Women and children first?

[Pendaric]

Where do you stand on this old, "gentleman's" maxim?

Let's say you're on the Titanic, and there are not enough lifeboats for all passengers.

Do you think that women and children should have priority? Should there be a better system or rule of conduct to decide who goes...or do you allow your survival instinct to get you onto a boat no matter what?

Would you throw the snivelling brat overboard together with the nagging female to get your seat, or would you be the self sacrificing hero?

And I'll say right off that unless it were my own wife and child, I doubt I'd be giving up my own seat.

[Octavia]

I think the rationale is that the seats go to those who are the weakest. At base it's a practical decision: in this day and age, one would hope the rescue boats come along pretty quickly. In temperate water, I would be more likely give my seat to a kid and bet on being able to keep myself from drowning until help arrived (barring hideous weather and sharks). I'm strong, and even without a life jacket I could keep myself afloat for hours if I had to - possibly even over a day, depending on factors like temperature. Long enough for help to arrive, at any rate. A kid couldn't.

In freezing water, or when the sharks are circling, I doubt I'd be so magnanimous. In those situations the immediate competence factor is nearly irrelevant, I'd look after myself first, and then I'd be more likely to select on the ability to contribute to society.

[Bane]

Well, in a less-bad scenario I'd give the kid a place first because I can still (to an extent) swim and generally look after myself. In a scenario which was really worst-case, then I would be no more Ms. Nice Lady and take that seat for myself.

[Faerie]

I'd give it to a child in an instant, I'm old enough to argue that I at least experienced a bit of life, a child deserves a shot at growing up and old at least. Its unlikely I'd give my seat up to anybody older than myself though.

[HinduWoman]

Genetically we are hardwired to protect females and children.

But what would I personally do in the emergency situation is difficult to say. In a truly life and death situation I would likely panic and goodbye to altruism.

[Alex]

As a passenger on another "Titanic," I don't know what I'd do for sure. If you've ever been in a situation where almost everyone panics, you'll know that it's very difficult to keep your head let alone make a cool calculation about who should be "saved". A lot depends on how other people behave.

[HinduWoman]

[snip]

[Preno]

Rationally speaking, women should have no priority over men or vice versa and adults should have priority over small children. Selfishly speaking, I have the priority. Either way you look at it, children and women do not have any extra right to the seat.

[SteveF]

This sums up my views quite nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVrIC6eABeU

[Ray Moscow]

In theory, I think I'd give up my life to save some young people. I've had a pretty good life but a limited time ahead of me.

In practice, we'll see.

[purple_kathryn]

A child for sure, but I wouldn't expect a man to give up a place for me.

I can swim quite well and also I'm well insulated :P

[DMB]

Probably in our overpopulated modern world, there is no reason for giving priority to women or children. I suppose in different circumstances, children (but not babies) should get priority, because as long as they are old enough to cope with tough conditions, they represent the long-term survival of the species. For the same reason, women of breeding age should take priority over men and older women, because you only need one or two men to impregnate a lot of women.

But in the world as it is, there are no good reasons for giving priority to any group of people. Nonetheless, we are all geared up emotionally to be compassionate towards children. Think of all those charities advertising to get us to help poor people in third-world countries. They nearly always use pictures of winsome children. Ofter they invite you to "sponsor a child", but what that really means is support a whole community, of which the child is just a particular member. So at some deep level, it appears that we are suckers for children.

[Ray Moscow]

So at some deep level, it appears that we are suckers for children.

That's a good thing, because if we saw them as they really are (http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050406.htm), humanity would have died out long ago.

[munnki]

Depends on who the woman is and who the child is.... Sorry, but there's no way I'm putting Sarah Palin or Macaulay Culkin ahead of me.

[purple_kathryn]

Depends on who the woman is and who the child is.... Sorry, but there's no way I'm putting Sarah Palin or Macaulay Culkin ahead of me.

I think Macauley Culkin is in his 20s anyway

[Ray Moscow]

How about: if you only had a chance to save one: Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, which would you save?

I think I'd just leave both for fish food.

[Christina]

I'd like to think that I'd give up my seat for a child but I don't know what I would do at that moment if the situation really did happen. If we were talking about a bus I would have no question that I would give it to whoever had the least ability to stand but when it comes to facing death I'm not so sure.

[willynilly]

It would be very hard to take a seat and watch children on the boat look at me. Definitely a child.

[munnki]

How about: if you only had a chance to save one: Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, which would you save?

I think I'd just leave both for fish food.

The only way either of those maggots would survive is if I had to save one.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I've always found the question of what people should to be far more interesting than what they would do.

[Octavia]

Well, if it's a question of should...

I'm in two minds. The more intellectual half of me says that the persons most capable of making the greatest contribution to the community should be saved.

The more emotional/ethical side of me says that the most vulnerable should be saved. What good strength if you don't use it to protect the weak?

I guess it's the difference between what I feel is prudent and what I feel is right.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What constitutes rightness?

Are protect-the-weak and maximise-contribution-to-society both derived from a wider principle?

[Octavia]

For me, the rightness of an action is determined by the ability to look at myself in a mirror afterwards without flinching. Now I know perfectly well that I'm capable of letting someone weaker die to save myself - and I'm quite certain I could come up with a way to justify it in three seconds flat - but I'm equally certain that I would never truly forgive myself for it.

The maximise-contribution is derived from simple practicality. The more an individual can contribute to a community, the better off that community is. Some individuals contribute far more than others - and I believe we've had this conversation before, using Stephen Hawking and Robert Mugabe as examples. In my considered opinion, the community benefits more from Hawking than Mugabe so I'd have no hesitation in saving the former over the latter, and I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.

As to which path I'd actually take when push came to shove, I don't know. Likely I'd just panic and save myself, but understandable as that is, it's not actually admirable, is it?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Right, and what determines whether you'll be able to look in that mirror?

It's obviously not completely arbitrary, since you're able to know in advance whether you'd be troubled by an action, and you're able to make that determination for novel situations, not just a list of known ones.

So it follows that there must be some kind of heuristic you're following - various tests that increase or decrease the morality of an action if they pass or fail.

What tests do you think you use?

It's not always an easy question to answer. What feels axiomatic at first glance often turns out to be entirely dependent on some other assumption.

If you wanted to make a huge-ass flowchart to allow a stranger to take a fair stab at making moral judgments on your behalf, where would you begin?

[BioBeing]

I think the answer has to be "it depends".

If there was a lifeboat full of babies, would it be prudent to put another baby in there and set them all adrift at sea, or should I, as an adult who might be able to help them survive, get in?

If my wife and kids were already on the boat, would I be able to watch them leave, or would I try to get in with them?

If some kid was already on board, would I be able to get on, knowing his mother was behind me in line and I would be breaking up their family?

I would like to think that, on balance, I would try and get as many other people to safety as possible before I tried to save myself. But, I've never been in a situation like this, so who knows.

