CDZ Can you be rational?

[Jarlaxle]

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

Turn around and walk away...head down and pick up the pace.

 

[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 infant...the girl might be able to free herself, the infant can't.....

Neither can save themselves, that is why you are required to choose one, and live with 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

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.

No...they are rational........they made a decision based on rational arguments...you don't like their decision so you say they are not rational...which is irrational of you....

There is no argument. You have to choose which life matters more, and you can only choose one.

 

[OldLady]

In the original scenario, not enough information is available to make a 'right or wrong' answer.

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.

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.

Yes, clarified that way, there's almost no choice -- even for mildly rational thinkers let alone "Spock-grade" logicians -- about which to save. That clarification did not exist in the OP's first asking of the question. The OP presentation of the dilemma has enough info to make a rational decision, but not enough to constrain the set of rational choices to the extent that one of them is better than all the others. Your clarification in the post above achieves that.

This has been bugging me for a month, because I believe there is something inherently wrong with the premise that the teenager is the only rational choice.
It has been bugging me because I have never understood why 'emotion' (instinct in this case) is such a dirty word to people who think they're smart.

I was watching Nature this week on PBS, about wild animals who have bonded with human caregivers who cared for them when they were orphaned babies. "Smart" people, scientists mind you, say that the maternal-infant bond is the most basic and fundamental core of who we become as human beings. That no species would survive without the strong maternal instinct to protect their young. Someone here used the in extremis example of animals eating their young in order to survive, and most everyone equated the instinct to save the baby with "emotion," deeming it 'irrational.'

I still don't agree that it is an irrational choice. The scenario is a pretty rough situation, and you'd feel pretty good and also pretty bad about saving one and not the other. But I think either can be defended as the right choice, depending on whether you are protecting the defenseless young one or thinking that the mature teenager is more "valuable." That is putting a 'value' on reproduction that is not taken into account in all situations. Is a 30 year old female drunk with a brain like swiss cheese more valuable than a 2 year old male because she can reproduce? To me that reproduction value might pertain if it were an end times scenario where every human you can produce helps perpetuate the species, but in every day life, where we are, is the possible ability to reproduce more valuable than protecting the young?

All things being equal, I don't agree that saving the teenager is the only rational choice.

 

[320 Years of History]

This has been bugging me for a month, because I believe there is something inherently wrong with the premise that the teenager is the only rational choice.
It has been bugging me because I have never understood why 'emotion' (instinct in this case) is such a dirty word to people who think they're smart.

Nobody thinks "emotion" is a dirty word, well, nobody with any sense does. "Emotion" is, however, very much out of place when the situation calls for impartiality and objectivity. Not all situations call for that, but some do. People who are well informed about the differences between ethos/pathos and logos and who are good analysts/logicians understand when to allow one or the other to predominate in making a decision, or when it doesn't matter that one allow one or the other to take precedence.

Moreover, for most situations, a combination of logos, ethos and pathos is what produces the best decision and corresponding set of actions. Thinking that says "one or the other" is better or worse is where a lot of folks stumble with regard to myriad matters. That said, not always can one integrate elements of all three modes of thought, and, as noted, not always should one. In life and death scenarios, however, logos is the mode of thought that must supercede the others, at least if one ascribes to utilitarian principles (essentially "the greatest good for the greatest number"); however, there's no denying that utilitarianism does, in extreme situations, force one to make logical choices that offend one's sense of ethics and absolutely rend one's heartstrings. And that is precisely the nature of the scenario the OP presents.

Some situations requires that logos take priority in order to achieve the best possible outcome based on the factors in play. Others do not. Can one "get lucky" when letting pathos or ethos have priority in situations when applying logos offers more certain probability of producing a more positive outcome? Yes, one can, but in those situations, preferring to use pathos/ethos to guide decision making necessarily entrusts more the risk for not obtaining the better outcome to fate, whereas going with logic minimizes fates role.

