Call me crazy.
So I informed you guys last time that my advisor was asking me for answers to some pretty big questions about my thesis. I think I'm on my way, but I just wanted the impressions of some people about one particular facet of what I'll have to say. Consider the following case:
You own a yacht. One day, you're sailing your yacht and you see someone in the water. Turns out it's a 95-year-old woman (Grannie), and she's drowning. Now, you can save her, but you'd have to jump in and your yacht would be out of control, it would hit a reef, and sink. Moreover, because you sunk almost all your money into investing in this yacht, you'd be essentially ruined. Now, Grannie, if saved, will only live another year. Should you save her?
If your answer to this is no, think about the following:
You own a yacht. One day, you're sailing your yacht and you see someone in the water. Turns out it's a 95-year-old woman (Grannie), and she's drowning. Now, you can save her, but you'd have to jump in and your yacht would be out of control, it would hit a reef, and sink. Moreover, because you sunk almost all your money into investing in this yacht, you'd be essentially ruined. Now, Grannie, if saved, will live 30 more years. Should you save her?
I'm interested in whether it's more plausible to require that one save Grannie in the second case than in the first.
Now consider a different kind of case. Again, you can save one person, at the cost of your yacht and financial future. But this time, you have a choice of who to save: Skippy (20 years old), who will live 2 more years if saved, vs. Grannie (95 years old), who will live 2 more years if saved. Assuming you should save someone, whom should you save?
If your answer is Skippy, would your judgment shift if we said that Grannie would live more years after saving (i.e., from 2 to say, 10, or 20, or 30)?
A lot of examples. Let me know what you think, if anything.
You own a yacht. One day, you're sailing your yacht and you see someone in the water. Turns out it's a 95-year-old woman (Grannie), and she's drowning. Now, you can save her, but you'd have to jump in and your yacht would be out of control, it would hit a reef, and sink. Moreover, because you sunk almost all your money into investing in this yacht, you'd be essentially ruined. Now, Grannie, if saved, will only live another year. Should you save her?
If your answer to this is no, think about the following:
You own a yacht. One day, you're sailing your yacht and you see someone in the water. Turns out it's a 95-year-old woman (Grannie), and she's drowning. Now, you can save her, but you'd have to jump in and your yacht would be out of control, it would hit a reef, and sink. Moreover, because you sunk almost all your money into investing in this yacht, you'd be essentially ruined. Now, Grannie, if saved, will live 30 more years. Should you save her?
I'm interested in whether it's more plausible to require that one save Grannie in the second case than in the first.
Now consider a different kind of case. Again, you can save one person, at the cost of your yacht and financial future. But this time, you have a choice of who to save: Skippy (20 years old), who will live 2 more years if saved, vs. Grannie (95 years old), who will live 2 more years if saved. Assuming you should save someone, whom should you save?
If your answer is Skippy, would your judgment shift if we said that Grannie would live more years after saving (i.e., from 2 to say, 10, or 20, or 30)?
A lot of examples. Let me know what you think, if anything.
posted by dd0031 at 3:52 PM
1 Comments:
Hey, don't you have a philosophy blog now, so that you don't have to bore us with your philosomophy? But I like these games: I think I gotta save Granny in the first two examples. And the young kid in the last example. But what do I know? Today I turned down free ice cream and was stabbed repeatedly and intentionally in the eye by a blue-Sharpie-wielding baby. It's a good thing I wear glasses.
R
Post a Comment
<< Home