[Octavia]

Hmm. Can you give me a bit of time to think about that? I've been trying to write and rewrite an answer, but what I've got isn't making a lot of sense right now. I'm not sure even I understand it. :o

[BioBeing]

Rationally speaking ... adults should have priority over small children.
Why? Should an 80 year old adult have priority over a 14 year old? An 8 year old child?

[Cath B]

What constitutes rightness?

Are protect-the-weak and maximise-contribution-to-society both derived from a wider principle?

I wonder if a lot of our evolved capacity for compassion might have been linked initially to the travails of childbirth. Human females and babies are more vulnerable than those of most species owing to the difficulties of the birth. The evolution of large infant heads which traverse the birth canal with difficulty may have occurred in conjunction with an instinct/will of at least some folk in a community to care for the mother and child.

Once the caring instinct became extended beyond that of caring for ones own infant it could be triggered by other scenarios beside helping with childbirth.

The emotion (and the rationalising of the emotion) may be that of caring but the overall result may still be that of increasing the cohesiveness of a tribe and its ability to survive.

[Cath B]

Nonetheless, we are all geared up emotionally to be compassionate towards children.

And behaviour consistent with the human sense of compassion towards young other than ones own is sometimes seen in other species too.

And even, on occasion, towards the young of other species.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Hmm. Can you give me a bit of time to think about that? I've been trying to write and rewrite an answer, but what I've got isn't making a lot of sense right now. I'm not sure even I understand it. :o

:D

It took me years to arrive at anything vaguely coherent that isn't a minefield of gotchas. It's a bit like trying to reverse-engineer the theory of perspective by imagining various shapes and seeing what 3D form it evokes...

I'm in no hurry :cool:

[Preno]

For me, the rightness of an action is determined by the ability to look at myself in a mirror afterwards without flinching.That criterion obviously doesn't apply if one of the outcomes is your own death, and at any rate it's a rather circular one.
Rationally speaking ... adults should have priority over small children.
Why? Should an 80 year old adult have priority over a 14 year old? An 8 year old child?No, but to take a prototypical case, a 30-year-old should certainly have priority over a baby. A baby only has a rudimentary personality, isn't capable of understanding the situation, much less resources have been invested in it and vice versa, it hasn't contributed to the society and the adult is much more strongly integrated into the society, so to speak, so letting him die will cause much more harm to others than killing the baby (which, unlike a unique adult, is quite replaceable). On almost any criterion you use, the 30-year-old should take precedence over the baby.

The same arguments hold for children (or at least young enough children), although to a lesser extent.

[Matty]

If it is simply a cases of take the seat =live, dont=die, with no other options then as far as i am concerned my wife and child go first, I'm afraid if anyone else is in their or my way they are going down, sorry but this is survival we are talking about and being a hefty 6fyt bloke must help in some circumstances. :)

More likely though i'd try and help in some way so that it doesnt boil down to "last seat on the boat" and hopefully more people including my wife child and preferably, myself too, would survive.

I was always critical of Kate in Titanic, cos if she'd just done as she was fucking told** rather than letting woolly sentimentality get in the fucking way then her and leo could both have survived, but no, she effectively wanted a cuddle, let emotion get the better of the obvious best thing to dfo, which as get in the fucking boat, and she killed him. Dizzy bint.

**yes yes i know, feminists, shes not obliged to do as shes told by some bloke but in this case its true, worldly wise bloke whos talking sense vs hysterical and emotional spoilt posh bird, with survival at stake, she should stfu and listen)

[Bane]

I was gonna say, it depends on a lot of other factors too.

Say the lifeboat is full of children aged between 5 and 13. It wouldn't make sense for me to give my seat to any of the following: another young child, or a severely handicapped person of any age. So I more than likely would go with the kids so they at least have someone to keep things fairly under control. The same as if the boat was full of elderly and/or disabled people. But if it was full of people aged between 14 and 60, I'd like to think I'd give my seat up for the young child, the expectant mother, the old person or the handicapped person. Though my logical side says that "better chance of survival" should be my criterion, my emotional side puts "vulnerability" higher....so perhaps I'd follow the logical side....if it was someone who had a better chance at surviving than I did, I'd also like to say I'd let them have my seat. If they had the same chance or less, I'd be selfish perhaps.

[Matty]

if it came down to it, the elderly and disabled people are going overboard, unless we need to keep them for food i guess.

[BioBeing]

No, but to take a prototypical case, a 30-year-old should certainly have priority over a baby. A baby only has a rudimentary personality, isn't capable of understanding the situation, much less resources have been invested in it and vice versa, it hasn't contributed to the society and the adult is much more strongly integrated into the society, so to speak, so letting him die will cause much more harm to others than killing the baby (which, unlike a unique adult, is quite replaceable). On almost any criterion you use, the 30-year-old should take precedence over the baby.

The same arguments hold for children (or at least young enough children), although to a lesser extent.

But at some point the line gets fuzzy. A 30 year old vs a baby I'll grant while I consider it, but what about a 50 yr old vs a baby? The 50 yr old might have heart trouble, need various medicines that won't be available on the boat. They will eat more food than a baby. Drink more water. Take up more space. They are past their prime reproductive years, especially if female [not that that matters rationally (unless you are going to have to repopulate a deserted island in a post-apocalyptic scenario :eek: ) but from a historical perspective, they have already outlived their usefulness].

Even a 4 year old could well be more "deserving" (or a better rational choice) than many a 50 year old. My daughter is very capable, and has a wonderfully developed personality. I could certainly see myself pushing a 50 year old out of the way to get my 4 year old on a lifeboat.

So I don't see it as cut and dried adult > child as you.

[Christina]

if it came down to it, the elderly and disabled people are going overboard, unless we need to keep them for food i guess.

Fuck you too, dear. I'd send the mouthy blonds who can't spell. :D

[Matty]

By elderly i mean "too old to put up much of a fight" so as long as you are more feisty than someone else on board you probably get a pass. Plus i suspect you would be too skinny for practical lunch purposes. :)

They will eat more food than a baby. Drink more water. Take up more space.
But they will also provide more food when you have them on hte desert island BBq. Plus if you have someone who is disabled you could have their other leg off and they wouldnt suffer as much as anyone else in the boat.

I remember thinking that day one on lost, that big Hurley fella is crying out for a couple buckets of marinade, there would be leftovers/hurley jerky for a good couple weeks. .

[BioBeing]

They will eat more food than a baby. Drink more water. Take up more space.
But they will also provide more food when you have them on hte desert island BBq. Plus if you have someone who is disabled you could have their other leg off and they wouldnt suffer as much as anyone else in the boat.

I remember thinking that day one on lost, that big Hurley fella is crying out for a couple buckets of marinade, there would be leftovers/hurley jerky for a good couple weeks. .

