seat etc. would be irrelevant.

(Side note: From a secular viewpoint, assuming that the teenager was the driver, perhaps, it would be best to rescue the infant because the teenager may never get over causing the death of the infant.... whether she is the mother, sibling or caretaker.)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No; that's an assumption I made in making my choice.

 

[TooTall]

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Okay, TY, and you failed BTW, you are not rational in this case.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

 

[eruntalon3434]

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

But if all lives are not equal, how can we be sure the child she theoretically has will be "superior" (for lack of a better word) to the one we let die? We could still be facing a net loss of value.

 

[MarathonMike]

Since I assume I have seconds as the car is about to explode I would save the infant since he would be easier to quickly grab and get to safety. I cannot "rationally" make a value judgement between the two lives they are equally precious. I do not agree that the speed of replacement is significant since the boy could within 20 years "replace" the girl.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 you are saying do not change the situation, that the only two choices are saving the girl in the front seat
or saving the baby in the back seat, if it more guaranteed that the baby can be freed faster,
that means a greater chance of saving that life. If the baby is so heavily strapped or trapped that it is
faster to free the girl in the front seat, I would go for that.

Whichever is the faster rescue I would do first, and still see if the second can be done afterwards especially if that person is trapped and will take more time to free up.


Additional NOTES as a SIDE NOTES: For experienced emergency responders who act quickly, there are probably ways to save both.
If the baby isn't trapped or entangled but can be freed quickly, the baby can be thrown to safety while going after the girl.

It could be that the girl in the front seat can still be saved after the explosion.
There are people who have been badly burned but still survived a car fire while trapped in the front seat.

If it is faster the free the baby first, and that is closer to the point of impact,
I would go for that first, especially if the girl is trapped and cannot be freed in time anyway.

 

[320 Years of History]

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

I agree with your assessment of which is the more valuable life. Nature agrees with you as well. One sees it quite plainly when, faced with their own starvation or that of their young offspring, wild animals, particularly predators, will allow their offspring to perish, or in the case of predators, they'll eat their young if things get that dire. Even in non-dire cases, the adults and older offspring eat before the youngest.

That I recognize the teenager as the more important life is precisely why I italicized "preferring." But you didn't ask which is the more valuable life. You also didn't tell us to assume we have time to save either; you told us only that we couldn't save both. You didn't ask which life, in and of itself, is the one rational thought would deem the more important one to save. You also didn't stipulate choosing which to save on that basis. You asked whom we'd save from a burning car that's about to explode. Rational thought does not inherently ignore unalterable reality. IN contrast, rational thinking in the abstract can and often does inherently ignore immutable and extant practical exigencies.

Choosing to save the girl ignores the uncertainty and concomitant risk of my own demise in the impending explosion that may or may not occur before I succeed in saving either of them. Remember, you gave us no other details with regard to the uncertainty, and you told us we cannot alter the scenario. So I have to consider the inherent realities on my own, and I'd be a fool not to consider them.

• I don't know when the explosion will occur.
• I can't control time.
• I cannot delay the impending explosion.
• I cannot suppress my survival instinct (at least not given the terms of your scenario) beyond the extent to which I've already done so by attempting to save either child.

All of those things are things, nobody need be told; they are all always givens if humans are involved and the hypothetical scenario is intended to be taken as at all realistic rather than an moral/ethical abstraction. You asked us to be rational. Well, part of being rational is recognizing, and giving due consideration to, that which must be, be it said or unsaid, and is also uncontrollable and unavoidable. That's what I did in arriving at my answer.

 

[320 Years of History]

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 you are saying do not change the situation, that the only two choices are saving the girl in the front seat
or saving the baby in the back seat, if it more guaranteed that the baby can be freed faster,
that means a greater chance of saving that life. If the baby is so heavily strapped or trapped that it is
faster to free the girl in the front seat, I would go for that.

Whichever is the faster rescue I would do first, and still see if the second can be done afterwards especially if that person is trapped and will take more time to free up.


Additional NOTES as a SIDE NOTES: For experienced emergency responders who act quickly, there are probably ways to save both.
If the baby isn't trapped or entangled but can be freed quickly, the baby can be thrown to safety while going after the girl.

It could be that the girl in the front seat can still be saved after the explosion.
There are people who have been badly burned but still survived a car fire while trapped in the front seat.

If it is faster the free the baby first, and that is closer to the point of impact,
I would go for that first, especially if the girl is trapped and cannot be freed in time anyway.

Absolutely. Nobody rationally thinking will overlook the practical realities incumbent to the situation and discount them in favor of the absolute abstract rational approach. Doing so in the given scenario may result in nobody being saved, thus three deaths, not two.

 

[emilynghiem]

Since I assume I have seconds as the car is about to explode I would save the infant since he would be easier to quickly grab and get to safety. I cannot "rationally" make a value judgement between the two lives they are equally precious. I do not agree that the speed of replacement is significant since the boy could within 20 years "replace" the girl.

Note: I agree with MarathonMike that lives cannot be judged and valued rationally over others by set criteria or it will always be up for debate.

I also recognize divine reasons why some people live and others die.
It is not based on who is the most valuable to society.

We lost extremely valuable people on 9/11 whose experience and contributions to society cannot be replaced. While I'm sure among the people who survived, by numbers alone, these are going to include criminals or others who cause more problems than they solve.

When people act on instinct who to save and which actions to take first etc.,
I believe there is some divine intervention involved, and some things are meant to be and others are not.

We do the best we can to AVOID such situations, by prevention and correction, and that part we can agree on.
Debating after something has already gone wrong, beyond the point of saving everyone,
where some lives are lost and some are saved, arguments can go either way.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm extremely rational. I'm very good at separating my emotions in order to make the most logical decision. Most people can't do this.

 

[MarathonMike]

And what would be your logical decision in this case?

 

[Fishlore]

Sauve qui peut sez I. It's bad enough that the statist opressor robs me of my hard-earned money in order to buy automobiles for welfare queens popping out those damn anchor babies so that they can get even more of my money, now I'm supposed to risk scorching my best suit in order to yank her and her brat from the car I had to pay for? It is an outrage, I tell you, and against the Constitution! Burn, baby burn! I'm on the way to vote for Tump and I have to get there before the polls close.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since I assume I have seconds as the car is about to explode I would save the infant since he would be easier to quickly grab and get to safety. I cannot "rationally" make a value judgement between the two lives they are equally precious. I do not agree that the speed of replacement is significant since the boy could within 20 years "replace" the girl.

They are not equal...