You'll note that in the discussion above I used only comparative terms -- "better" rather than "best," "minimize" than "eliminate," "more positive" instead of "positive," and so on. There's a reason for that. The scenario the OP presented does not offer an ideal outcome, which is what most folks would want. It offers only outcomes that can only be viewed as "best" in comparison with the other possible outcomes the scenario offers; it does not offer a "best" outcome in the absolute sense.

Sidebar:

I think these days far too many folks don't grammatically understand and consistently apply the meanings associated with absolute, comparative, positive, etc. adjectives. I don't know why, but I know that quite often I communicate things in the comparative and folks respond to me as though I did so in the absolute, superlative, positive, etc. It makes sense that if folks misconstrue the concepts of comparison, absolutism, positivity, etc. at the grammatic level, they very likely don't comprehend them at the philosophical level.​

End of sidebar.

All things being equal, I don't agree that saving the teenager is the only rational choice.

It isn't the only rational choice. It is the one rational choice that accompanies the greatest odds of realizing overall "prosperity" in the shortest for as many people as the scenario allows "prosperity" to happen, both in the short and long term.

• The teenager can produce a baby upon recovering from the accident or shortly thereafter. The baby cannot do that; it'll take at least a decade for the infant to be able to do so. Thus the time it takes society to recover from the infant's being lost is much shorter.
• The resources society has contributed to the teen's existence is far greater than those contributed to the infant's. Thus the net resources the society loses are greater if the teen perishes.
• The relationship the teen has to "everyone" is more substantive/extensive than is that of the infant. Thus the loss of the teen can be presumed to be greater than that resulting from the loss of the infant.

While those are the reasons why logic chooses the teen, the scenario we were given doesn't instruct us to choose based on logic. It only asks us which individual we'd choose. Some folks will prioritize logic in making their choice. Others will prioritize ethics or emotion. Which one allows to predominate is what it is. About all one can draw from it is that in dire circumstances, those folks who'd allow emotion to dominate reason probably shouldn't be the decision makers if their decision has a material impact on the well being of a group as a whole. In recognizing that, however, one must also understand that few and far between are dire situations that call for the overarching application of valid logic to the exclusion of pathos or ethos driven thinking.

 

[OldLady]

My point is, the instinct to protect the baby is as practical and logical to our society's survival as your utilitarianism. I'm not saying to myself, "Aw look at the cute little baby--better get him first." It's not 'emotional' or illogical; the instinct to protect the young has been an important factor in keeping the species going as long as it has. I still think, considering the serious overpopulation of the planet, that dusting off the hoary old utilitarian philosophy and deeming our teenaged birthing factory to be of more value is no more valid than saving the baby.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

 

[ChrisL]

??? 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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why it is not actually "rational" or "objective."

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

 

[ChrisL]

That might be rational if we didn't have over 300,000,000 people in this country. Lol. Maybe the teenage girl is sterile or has no plans on having any children. So your "rationale" is very subjective.

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

The question is "Can you be rational?" The question is not rational if it does not consider reality.

 

[320 Years of History]

The scenario doesn't tell us how many people are in the country. Indeed, it doesn't tell us there is anyone else on the planet other than the three people in the scenario. It does tell us we cannot change the conditions of the scenario. Accordingly, the only assumptions one can make, per the rules, are those that pertain to time/space and natural world (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, human survival instinct, etc.). Why only those? Because the realities of those things are immutable; they are so no matter what the scenario's conditions stipulate, unless the scenario explicitly removed one or more of the attributes of the natural world and/or time.

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

The question is "Can you be rational?" The question is not rational if it does not consider reality.

That is the thread title. It is a rhetorical question. Responders are not expected to directly answer the question used as the thread's title. We can tell that by the nature of the remarks in the OP-er's opening paragraph.

 

[ChrisL]

All of those factors would play a role in such a decision. That's why [the scenario] is not actually "rational" or "objective."