Yeah but baby is much more tender than old fogey :evil:

[Bright Life]

I'd put the kid aboard, as I'm certain I could devise a rudimentary floatation device, post haste. I may not be so willing for someone able to think for themselves.

[Bane]

if it came down to it, the elderly and disabled people are going overboard, unless we need to keep them for food i guess.

Fuck you too, dear. I'd send the mouthy blonds who can't spell. :D

Agreed! ;) Oh, and all the snobs and fashion models too. Fuck 'em.

And....as far as flesh-eating goes, I'd overcome my aversion to eating fish in a hearbeat if it'd keep us all from having to eat each other like the Donner party.:cool:

[Matty]

aversion? Lol. To fish. Double lol.

Just think of the lifeboat as the perfect excuse to try that most taboo of meats.
medium rare please.

Oh, and all the snobs and fashion models too. Fuck 'em.anyone who makes it off the boat with their lulu lemon coat or make up bag would be close to the top of the eating list. To be honest I'd have that list compiled in my head before the boat sank. Biggest fattest person first becasue you'd only have to kill one person for an awful lot of food, then down the list in order of annoying

I'd also take pleasure in watching the vegetarian or PETA member dilemma of starving or sticking to their oh so precious morals. I bet there are few vegetarians in lifeboats, or if so they are mre commonly the dinner not the diners. Of course using the PETA member as bait for fishing a piece at a time would be even more deliciously offensive than eating them.

[sohy]

What I've learned from reading this thread is never to get on a boat with any of you guys.

[Matty]

dont be like that, i promise to do my utmost to make sure everyone on the lifeboat survives right up to the point that i get peckish.

[Bane]

My flesh is tough, you wouldn't wanna eat that :p And also it's wrong to kill a Discordian pope, because life requires chaos.

[Matty]

Tough s'alright. One or two of the passengers would have to be used for long term storage jerky anyway

[Pendaric]

I would quite like to try human to see what it tastes like.

[Octavia]

For me, the rightness of an action is determined by the ability to look at myself in a mirror afterwards without flinching.That criterion obviously doesn't apply if one of the outcomes is your own death, and at any rate it's a rather circular one.


I think it does apply, although I grant it was badly expressed. Death isn't always the worst option.

[Cath B]

I was always critical of Kate in Titanic, cos if she'd just done as she was fucking told** rather than letting woolly sentimentality get in the fucking way then her and leo could both have survived, but no, she effectively wanted a cuddle, let emotion get the better of the obvious best thing to dfo, which as get in the fucking boat, and she killed him. Dizzy bint.



And not just him!

She had at least two chances of a seat which could've gone to folk less dippy only to run off, not to save the lives of as many passengers as possible but to play silly buggers.

That was the most irritating thing about the film IMO

[Preno]

For me, the rightness of an action is determined by the ability to look at myself in a mirror afterwards without flinching.That criterion obviously doesn't apply if one of the outcomes is your own death, and at any rate it's a rather circular one.
I think it does apply, although I grant it was badly expressed. Death isn't always the worst option.I guess not, but the reason why it fails is that when you die, you can't really look at yourself in the mirror afterwards.

eta: literally and metaphorically
But at some point the line gets fuzzy.Sure, it's fuzzy, but most of the points still hold. The only reason to prefer a child over a 50-year-old is that a 50-year-old only has some 30-odd years to live. All the other reasons I gave still apply, though, although to a lesser extent. 10-year-olds are still much more replaceable than 50-year-olds.

[Goldie]

I risked my life at age 5 for my younger, 2 1/2 yr old, brother...because he was MY baby.
I am not at all rational and hopelessly maternal when it comes to children. It is an overactive emotion in me for which I haven't much control. I KNOW I would run into a burning building for a child. It's not that I think that makes me a better person. It is just SO hard-wired into me. It is an instinct that is stronger in me than most and I realize that. So I KNOW I'd make sure a child got my seat.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Now: is it always admirable for an adult to cede ther place to a child? Are there any conceivable exceptions? If so, what might they be?

Is it optional to do so, or would it be despicable for an adult to take a place while there were children left? Are there any conceivable exceptions? If so, what (barring any exceptions above) might they be?

And if it is mandatory, do we have the tight to force that choice on people? If an adult does claim a place while there's a child left over, do other stay-behinders have the right - or the duty - to physically prevent him? Are there any conceivable exceptions? If so, what might they be?

[dancer_rnb]

I think it should only be first class women and children that get in the lifeboat, like on the Titanic.

[Yahzi]

Where do you stand on this old, "gentleman's" maxim?
It's not a gentleman's maxim. It's a biological tropism.

The only time a man can push a child out of a life raft is if doing so is the only way to save a greater number of people. Other people have the right and duty to enforce this.

The entire point of this specialization we call "male" is to die in the defense of kin/tribe/species. Women make babies, and men fight. That's the law of the jungle (and a raw deal it is for men!). If you don't like that, then change the environmental pressures (like by inventing civilization or something). But don't think you can utterly erase the biological substrate on which we are built. Because you can't.

But... what if the child in question has Down's Syndrome and will die in a year or two anyway? :evil:

[His Noodly Appendage]

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers, unable to row...

[Cath B]

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers, unable to row...

But maybe the hard-wiring varies from person to person so that the overall result tends to be that some folk survive to breed another day.

In tribes of early humans or protohumans facing disasters of one sort or another a pile of toddlers placed on rafts (real or metaphorical) would not have made it on their own. But a mixture of folk who put number one first (but would give help if they themselves were OK) and folk who'd been saved by the self sacrificial might.

[Cath B]

I risked my life at age 5 for my younger, 2 1/2 yr old, brother...because he was MY baby.
I am not at all rational and hopelessly maternal when it comes to children. It is an overactive emotion in me for which I haven't much control. I KNOW I would run into a burning building for a child. It's not that I think that makes me a better person. It is just SO hard-wired into me. It is an instinct that is stronger in me than most and I realize that. So I KNOW I'd make sure a child got my seat.

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers, unable to row...

But maybe the hard-wiring varies from person to person so that the overall result tends to be that some folk survive to breed another day.

In tribes of early humans or protohumans facing disasters of one sort or another a pile of toddlers placed on rafts (real or metaphorical) would not have made it on their own. But a mixture of folk who put number one first (but would give help if they themselves were OK) and folk who'd been saved by the self sacrificial might.

The outcome in a crisis may well depend on ultra-speedy decision making. The person least likely to help him/herself or anyone else is the Hamlet type who procrastinates.

There may be other scenarios where weighing up pros and cons is a virtue but I guess the hormone release invoked by a crisis provokes a neural response which bypasses this tendency in most folk.

[Cath B]

IIncidentally, I voted for child first and I'm almost certain that that's what I'd do.

But if it was a choice between an unknown child and one of my young adult children I'd put my kin first.

In English the word child means both offspring and a pre-adult.

Is this true of all other languages?

[Preno]

It's not a gentleman's maxim. It's a biological tropism.

