You can only save one who do you choose?
video description
Date: 2021-12-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
L.
I d save the workers. Here s my reasoning:
- For starters, they re 30 people, that s 10 people more.
- The workers probably have families that depend on them. Let s say on average each has one spouse and 1. 5 children that depend on them economically, that s an additional 75 people. If the workers die, their families will be worse off than they already are. Of course the students also have families that will be very sad if they die, but they re rich and don t depend on them economically, plus they can pay therapy. The workers families will suffer both economically and emotionally.
- Yes, the students are college students and they have so much potential. As some people have argued, they might become neurosurgeons, give huge amounts of money to charities, etc. and in the end contributing much more to society than 30 workers. But:
Potentially. They might also end up not contributing much to society. Maybe none of them end up becoming doctors or scientists or whatever. Maybe they end up exploiting workers! Maybe they end up passing laws that benefit other rich people and negatively affect most people.
The workers children also have potential. If the workers die, the kids lose a parent and their economic support. They might end up having to leave school and their potential being lost.
- They say as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call. , which mean I am already on my way to the workers s ship. I d waste valuable time if I changed courses now.
- The workers are losing oxygen and they will certainly die if my spaceship doesn t arrive on time. And as other people have pointed out, it s not very likely that the asteroid belt will hit the students spaceship. I think the workers are more of an urgency.
reply
I d save the workers. Here s my reasoning:
- For starters, they re 30 people, that s 10 people more.
- The workers probably have families that depend on them. Let s say on average each has one spouse and 1. 5 children that depend on them economically, that s an additional 75 people. If the workers die, their families will be worse off than they already are. Of course the students also have families that will be very sad if they die, but they re rich and don t depend on them economically, plus they can pay therapy. The workers families will suffer both economically and emotionally.
- Yes, the students are college students and they have so much potential. As some people have argued, they might become neurosurgeons, give huge amounts of money to charities, etc. and in the end contributing much more to society than 30 workers. But:
Potentially. They might also end up not contributing much to society. Maybe none of them end up becoming doctors or scientists or whatever. Maybe they end up exploiting workers! Maybe they end up passing laws that benefit other rich people and negatively affect most people.
The workers children also have potential. If the workers die, the kids lose a parent and their economic support. They might end up having to leave school and their potential being lost.
- They say as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call. , which mean I am already on my way to the workers s ship. I d waste valuable time if I changed courses now.
- The workers are losing oxygen and they will certainly die if my spaceship doesn t arrive on time. And as other people have pointed out, it s not very likely that the asteroid belt will hit the students spaceship. I think the workers are more of an urgency.
reply
Grec
This is not togh.
The rich kids would have not much use in space as they go as passengers and not experts in spacial labors like the elderly workers.
The rich kids would eventually went to return home as soon as possible and be nagging all the time, whereas the workers are used to handle though situations and enduring pressure and disadvantages; making them not only suited for any handiness in the ship but they can also repair their own ship and fly themselves back home. (The latter sentence is an assumption of course.
There's no use nor much purpose in saving useless lives just coz they're young. If they'll bring more problems and challenges to keep them alive and happy (meaning, they'll likely be complaining about lack of resources they miss from home, same they don't and won't have in spaceships.
The only disadvantage workers have over rich kids is their age. But who knows. Maybe there's an Elon musk among the students, so that would make things different. But just assuming there was a genius in there, if it turned out you saved a group of kids based in a mere assumption that there could be someone brilliant in the crew and it wasn't after all, that'll be terrible.
In the overall I'll add, any life saved is a win. Either way with wither decision, a group of humans will perrish. Their destine was to perrish in the first place, so any of them who get to be saved should be able to try to compensate for the second chance given and make the best out of it.
reply
This is not togh.
The rich kids would have not much use in space as they go as passengers and not experts in spacial labors like the elderly workers.
The rich kids would eventually went to return home as soon as possible and be nagging all the time, whereas the workers are used to handle though situations and enduring pressure and disadvantages; making them not only suited for any handiness in the ship but they can also repair their own ship and fly themselves back home. (The latter sentence is an assumption of course.
There's no use nor much purpose in saving useless lives just coz they're young. If they'll bring more problems and challenges to keep them alive and happy (meaning, they'll likely be complaining about lack of resources they miss from home, same they don't and won't have in spaceships.