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

The question is "Can you be rational?" The question is not rational if it does not consider reality.

That is the thread title. It is a rhetorical question. Responders are not expected to directly answer the question used as the thread's title. We can tell that by the nature of the remarks in the OP-er's opening paragraph.

A rhetorical question? Well, you seem to be holding me to some pretty hard and fast rules. Lol.

In my view, it isn't a "rational" question at all because it doesn't take rationale into consideration, such as reality. In order for something to be "rational" you have to apply logic and reality.

 

[320 Years of History]

But the scenario at hand has removed all factors other than non-natural world factors. The scenario itself just is what it is. If one is going to respond to it, one must deal with it as presented not as one wants it to be.

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

The question is "Can you be rational?" The question is not rational if it does not consider reality.

That is the thread title. It is a rhetorical question. Responders are not expected to directly answer the question used as the thread's title. We can tell that by the nature of the remarks in the OP-er's opening paragraph.

A rhetorical question? Well, you seem to be holding me to some pretty hard and fast rules. Lol.

In my view, it isn't a "rational" question at all because it doesn't take rationale into consideration, such as reality. In order for something to be "rational" you have to apply logic and reality.

The scenario presented is a hypothetical one that asks respondents to make a choice. The thread title implies that one should exclusively use logos, not pathos or ethos, to guide their thinking in making the choice. Because the scenario is hypothetical, it is allowed that the creator of it define rules that may or may not conform to or prohibit the incorporation of one or several facts.

The scenario in question has the express rule that one cannot alter the conditions of the scenario, which, given the hypothetical nature of the scenario, implies the scenario's creator intends that one may not apply any factors/assumptions that are not immutable. One such assumption is that the scenario takes place in the U.S., and another is the population of the U.S. There are myriad other assumptions that one is prohibited from applying in the scenario at hand.

If one wants to respond to the title question, even though it is rhetorical, fine, but the question in the title isn't the scenario question. As noted earlier in this thread, the scenario is a variation of the classic "Trolley Problem," and the OP challenges respondents to provide what is the answer given by logos in the absence of ethos and pathos. Either one is willing to "play by the rules" and do just that or one is not, but what the terms of the scenario as given are is not in question.

Whether one would choose the baby or teen were the scenario something one faced in real life isn't even what's at issue. It's not because in real life, there are factors -- natural world immutable ones and non-natural world factors that, though not immutable, would play into how one chooses what to do -- that are not given in the scenario. What is at issue is whether one can analyze the scenario, taking what is given and interjecting nothing that is not inherent to the natural world and that is not otherwise given in the scenario, and identify the choice that is the purely logical one.

What you've been "on about" is a matter of analysis, not logical decision making. The distinction is subtle, but I'll try to convey it to you. Keenly analysing the scenario is how one knows that there are many factors that would be present and that are not given in the scenario. After analyzing the situation and identifying what those unstated factors are, one must further analyze them to figure out what weight is proper to assign to each. One can indeed and rightly say that logic play a role in the analysis one has conducted so far. Minimally, logic is little more than considering the facts at hand, and one must use it to identify and rank the factors. Using logic to do that alone, however, doesn't provide a decision on how to act.

Assuming one has accurately analyzed the situation and, as appropriate, ranked the relevant factors pertaining to it, The the next thing one must do is consider the factors and choose a course of action. Now if one is required to use only logic in choosing whom to save, a ton of things that are not known just don't matter, because they are unknowns, or because have nothing to do with increasing overall utility, for example, but not limited to:

• What you think/feel about whom deserves to be saved
• What others think/feel about whom deserves to be saved
• What may be the infant's future
• What may be the infant's future
• Whether one likes the baby more or less than the teen, or
  Whether one likes/dislikes babies in general or teens in general
• Either child's personality

The hypothetical scenario, as given, also leaves out factors that, were it a real life scenario, would matter, for example, but not limited to:

• Whether there might be other people in existence and what might be their proximity to the event
• Whether the teen or infant is easier to extract from the vehicle
• Whether the teen or infant can extract themselves without physical intervention, but with vocal instruction (we know neither can extract themselves on their own)
• The distance and time one must cover/use to get to and return safely with either child
• The position of the car relative to oneself

Inasmuch as the scenario rules prohibit one from inferring anything about the verity of any and all of those and other factors, the only things one can use to guide the choice are factors intrinsic to burning cars and inherent to the kids themselves as living beings. Because those are the only allowed factors for consideration in the scenario, there is no room for anything other than pure logic in choosing the one to save.

The fire-related factors don't matter because the scenario tells us we absolutely will be able to save one, but absolutely cannot save both kids. Since the goal is to save a child, and not necessarily ourselves, personal safety should be ignored as well, although there's a reasonable argument for one's not being able to do so beyond being willing to attempt to save a child plus oneself. Why? Because personal survival is so intrinsic to all creatures, including humans, that it's reasonable to conclude the "savior" may not be able to overcome it in choosing between the two kids.

That leaves only the factors inherent in the children: their age and gender. Well, what's known and irrefutable about the kids themselves and society's (even if the society consists of just the "savior" and the two children)? Nothing other than that more resources been invested to bring the teen to the point of being a teen than have been invested to bring the infant to the point of being whatever age infant he is.

Now there is one factor that one can consider and that is one's own gender. It'd be logical, knowing not, given the rules stipulated, whether there is another human on the plant, for a woman to choose to save the boy. She can breed with the boy; thus the chance for the species to persist is preserved. Similarly a man should choose the girl. Choosing otherwise, given what's known at the time of the scenario's occurrence, guarantees the species goes extinct upon the death of the "savior" and the child. Making that happen is clearly not a logical choice.

Isolating one's thought processes to arrive at the purely logical conclusion is what the scenario calls one to do. Evaluating it as presented above is truly the only way to do so. Every other line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion must incorporate some sort of assumption that, per the hypothetical scenario, isn't permitted.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, there is REALITY to consider. If you aren't taking reality into consideration, then it isn't a "rational" question to begin with.

Not in a hypothetical scenario, there isn't...not beyond what math, time, physics, and other immutable realities of the natural world. That's the very point and nature of "hypothetical."

The question is "Can you be rational?" The question is not rational if it does not consider reality.

That is the thread title. It is a rhetorical question. Responders are not expected to directly answer the question used as the thread's title. We can tell that by the nature of the remarks in the OP-er's opening paragraph.

A rhetorical question? Well, you seem to be holding me to some pretty hard and fast rules. Lol.

In my view, it isn't a "rational" question at all because it doesn't take rationale into consideration, such as reality. In order for something to be "rational" you have to apply logic and reality.

The scenario presented is a hypothetical one that asks respondents to make a choice. The thread title implies that one should exclusively use logos, not pathos or ethos, to guide their thinking in making the choice. Because the scenario is hypothetical, it is allowed that the creator of it define rules that may or may not conform to or prohibit the incorporation of one or several facts.

The scenario in question has the express rule that one cannot alter the conditions of the scenario, which, given the hypothetical nature of the scenario, implies the scenario's creator intends that one may not apply any factors/assumptions that are not immutable. One such assumption is that the scenario takes place in the U.S., and another is the population of the U.S. There are myriad other assumptions that one is prohibited from applying in the scenario at hand.

If one wants to respond to the title question, even though it is rhetorical, fine, but the question in the title isn't the scenario question. As noted earlier in this thread, the scenario is a variation of the classic "Trolley Problem," and the OP challenges respondents to provide what is the answer given by logos in the absence of ethos and pathos. Either one is willing to "play by the rules" and do just that or one is not, but what the terms of the scenario as given are is not in question.