The only time a man can push a child out of a life raft is if doing so is the only way to save a greater number of people. Other people have the right and duty to enforce this.

The entire point of this specialization we call "male" is to die in the defense of kin/tribe/species. Women make babies, and men fight. That's the law of the jungle (and a raw deal it is for men!). If you don't like that, then change the environmental pressures (like by inventing civilization or something). But don't think you can utterly erase the biological substrate on which we are built. Because you can't.I'm not sure how you jumped from the descriptive assumption that you can't "erase the biological substrate" to the normative and sexist conclusion that the gender of the person should matter.
In English the word child means both offspring and a pre-adult.

Is this true of all other languages?In all the IE languages I'm familiar with, yes. But it's virtually a given that it won't be true in all languages.

[Matty]

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers

s'alright mate, you can have that last seat. i fancy a swim. :D


can you imagine ending up in a life raft full of fucking christians. Praying incessantly but actually doing fuck all.

[dancer_rnb]

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers

s'alright mate, you can have that last seat. i fancy a swim. :D


can you imagine ending up in a life raft full of fucking christians. Praying incessantly but actually doing fuck all.

Well, they wouldn't need to bring along the babies, as they'd have a new crop in 9 months............

[Matty]

look everyone, this raft comes equipped with solar stills to make fresh water and some fishing gear, lets get this lot set up, and then at least we can start to collect some.....

THE LORD WILL PROVIDE. PRAY WITH ME BROTHERS

Yeah you could pray but but look, if we just divvy up the kit we can probably catch enough fish to survive, and as long as we ration the water carefully and keep an eye on...

THE LORD WILL BRING MANNA FROM HEAVEN, THIS IS A TEST OF OUR FAITH. PRAY WITH ME PEOPLE., OH LORD......

Well if he doesnt answer, how about some nice fish?

DO NOT BELIEVE THESE IDOLATORS. SMASH THE STILL AND CUT THE LINE, ONLY TRUE FAITH IN JEEEEEBUUS WILL SAVE US, ONLY THE N.....gag.....bleh....gak...wheeze....gasp. Thud.


Luckily, fishing lines also make pretty good garottes. Oh good, you started getting that still going, Rare steak anyone?

[Cath B]

I've got this vision of a lifeboat full of toddlers, unable to row...

I saw a film once (forget the title) where a man went in pursuit of a slaver who'd stolen his [the hero's, not the slaver's own :D] wife.

He found her chained up in a desert along with the slaver and a hoard of children aged around ten, also in chains, who hailed him as a rescuer.

He released them but did not allow them to accompany him and his wife, instead giving them directions to a nearby town.

His wife berated him, claiming that they would be enslaved there. He concurred but said that they would be given food and allowed to live. He did not have enough food and water to take them where he and his wife were headed.

A tough thing to do for someone with a sense of morality, but it had a certain rationale about it.

[Goldie]

IIncidentally, I voted for child first and I'm almost certain that that's what I'd do.

But if it was a choice between an unknown child and one of my young adult children I'd put my kin first.

In English the word child means both offspring and a pre-adult.

Is this true of all other languages?

I would do the same... I am pretty strongly wired to protect my own...and those I THINK of as my own.

I have been refered to as a Mama Bear. I grow several feet when children are threatened....especially my own.

[dancer_rnb]

IIncidentally, I voted for child first and I'm almost certain that that's what I'd do.

But if it was a choice between an unknown child and one of my young adult children I'd put my kin first.

In English the word child means both offspring and a pre-adult.

Is this true of all other languages?

I would do the same... I am pretty strongly wired to protect my own...and those I THINK of as my own.

I have been refered to as a Mama Bear. I grow several feet when children are threatened....especially my own.

I wonder what would happen if the choice was between your kids and someone else's kids.

[Matty]

the other kids get to die. i'd feel bad and i'd be sorry its came to that, but thats survival for ya. No contest.

[dancer_rnb]

the other kids get to die. i'd feel bad and i'd be sorry its came to that, but thats survival for ya. No contest.

That's assuming the other kids don't have nastier relatives than yours do.

I think this might be the sort of things that started the first wars.

[Matty]

i'm pretty sure that in a boat of aggrieved parents i'd put up a better fight than at least one of them, which is all that really matters, right. Kinda like the two natural history cameramen, the lions and the sneakers no?

If my child was in any way threatened it would definitely be, with no hyperbole, a case of them being hurt over my dead body.

[dancer_rnb]

But do you have sneakers or not? Have the strings on your sneakers been tied together?
You're starting to sound like one of us here in the US,

[Goldie]

IIncidentally, I voted for child first and I'm almost certain that that's what I'd do.

But if it was a choice between an unknown child and one of my young adult children I'd put my kin first.

In English the word child means both offspring and a pre-adult.

Is this true of all other languages?

I would do the same... I am pretty strongly wired to protect my own...and those I THINK of as my own.

I have been refered to as a Mama Bear. I grow several feet when children are threatened....especially my own.

I wonder what would happen if the choice was between your kids and someone else's kids.

I think I already said, in so many words, that my own would come first.

[Matty]

But do you have sneakers or not? In a lifeboat situation i would take whatever the metaphorical sneakers are, from someone weaker than me if it came down to protecting my family.

Have the strings on your sneakers been tied together?I'd be No. I'd be sneaky enough to have checked out mine, whilst i was typing together the laces of my biggest threat.


You're starting to sound like one of us here in the US,

easy on the insults mate. Nothing particularly American about putting your own family first. If i put JESUS first then maybe you'd have a point. :p:D


Mostly though i would strive to save every one i could up till hte point that such a mindset becomes a threat to my or mines well being, then he gloves would be totally off. I wouldnt be proud of it, but i'd much rather be alive and feeling guilty than dead or grieving a lost family.

the only people i would consciously lay my life down for would be my wife or son. Thats not to say i wouldnt risk my life to help others, just that the risk vs reward ratio, and chance of success better be pretty good

[dancer_rnb]

You're starting to sound like one of us here in the US,

easy on the insults mate. Nothing particularly American about putting your own family first. If i put JESUS first then maybe you'd have a point. :p:D


Mostly though i would strive to save every one i could up till hte point that such a mindset becomes a threat to my or mines well being, then he gloves would be totally off. I wouldnt be proud of it, but i'd much rather be alive and feeling guilty than dead or grieving a lost family.

the only people i would consciously lay my life down for would be my wife or son. Thats not to say i wouldnt risk my life to help others, just that the risk vs reward ratio, and chance of success better be pretty good

Oh, I agree, it's not limited to Americans. Some people just like to pretend it doesn't apply to them.
Then there is the problem of knowing if it that situation applies.

Add : Besides, how do you know I didn't mean my comment as a complement? Why do you consider it as an insult?:D

[dancer_rnb]

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire, a woman with kids in that situation better have a pistol and know how to use it........