The only disadvantage workers have over rich kids is their age. But who knows. Maybe there's an Elon musk among the students, so that would make things different. But just assuming there was a genius in there, if it turned out you saved a group of kids based in a mere assumption that there could be someone brilliant in the crew and it wasn't after all, that'll be terrible.
In the overall I'll add, any life saved is a win. Either way with wither decision, a group of humans will perrish. Their destine was to perrish in the first place, so any of them who get to be saved should be able to try to compensate for the second chance given and make the best out of it.
reply
xhail928
Maybe not only the resources they have (and the wellbeing they bring to those who have them, as individuals, should be taken into the reasoning, but also their families; moreover, those whose lives depend on them. These workers don't live in a void, and in a unfair society, as shown in the video, the chances are their families will have low to non-existent help after the deaths of their relatives, and will be dumped into an even much worse life than before. Meanwhile, the students families are, also as shown, rich, and therefore, prolly will only suffer the emotional distress the death of a love one always bring (as the families of the workers will as well, together with the deep worseing of their overall lives. I would save the workers. In a more fair society, the choice could avoid talking about relatives, as they would all have the around the same chances afterwards (always to the best the society would generate. But in an unfair society, in which their chances are strictly dependant to their isolated resources, we can't talk only about the ones we are directly saving in our choice, but about those whose lives dependent on them too.
(I should improve my english.
reply
Maybe not only the resources they have (and the wellbeing they bring to those who have them, as individuals, should be taken into the reasoning, but also their families; moreover, those whose lives depend on them. These workers don't live in a void, and in a unfair society, as shown in the video, the chances are their families will have low to non-existent help after the deaths of their relatives, and will be dumped into an even much worse life than before. Meanwhile, the students families are, also as shown, rich, and therefore, prolly will only suffer the emotional distress the death of a love one always bring (as the families of the workers will as well, together with the deep worseing of their overall lives. I would save the workers. In a more fair society, the choice could avoid talking about relatives, as they would all have the around the same chances afterwards (always to the best the society would generate. But in an unfair society, in which their chances are strictly dependant to their isolated resources, we can't talk only about the ones we are directly saving in our choice, but about those whose lives dependent on them too.
(I should improve my english.
reply
Rho
The child, because their lives are more important than the lives of the poor workers. People already know that Kobe bryant life are more important than the average Joe that works 9-5, Why? It's all simply about being replaceable. There may be millions of those poor workers so even if they die, there is probably a replacement batch coming to replace them. You may argue that the rich kids are useless, and some probably are but not all of them. You need to remember that these kids comes from some of the most well off people on the earth, so they probably receive some of the best education and nutrition. Even if they are useless remember that when they have a child, those child will also get some of the best education a and probably some of them will be some kind of a world leader. (Apologies for the poor grammar.
reply
The child, because their lives are more important than the lives of the poor workers. People already know that Kobe bryant life are more important than the average Joe that works 9-5, Why? It's all simply about being replaceable. There may be millions of those poor workers so even if they die, there is probably a replacement batch coming to replace them. You may argue that the rich kids are useless, and some probably are but not all of them. You need to remember that these kids comes from some of the most well off people on the earth, so they probably receive some of the best education and nutrition. Even if they are useless remember that when they have a child, those child will also get some of the best education a and probably some of them will be some kind of a world leader. (Apologies for the poor grammar.
reply
Shreeya
I think most people who chose to save the 30 workers were probably acting on a subconscious bias a lot of us have against the notion of the priveleged rich. While the students will live longer and more happily, how much do we expect them to maximise the net happiness of others? The workers, however, represent the underprivileged and exploited backbone that keeps society progressive. This is one of many justifications we can show. However, I do think it would have been a more interesting choice if the number of students was closer to the workers's. Not 30, exactly, because then utlitarianism kicks in(I guess a lot of people might still choose to save the workers, but looking at it philosophically as well as economically, utilitarianism is logical, but a number from 25 to 29 might work?
reply
I think most people who chose to save the 30 workers were probably acting on a subconscious bias a lot of us have against the notion of the priveleged rich. While the students will live longer and more happily, how much do we expect them to maximise the net happiness of others? The workers, however, represent the underprivileged and exploited backbone that keeps society progressive. This is one of many justifications we can show. However, I do think it would have been a more interesting choice if the number of students was closer to the workers's. Not 30, exactly, because then utlitarianism kicks in(I guess a lot of people might still choose to save the workers, but looking at it philosophically as well as economically, utilitarianism is logical, but a number from 25 to 29 might work?
reply
Aaron
If I didn't miss something, I think the narrator missed another variable.
