What about survival situations ?

[Gaspard]

I’d be delighted to hear from you about extreme survival situations. Are they relevant to veganism?

I bet you've already answered the “you can only save one” question… So I'm quite sure you wouldn't mind exploring the ethics of surch an interrogation. I’d be mostly pleased to read your answers.

If you were caught in a fire and could only save one person, who would you choose?

1) A blind quadriplegic or a child

2) Your puppy or your cat

3) A black women or a white man

4) Your lover or your sister

5) A child who has 0,0001% chance of survival or a disabled person who has 100% chance to survive

6) A healthy rapist or a dying friend

Fun isn’t it?

 

[beancounter]

This is easy. I would rescue the person (or animal) that I could get to first without risking my life in the process.

 

[Gaspard]

This is easy. I would rescue the person (or animal) that I could get to first without risking my life in the process.

May I add then that you would not risk your life whoever you might choose.

 

[beancounter]

May I add then that you would not risk your life whoever you might choose.

There is a difference between low risk and high risk.

But why have three dead people, when you can only have two?

 

[Gaspard]

But why have three dead people, when you can only have two?

OK, so you let them all die to ensure your survival. So in 1) you prefer not to save the child. That's a weird answer. Usually people choose to let the quadruplegic die so they can save the child.

 

[David3]

Problem solved:

 

[David3]

The whole "I can only save one" question is not practical. No one acts alone. With proper teamwork, both can be saved.

We, not I.
.

 

[Gaspard]

The whole "I can only save one" question is not practical. No one acts alone. With proper teamwork, both can be saved.

So you may argue that the question lacks context? That’s interesting. You think that there is an alternative response: there must be another solution. You imagine that some people could help... and you could organise and work together. You believe in solidarity, I suppose.

Well, in regard to question 1), usually, most people answer they would choose the child and let the quadriplegic die. Nobody seeks any additional information about an hypothetical team that might save everyone. But generally, there is no question 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

So let phrase it this way (and forget about question 2, 3, 4, 5, 6):
1) You are alone, caught in a fire. You see a blind quadriplegic and a child. You can save one of them, who would you choose?

 

[Mostly Random Dude]

I’d be delighted to hear from you about extreme survival situations. Are they relevant to veganism?

I got my priorities straight

1. save myself
2. save my lover or my sister (not applicable at the moment)
3. save my dog and my cat
4. save the child of a billionaire neighbor (so he's nice to me afterwards)
5. videotape the fire so I can post it on youtube
6. try to save the rest of people on that list regardless

The real question is - who started the fire?

 

[beancounter]

The real question is - who started the fire?

We didn't start the fire. It's been burning since the world's been turning.

 

[David3]

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
.

 

[Gaspard]

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
.

sounds like a quote from a movie. Was Will Smith in it?

 

[Gaspard]

The real question is - who started the fire?

You're the second person I met who answer this question by asking "who started the fire?"

 

[beancounter]

sounds like a quote from a movie. Was Will Smith in it?

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

 

[David3]

sounds like a quote from a movie. Was Will Smith in it?

Yes!

The movie, "I, Robot", was (very) loosely based on the classic 1950 sci-fi novel of the same name, written by Isaac Asimov. The book is a series of short stories about the first self-aware robots - their evolution from simpler, clunky forms to robotic beings that were indistinguishable from organic humans. Unlike the "Terminator", Asimov's robots were deeply and fundamentally driven by the 3 Laws of Robotics - they were driven to protect and guide human beings.




Star Trek's lieutenant commander Data has a positronic brain - a concept first portrayed in Asimov's 1950 "I, Robot" book:



But, there's more!

The progressive rock group, the Alan Parsons Project, also produced a 1977 album of the same name. The album portrays a darker image of robots - made in the image of man, and therefore ultimately flawed and compelled to dominate and displace lesser beings, like humans.



.

 

[Brian W]

If it ever happened for real I would save whoever my instincts told me to save at the time. Depending on circumstances, that would most likely be the child. I would feel awful that the others had to die whatever my choice. Although there is nothing objectively right or wrong in this situation, I would question the sanity of any human who doesn't choose the child. A dog would choose a puppy first and any animal would choose an infant of its own species and we are no different.

 

[Gaspard]

A dog would choose a puppy first and any animal would choose an infant of its own species and we are no different.

I'm not quite sure all animals would do that. Not sure a dog would do that. Some animals kill their youngs...
I would say that you'd choose the child because in a survival situation the child symbolises hope.

 

[Gaspard]

Depending on circumstances, that would most likely be the child.

Would you conclude that a child has more moral value than a blind quadriplegic?
As you answered honestly, I assume then that you think the question I asked is relevant. So now let’s move on.
6) Who would you save if you had to choose one, a healthy rapist or a dying friend?

 

[David3]

Cars, when they become fully self-driving, will ultimately have to make these "who dies?" decisions.

A child and a wheelchair-bound person abruptly walk in front of the car. The car's computer will immediately apply the brakes (much faster than a human can), but which individual will the computer choose to hit (assuming that complete steering-avoidance is not possible)?

The car's computer will make a faster decision than a human, but what will its ethical programming be regarding the right decision? The next generation of people will wrestle with this question.
.

 

[beancounter]

A car's early detection system will see them long before they just decide to jump in front of the car out of the blue.