[Yahzi]

I'm not sure how you jumped from the descriptive assumption that you can't "erase the biological substrate" to the normative and sexist conclusion that the gender of the person should matter.
When discussing the biological substrate of human behavior, gender usually matters.

Back to the topic: if there are not enough seats for all the children, then you find some fair way to allocate the seats, like a lottery. This is both moral and maximizes the chances of survival.

I think that if the rescue boat is percieved as perfectly safe, people will be less likely to seek fair allocations; whereas if the boat is unsafe, then people will cooperate more and be fairer.

Because, after all, morality is merely a tool to maximize survival.

[Matty]

Back to the topic: if there are not enough seats for all the children, then you find some fair way to allocate the seats, like a lottery. This is both moral and maximizes the chances of survival.
How does it maximise the chances of survival?

Overall/For every one ? Not really, becasue with a lottery system you could exclude an experienced sailor and navigator with mid ocean survival experience, for a car insurance salesperson.

Individual: My families best chances of survival are not those of the odds of the lottery. If i "create" a space for my child by taking out someone else then their best chance of survival is much nearer to 1 than a 1 in 12 straw pick or whatever.

I never got that bit about drawing straws for who gets eaten. You kill and eat the biggest person on the boat so you dont have to do the same again quite as soon.

[Preno]

I'm not sure how you jumped from the descriptive assumption that you can't "erase the biological substrate" to the normative and sexist conclusion that the gender of the person should matter.When discussing the biological substrate of human behavior, gender usually matters.Yes, except you were being normative and claimed that other people have the "right and duty" to "enforce this" (i.e. to prefer children over adult males). You simply cannot make these kinds of normative conclusions based on evo psych (which is mostly just a bunch of plausible sounding stories, anyway).

[Joykins]

Women and children first is about saving the next generation, not this one.

[DMB]

As an elderly woman, I don't think anyone (except possibly my husband or children) should give any priority to me. I think there is something fairly unappealing about people who cling desperately to life at my age.

I have often thought about a similar question with respect to saving members of my family from a housefire. My preferred order would be:
My children
My husband
My grandchildren
My parents
Cats and dogs


About 20 years ago I had something slightly similar in having to prioritise members of my family. My beloved father was dying of cancer and begged the doctor to finish him off, but this was refused. I was very tempted to fiddle with his morphine drip and hopefully give him a lethal dose. But I then had young, dependent children. I found it an agonising decision to make, but I thought that if I were imprisoned for several years it would be so bad for them that I ought not to take the risk. In the end, I felt that my responsibilities to my children outweighed those to my father.

I think that biology tends to make us favour the next generation. The relationship between parents and children is an assymetric one. They make sacrifices for us that we can never repay and they don't expect repayment. We in our turn make sacrifices for our children.

[Ray Moscow]

Most of the time (especially where emotions are concerned), genes rule.

[Goldie]

As an elderly woman, I don't think anyone (except possibly my husband or children) should give any priority to me. I think there is something fairly unappealing about people who cling desperately to life at my age.

I have often thought about a similar question with respect to saving members of my family from a housefire. My preferred order would be:
My children
My husband
My grandchildren
My parents
Cats and dogs


About 20 years ago I had something slightly similar in having to prioritise members of my family. My beloved father was dying of cancer and begged the doctor to finish him off, but this was refused. I was very tempted to fiddle with his morphine drip and hopefully give him a lethal dose. But I then had young, dependent children. I found it an agonising decision to make, but I thought that if I were imprisoned for several years it would be so bad for them that I ought not to take the risk. In the end, I felt that my responsibilities to my children outweighed those to my father.

I think that biology tends to make us favour the next generation. The relationship between parents and children is an assymetric one. They make sacrifices for us that we can never repay and they don't expect repayment. We in our turn make sacrifices for our children.

DMB, I had to make that exact same decision when my mother was connected to a feeding tube and in a coma. I had to put Chuck and Matt first. I wanted to do right by my mother and let her die with dignity...but I don't think even she would have wanted me to put myself and my family in jeopardy.

[Yahzi]

How does it maximise the chances of survival?
Because starting a fight on a sinking ship is the opposite of maximizing chances of survival. And being fair (or at least perceived as fair) is the best way to not start a fight.

I never got that bit about drawing straws for who gets eaten. You kill and eat the biggest person on the boat so you dont have to do the same again quite as soon.
Convincing the biggest person to go along with this plan will be a lot easier if he believes the plan was derived according to a fair method.

[Yahzi]

You simply cannot make these kinds of normative conclusions based on evo psych (which is mostly just a bunch of plausible sounding stories, anyway).
What else could you base them on?

Morality is not some intangible gift from the ether. It is the product of evolution. Therefore, the study of evolution (both genetic responses and environmental pressures) can - and must - inform the study of morals. How we know what is moral is by knowing what is good for survival.

What else could it possibly be?

[Preno]

You simply cannot make these kinds of normative conclusions based on evo psych (which is mostly just a bunch of plausible sounding stories, anyway).What else could you base them on?Well, the actual meaning of the relevant words, as manifest in their actual usage.
Morality is not some intangible gift from the ether. It is the product of evolution. Therefore, the study of evolution (both genetic responses and environmental pressures) can - and must - inform the study of morals. How we know what is moral is by knowing what is good for survival.Whose survival? :dunno:

These sorts of crude reductions of moral reasoning to a single characteristic tend to grossly distort the picture, not to mention that it's simply not relevant. While it might be interesting to enquire into how our morality evolved over time, you clearly cannot equate "moral" with "good for survival". That doesn't even make sense, as it gives blatantly wrong answers (for example, it's not right for me to throw everyone out of the boat just so I can keep all the food to myself, even though it might be beneficial for my survival) and there are moral questions which have nothing to do with survival, anyway.

[Yahzi]

[QUOTE=Yahzi;75862]These sorts of crude reductions of moral reasoning to a single characteristic tend to grossly distort the picture, not to mention that it's simply not relevant. While it might be interesting to enquire into how our morality evolved over time, you clearly cannot equate "moral" with "good for survival". That doesn't even make sense, as it gives blatantly wrong answers (for example, it's not right for me to throw everyone out of the boat just so I can keep all the food to myself, even though it might be beneficial for my survival) and there are moral questions which have nothing to do with survival, anyway.
Again, I have to ask: if morality did not come from evolution, then where did it come from?

If it did come from evolution, then why wouldn't biological facts apply to a discussion of evolution?

Finally, I do agree with you on the valuelessness of crude reductions. For example, your example about throwing people out of the boat is an overly simplistic look at how human beings interact with morality. Only a naif would suggest that "If morality = survival, then I should kill everyone and take all their stuff," because only a naif would forget that morality = survival in a social context, and consequently those other people in the boat would view your actions as immoral, and would therefore likely band together, setting aside their differences, to defeat what they perceived as a common foe. And biology being what it is, one individual is not going to prevail over many in a physical contest (never mind what you see in the movies).