Whether one would choose the baby or teen were the scenario something one faced in real life isn't even what's at issue. It's not because in real life, there are factors -- natural world immutable ones and non-natural world factors that, though not immutable, would play into how one chooses what to do -- that are not given in the scenario. What is at issue is whether one can analyze the scenario, taking what is given and interjecting nothing that is not inherent to the natural world and that is not otherwise given in the scenario, and identify the choice that is the purely logical one.

What you've been "on about" is a matter of analysis, not logical decision making. The distinction is subtle, but I'll try to convey it to you. Keenly analysing the scenario is how one knows that there are many factors that would be present and that are not given in the scenario. After analyzing the situation and identifying what those unstated factors are, one must further analyze them to figure out what weight is proper to assign to each. One can indeed and rightly say that logic play a role in the analysis one has conducted so far. Minimally, logic is little more than considering the facts at hand, and one must use it to identify and rank the factors. Using logic to do that alone, however, doesn't provide a decision on how to act.

Assuming one has accurately analyzed the situation and, as appropriate, ranked the relevant factors pertaining to it, The the next thing one must do is consider the factors and choose a course of action. Now if one is required to use only logic in choosing whom to save, a ton of things that are not known just don't matter, because they are unknowns, or because have nothing to do with increasing overall utility, for example, but not limited to:

• What you think/feel about whom deserves to be saved
• What others think/feel about whom deserves to be saved
• What may be the infant's future
• What may be the infant's future
• Whether one likes the baby more or less than the teen, or
  Whether one likes/dislikes babies in general or teens in general
• Either child's personality

The hypothetical scenario, as given, also leaves out factors that, were it a real life scenario, would matter, for example, but not limited to:

• Whether there might be other people in existence and what might be their proximity to the event
• Whether the teen or infant is easier to extract from the vehicle
• Whether the teen or infant can extract themselves without physical intervention, but with vocal instruction (we know neither can extract themselves on their own)
• The distance and time one must cover/use to get to and return safely with either child
• The position of the car relative to oneself

Inasmuch as the scenario rules prohibit one from inferring anything about the verity of any and all of those and other factors, the only things one can use to guide the choice are factors intrinsic to burning cars and inherent to the kids themselves as living beings. Because those are the only allowed factors for consideration in the scenario, there is no room for anything other than pure logic in choosing the one to save.

The fire-related factors don't matter because the scenario tells us we absolutely will be able to save one, but absolutely cannot save both kids. Since the goal is to save a child, and not necessarily ourselves, personal safety should be ignored as well, although there's a reasonable argument for one's not being able to do so beyond being willing to attempt to save a child plus oneself. Why? Because personal survival is so intrinsic to all creatures, including humans, that it's reasonable to conclude the "savior" may not be able to overcome it in choosing between the two kids.

That leaves only the factors inherent in the children: their age and gender. Well, what's known and irrefutable about the kids themselves and society's (even if the society consists of just the "savior" and the two children)? Nothing other than that more resources been invested to bring the teen to the point of being a teen than have been invested to bring the infant to the point of being whatever age infant he is.

Now there is one factor that one can consider and that is one's own gender. It'd be logical, knowing not, given the rules stipulated, whether there is another human on the plant, for a woman to choose to save the boy. She can breed with the boy; thus the chance for the species to persist is preserved. Similarly a man should choose the girl. Choosing otherwise, given what's known at the time of the scenario's occurrence, guarantees the species goes extinct upon the death of the "savior" and the child. Making that happen is clearly not a logical choice.

Isolating one's thought processes to arrive at the purely logical conclusion is what the scenario calls one to do. Evaluating it as presented above is truly the only way to do so. Every other line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion must incorporate some sort of assumption that, per the hypothetical scenario, isn't permitted.

This is just getting silly now. Good grief! 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. A rational person would take all considerations into account. It is an irrational and illogical question.

 

[ChrisL]

It's a stupid question, given such limitations. Period. Nothing "rational" about it.

 

[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.

 

[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?