The rescuer's situation.
What's the condition of the rescuer's ship?
What's the rescuer's situation?
What if the rescuer's ship is held together by spit, baling wire and hope?
Then the decision might be, Who can pay me better?
Maybe the luxury liner could pay me better, or the company that paid for the workers would give me some money or a deal when I land at their station.
If the rescuer was doing okay, and wasn't having money problems then the decisions would be based on either Company procedures, personal preference or other factors.
And do you have enough time to think through what to do?
As a straight ethical puzzle, it's fine.
reply
If I didn't miss something, I think the narrator missed another variable.
The rescuer's situation.
What's the condition of the rescuer's ship?
What's the rescuer's situation?
What if the rescuer's ship is held together by spit, baling wire and hope?
Then the decision might be, Who can pay me better?
Maybe the luxury liner could pay me better, or the company that paid for the workers would give me some money or a deal when I land at their station.
If the rescuer was doing okay, and wasn't having money problems then the decisions would be based on either Company procedures, personal preference or other factors.
And do you have enough time to think through what to do?
As a straight ethical puzzle, it's fine.
reply
Prathamesh
I think Parfit's argument only works if the type of help we're talking about is in the form of material or wealth, like who gets a larger chunk of the welfare money etc
It doesn't apply if we're talking about rescuing people.
In this case, I think it's better to save the college students, though they may be vacationing rn, since most of them will go on to become productive members of society who will impact a larger number lives positively, as doctors, engineers, scientists or the like
Saving skilled labour should be given preference over unskilled labour, as skilled labour requires more resources to create, and contributes to a country's economy much more than unskilled labour.
reply
I think Parfit's argument only works if the type of help we're talking about is in the form of material or wealth, like who gets a larger chunk of the welfare money etc
It doesn't apply if we're talking about rescuing people.
In this case, I think it's better to save the college students, though they may be vacationing rn, since most of them will go on to become productive members of society who will impact a larger number lives positively, as doctors, engineers, scientists or the like
Saving skilled labour should be given preference over unskilled labour, as skilled labour requires more resources to create, and contributes to a country's economy much more than unskilled labour.
reply
coldshoulder14
It s a tough call, but another, albeit cruel math, aspect is to consider the college students future prospects. Some could be future doctors, scientists, and have a great impact on the future. One of them could be a science student that grows up to improve crop production or cure a disease which could kill others. Doesn t mean they should be chosen without a thought since they could just be spoiled college kids using their parent s money. Still, losing a child is a terrible thing for a parent regardless.
While the workers have a defined amount of oxygen left the students aren t guaranteed to collide with a super large asteroid immediately.
reply
It s a tough call, but another, albeit cruel math, aspect is to consider the college students future prospects. Some could be future doctors, scientists, and have a great impact on the future. One of them could be a science student that grows up to improve crop production or cure a disease which could kill others. Doesn t mean they should be chosen without a thought since they could just be spoiled college kids using their parent s money. Still, losing a child is a terrible thing for a parent regardless.
While the workers have a defined amount of oxygen left the students aren t guaranteed to collide with a super large asteroid immediately.
reply
Kompatybilijny
When you disregard how asteroid belts really look like and assume that they are those comically dense clusters as seen in movies, why would you EVER fly a leisure vessel so close to one that there is a plausible chance of collision, if something fails? The only explanation I can think of is that it was some sort of Extreme sport vessel that was doing this on purpose. So it's somewhat like trying to decide if you want to save a person who is trapped in a burning building because they live there and can't get out, or a person who rushed inot said bulding for adrenaline kick and now also can't get out. The answer is VERY clear.
reply
When you disregard how asteroid belts really look like and assume that they are those comically dense clusters as seen in movies, why would you EVER fly a leisure vessel so close to one that there is a plausible chance of collision, if something fails? The only explanation I can think of is that it was some sort of Extreme sport vessel that was doing this on purpose. So it's somewhat like trying to decide if you want to save a person who is trapped in a burning building because they live there and can't get out, or a person who rushed inot said bulding for adrenaline kick and now also can't get out. The answer is VERY clear.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