And yes, all moral questions have to do with survival. All moral questions are "how should we best live?" The decision to extend the franchise of voting to everyone (instead of just landowners) was a moral decision, because it was fair; but it was also a pragmatic decision, because it led to a vastly stronger national system, which turned out to be crucial in a series of world wars that threatened not just the national system, but the actual survival of whole groups of people.

Even the simple "should I return a wallet I found" question is a question about how we should best live so that we can live best. Just because the answer to a question does not immediately lead to fatality does not make it a question unconcerned with fatality. Causality extends more than 30 seconds into the future (or more accurately, more than 30 seconds into the past).

Morality is an evolved response to the pressures of living in social groups. Being fair is a mathematically elegant way to divide resources between essentially equal actors. There is no moral question that cannot be answered by the process of being fair.

[Matty]

Because starting a fight on a sinking ship is the opposite of maximizing chances of survival. Winning a fight on the lifeboat isnt.

I never got that bit about drawing straws for who gets eaten. You kill and eat the biggest person on the boat so you dont have to do the same again quite as soon.
Convincing the biggest person to go along with this plan will be a lot easier if he believes the plan was derived according to a fair method.

"well if you put it like that of course the only option is for me to die to feed you all, let me just swallow this pot of marinade, and then please kill me humanely, bon appetit. "

you reckon? I dont.

[Preno]

Again, I have to ask: if morality did not come from evolution, then where did it come from?Sure it came from evolution (both biological and sociocultural), but that's not directly relevant. It's like if I asked you what a word means in English and you gave me its etymology instead.
If it did come from evolution, then why wouldn't biological facts apply to a discussion of evolution?Biological facts do apply to a discussion of evolution. That doesn't mean that morality = what is good for survival (and, once again, whose survival?).
For example, your example about throwing people out of the boat is an overly simplistic look at how human beings interact with morality. Only a naif would suggest that "If morality = survival, then I should kill everyone and take all their stuff," because only a naif would forget that morality = survival in a social context, and consequently those other people in the boat would view your actions as immoral, and would therefore likely band together, setting aside their differences, to defeat what they perceived as a common foe. And biology being what it is, one individual is not going to prevail over many in a physical contest (never mind what you see in the movies).If your claim is not vacuous, then what does it actually imply? To me, it seems to imply that if I'm in a position where I can ensure my survival by killing other people (and am likely to survive and never get caught), then I ought to do that. But that's a blatantly false conclusion.
And yes, all moral questions have to do with survival. All moral questions are "how should we best live?"That's not really what survival means. "Should I give my friend his book back" is not a question of survival.
The decision to extend the franchise of voting to everyone (instead of just landowners) was a moral decision, because it was fair; but it was also a pragmatic decision, because it led to a vastly stronger national system, which turned out to be crucial in a series of world wars that threatened not just the national system, but the actual survival of whole groups of people.

Even the simple "should I return a wallet I found" question is a question about how we should best live so that we can live best. Just because the answer to a question does not immediately lead to fatality does not make it a question unconcerned with fatality. Causality extends more than 30 seconds into the future (or more accurately, more than 30 seconds into the past).In that case it seems to me that you've hand-waved your claim that morality = good for (whose?) survival into oblivion.
Morality is an evolved response to the pressures of living in social groups. Being fair is a mathematically elegant way to divide resources between essentially equal actors. There is no moral question that cannot be answered by the process of being fair.That's exactly one of those crude reductions I was talking about. Morality is not only about fairness, it's also about happiness, freedom, compassion, and loads of other stuff, and these criteria are often in conflict with each other.

[Jet Black]

In practice, we'll see.

I hope not.

[Jet Black]

I'd toss some religious people overboard. They think they've got an afterlife anyway, I don't, so I want to die less than them.

[Matty]

i'd be throwing those bastards over the side the second they started praying for survival instead of rowing.

[Yahzi]

Biological facts do apply to a discussion of evolution. That doesn't mean that morality = what is good for survival (and, once again, whose survival?).
Survival of the individual. Because human beings are social animals, individual survival requires social cooperation.

Now, given that morality is a product of evolution - given that it is a evolved strategy for social cooperation - doesn't it seem obvious that what is moral is also what is good for survival? I mean, given that the definition of evolved strategy is something that maximizes survival.

Of course it is possible to have counter-productive evolution: not all adaptations are useful (particularly if the environment changes). But are you really suggesting that our environment has changed to where social cooperation is no longer necessary?

If your claim is not vacuous, then what does it actually imply? To me, it seems to imply that if I'm in a position where I can ensure my survival by killing other people (and am likely to survive and never get caught), then I ought to do that. But that's a blatantly false conclusion.
Only because you've left out details.

It turns out that ordinary, normal functioning human beings cannot effortlessly switch between homicidal mania and social cooperation. We are creatures of habit, not logical robots. The man who kills without guilt will not be able to function properly in society, if for no other reason he will tend to kill when others find it not strictly necessary to do so.

The basic maxim is that you should always be fair, because then you're likely to be fair in unforseen circumstances. The policy of generally being fair trumps the policy of coldly maximizing your position if for no other reason than other people noticing that's what you're doing and turning against you (it's not for nothing that people typically punish cheaters to a greater extent than the reward the cheater gained).

That's not really what survival means. "Should I give my friend his book back" is not a question of survival.
One might well point out that sex with birth control is not a question of reproduction. However, one would be in quite strange territory to assert that sex had nothing to do with evolved reproductive strategies.

In that case it seems to me that you've hand-waved your claim that morality = good for (whose?) survival into oblivion.
:confused:

That's exactly one of those crude reductions I was talking about. Morality is not only about fairness, it's also about happiness, freedom, compassion, and loads of other stuff, and these criteria are often in conflict with each other.
Philosophy - the search for the good life - can be said to be about everything on that list, but the study of morality is generally restricted to interactions with others.

[Preno]

Survival of the individual. Because human beings are social animals, individual survival requires social cooperation.Of what individual? Sometimes individual survival requires social co-operation, other times it doesn't.
Now, given that morality is a product of evolution - given that it is a evolved strategy for social cooperation - doesn't it seem obvious that what is moral is also what is good for survival? I mean, given that the definition of evolved strategy is something that maximizes survival.No, I wouldn't, because for one thing, you still haven't explained whose survival, and for another, morality is also a product of sociocultural evolution.
Of course it is possible to have counter-productive evolution: not all adaptations are useful (particularly if the environment changes). But are you really suggesting that our environment has changed to where social cooperation is no longer necessary?No, what I'm suggesting is that you can't assume that this is the case in general and pretend like you've solved the issue. The fact is that it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the only way to ensure my own survival is to kill innocent people.
If your claim is not vacuous, then what does it actually imply? To me, it seems to imply that if I'm in a position where I can ensure my survival by killing other people (and am likely to survive and never get caught), then I ought to do that. But that's a blatantly false conclusion.Only because you've left out details.

It turns out that ordinary, normal functioning human beings cannot effortlessly switch between homicidal mania and social cooperation. We are creatures of habit, not logical robots. The man who kills without guilt will not be able to function properly in society, if for no other reason he will tend to kill when others find it not strictly necessary to do so.So? Who said he doesn't feel guilt?
The basic maxim is that you should always be fair, because then you're likely to be fair in unforseen circumstances. The policy of generally being fair trumps the policy of coldly maximizing your position if for no other reason than other people noticing that's what you're doing and turning against you (it's not for nothing that people typically punish cheaters to a greater extent than the reward the cheater gained).I don't understand how the fact that being fair is better than "coldly maximizing your position" demonstrates that moral = fair (which, btw, is curious, because a couple of second ago, you said that moral = good for survival, and, obviously, you cannot assume that in general fair = good for survival).
That's not really what survival means. "Should I give my friend his book back" is not a question of survival.One might well point out that sex with birth control is not a question of reproduction. However, one would be in quite strange territory to assert that sex had nothing to do with evolved reproductive strategies.I have no idea how that shows that all moral questions are questions of survival. They clearly aren't.
That's exactly one of those crude reductions I was talking about. Morality is not only about fairness, it's also about happiness, freedom, compassion, and loads of other stuff, and these criteria are often in conflict with each other.Philosophy - the search for the good life - can be said to be about everything on that list, but the study of morality is generally restricted to interactions with others.So? How would it follow that morality is reducible to fairness?

[Yahzi]

No, I wouldn't, because for one thing, you still haven't explained whose survival, and for another, morality is also a product of sociocultural evolution.
AH, you're one of those fellows who think that the ineffable disciplines of music and art have nothing to do with our crude biological history.

OK. Well, then.

The fact is that it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the only way to ensure my own survival is to kill innocent people.
I explained this already. There seems little point in repeating it.

I have no idea how that shows that all moral questions are questions of survival. They clearly aren't.
I thought my example made it clear that all morality is derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival, just as all sexuality is derived from evolutionary reproductive strategies.

So? How would it follow that morality is reducible to fairness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice

[Matty]

the only way to ensure my own survival is to kill innocent people. who says its the only way. It might just be the surest.


Now, given that morality is a product of evolution - given that it is a evolved strategy for social cooperation - doesn't it seem obvious that what is moral is also what is good for survival? I mean, given that the definition of evolved strategy is something that maximizes survival.Context dependent. Same as apparent altruism, there will always be some payback of some kind. On a natural selection basis, in a population of altruistic (or moral if you like) individuals, the outlying selfish bastard will have a clear advantage in being able to milk the well being of the others to a point.

I thought my example made it clear that all morality is derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival, just as all sexuality is derived from evolutionary reproductive strategies.I think you might be conflating an innate biological tendency to tribalism and community altruism, with morality. Morality of more of a philosophical concept, is very modern in the scheme of things (like on a very different scale to that of natural selection) , and not exactly something we can put down purely to evolution even if the biological underpinnings make it more likely.

[BWE]

Would you throw the snivelling brat overboard together with the nagging female to get your seat, or would you be the self sacrificing hero?
self sacrificing hero? er...

I'd give the seat to the kid. And actually, I really can't imagine doing anything else. And if there were two seats, the woman and the kid.

I mean, wtf. I might even throw a guy overboard who was trying to take a kids seat. That's just a disturbing question in many ways. I've met a few people in my life who valued their own minutes in that kind of way, who grasp at nothing till their fingers bleed, but really, when it comes down to really scary situations, (and I've been in several unfortunately) most guys do give up their seat. It's wiring. I've never actually seen a guy try to use a child or a woman as a shield... and it's an identical decision.

[Preno]

AH, you're one of those fellows who think that the ineffable disciplines of music and art have nothing to do with our crude biological history.

OK. Well, then.Not really, but I understand that you might think so if you believe in an idiotic dichotomy according to which everything is either completely determined by and reducible to "evolutionary reproductive strategies" or something "ineffable" which "has nothing to do with our crude biological history".
I have no idea how that shows that all moral questions are questions of survival. They clearly aren't.I thought my example made it clear that all morality is derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival, just as all sexuality is derived from evolutionary reproductive strategies.No, it didn't. I don't understand how an example can demonstrate (the blatantly false and rather dogmatic claim) that all morality is "derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival".

It's like you took the religious theory of morality and just simplistically replaced every claim it makes with its polar opposite.
So? How would it follow that morality is reducible to fairness?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_JusticeUm, Rawls doesn't claim that morality is reducible to fairness, he tries to base justice on fairness (also it's circular rubbish).

[Iblis waswas]

The child every time! I'd rather die now at 29 than live the rest of my life knowing that I didn't give the child a chance to experience some of the wonder the world has to provide. I've already travelled round the world and had my fair share of life experience so let the bairn get their go.

[Alex]

Um, Rawls doesn't claim that morality is reducible to fairness, he tries to base justice on fairness (also it's circular rubbish).

Isn't being fair and reasonable built into the concept of justice? Why is it "circular rubbish"?

[Bright Life]

I would quite like to try human to see what it tastes like.

It's full of nasty bacteria and parasites. Humans are dirty creatures.

[Preno]

Isn't being fair and reasonable built into the concept of justice?Yes, obviously.
Why is it "circular rubbish"?Because it's completely non-explanatory. He simply pushes the question a step back, i.e. instead of asking which social systems are just, he asks which society a person behind a veil of ignorance would choose. But this doesn't explain anything, because the principles such a person would use aren't any clearer or less controversial than the principles one would use in determining which social systems are just. If he uses a minimax method, he'll end up with Rawls's conclusion, if he uses expected utility, he'd end up with some sort of utilitarianism. That doesn't solve the question at all, he simply shifts it to a metalevel and then uses the exact same argument he would use on the original level, except for some reason he thinks that it somehow becomes uncontroversial, which it doesn't.

[Quizalufagus]

I'd give the seat to the kid. And actually, I really can't imagine doing anything else. And if there were two seats, the woman and the kid.

Why? Do you feel your life is of little value?

[BWE]

I'd give the seat to the kid. And actually, I really can't imagine doing anything else. And if there were two seats, the woman and the kid.

Why? Do you feel your life is of little value?

Not at all. But life is short no matter how long you live. Didn't you see Titanic?

[BWE]

I would quite like to try human to see what it tastes like.

Tke a slice out of your buttcheek and see. Like in Candide.

[Quizalufagus]

Not at all. But life is short no matter how long you live. Didn't you see Titanic?

You'll feel silly about writing that when we invent technology that allows immortality. :p

[BWE]

Not at all. But life is short no matter how long you live. Didn't you see Titanic?

You'll feel silly about writing that when we invent technology that allows immortality. :p

wistful perhaps. But I want none of that immortality crap. I get bored too easily.

[Yahzi]

Not really, but I understand that you might think so if you believe in an idiotic dichotomy according to which everything is either completely determined by and reducible to "evolutionary reproductive strategies" or something "ineffable" which "has nothing to do with our crude biological history".
I did not say any such thing. In fact, I have twice said otherwise.

If you insist on mis-reading my comments to your own narrow interpretation so you can then express outrage over your straw creations, perhaps you should just stop reading my comments.

No, it didn't. I don't understand how an example can demonstrate (the blatantly false and rather dogmatic claim) that all morality is "derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival".
Everything is derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival, at some root level. Humans are products of evolution.

Unless you think there is some other origin of human nature/behavior?

Um, Rawls doesn't claim that morality is reducible to fairness, he tries to base justice on fairness (also it's circular rubbish).
Well, there you go. I say fairness and you say circular rubbish.

It occurs to me that if you can dismiss an entire influential body of work with a two-word phrase in the same post in which you castigate me for providing merely one example instead of an entire philosophical treatise, then perhaps, just perhaps, this conversation will not turn out to be productive.

[Yahzi]

Um, Rawls doesn't claim that morality is reducible to fairness, he tries to base justice on fairness (also it's circular rubbish).

Isn't being fair and reasonable built into the concept of justice? Why is it "circular rubbish"?
Needless to say, I don't think it's rubbish.

Recognizing that human beings are capable of making choices when behind a veil of ignorance, and furthermore that people intuitively recognize those kinds of judgments as fair, is a powerful insight.

What Rawls is trying to show is that process is, itself, what we mean by fairness: a fair choice is a choice you would make if you didn't know which side you were on. Making that choice is a powerful biological ability that, as far as we know, no other animal can duplicate. As a concept it is powerful enough to explain all of our moral intuitions, laws, and judgments.

[Preno]

I did not say any such thing. In fact, I have twice said otherwise.Sorry, I must have missed that. Can you quote the bit where you said otherwise?
No, it didn't. I don't understand how an example can demonstrate (the blatantly false and rather dogmatic claim) that all morality is "derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival".Everything is derived from the evolutionary pressure of survival, at some root level. Humans are products of evolution.That doesn't imply that morality is completely determined by biological evolution (any more than, say, language is).
Um, Rawls doesn't claim that morality is reducible to fairness, he tries to base justice on fairness (also it's circular rubbish).Well, there you go. I say fairness and you say circular rubbish.I didn't say that fairness is circular rubbish, I said Rawls's book is circular rubbish.

I know I should have avoided saying because you'd immediately focus on that, instead of addressing the main point which is that Rawls doesn't cliam that morality is reducible to fairness, so I have no idea why you were citing him in this context.

[Yahzi]

That doesn't imply that morality is completely determined by biological evolution (any more than, say, language is).
What else is it determined by? I mean this for both language and morality.

Human psychological existence is complex, and much of it depends upon feedback loops. However, there simply is no other external input than biological evolution towards genetic survival.

I assume you don't hear angels singing in a choir; so what else could possibly influence our existence other than a) evolution, or b) quirks of evolution?

I didn't say that fairness is circular rubbish, I said Rawls's book is circular rubbish.
Not everyone agrees. Go figure.

However, rather than defend Rawls, I will just make the claim myself: all morality is based on fairness. In fact, fairness is morality. Any given situation can be resolved morally by being resolved fairly.

[Preno]

That doesn't imply that morality is completely determined by biological evolution (any more than, say, language is).What else is it determined by? I mean this for both language and morality.Sociocultural evolution, as I've said twice already.
However, rather than defend Rawls, I will just make the claim myself: all morality is based on fairness. In fact, fairness is morality.So you assert. :dunno:

Disregarding the blatant falsehood of your claim, a while ago, you said that morality is whatever is beneficial to survival. But obviously, an action can be beneficial to survival without being fair and vice versa. You should probably make up your mind about that.
Any given situation can be resolved morally by being resolved fairly.I suppose it would be fair that murderers get executed themselves, but whether it's the moral thing to do is quite questionable.

[Quizalufagus]

wistful perhaps. But I want none of that immortality crap. I get bored too easily.

So you didn't really mean it when you wrote that life is short no matter how long you live?

[BWE]

wistful perhaps. But I want none of that immortality crap. I get bored too easily.

So you didn't really mean it when you wrote that life is short no matter how long you live?

Oh no. I meant it. I get bored quick. :)

[muidiri]

Probably in our overpopulated modern world, there is no reason for giving priority to women or children. I suppose in different circumstances, children (but not babies) should get priority, because as long as they are old enough to cope with tough conditions, they represent the long-term survival of the species. For the same reason, women of breeding age should take priority over men and older women, because you only need one or two men to impregnate a lot of women.

But in the world as it is, there are no good reasons for giving priority to any group of people. Nonetheless, we are all geared up emotionally to be compassionate towards children. Think of all those charities advertising to get us to help poor people in third-world countries. They nearly always use pictures of winsome children. Ofter they invite you to "sponsor a child", but what that really means is support a whole community, of which the child is just a particular member. So at some deep level, it appears that we are suckers for children.

This, pretty much.

If it were 100 years ago, I'd give first priority to women of childbearing age, then to children (but not infants), and lastly to men.

In modern day... I'd probably aim for older children or young adults - something in the range from about 12 to 23. Seems like they ought to get a chance to make good on their parent's investment in them.

Although truthfully... there'd have to be a serious lack of seats for me to consider giving mine up - I'm rather fond of being alive.

And as many have said, it really depends. I have no children, and I'm 35 - near the end of childbearing. Si I figure I'll give someone else's kid a shot. I'd probably give preference to a child related to me, or to a child of someone that I know personally (and presumably like).

If I had kids... I'm pretty sure that MY kid get's first shot and damn the rest of them.

Theoretically, and big picture... I'd say it ought to be ranked like so:


My own progeny
My spouse
Progeny of those I love
Those I love AND who have lots of life ahead of them
Myself
Everyone else.

[muidiri]

aversion? Lol. To fish. Double lol.

Just think of the lifeboat as the perfect excuse to try that most taboo of meats.
medium rare please.

Oh, and all the snobs and fashion models too. Fuck 'em.anyone who makes it off the boat with their lulu lemon coat or make up bag would be close to the top of the eating list. To be honest I'd have that list compiled in my head before the boat sank. Biggest fattest person first becasue you'd only have to kill one person for an awful lot of food, then down the list in order of annoying

I'd also take pleasure in watching the vegetarian or PETA member dilemma of starving or sticking to their oh so precious morals. I bet there are few vegetarians in lifeboats, or if so they are mre commonly the dinner not the diners. Of course using the PETA member as bait for fishing a piece at a time would be even more deliciously offensive than eating them.
Hmm. Herbivores generally taste better than carnivores anyway.