Lowbacca_1977 posted:darth_frared posted:as long as we can do things, we are of value, when for some reason we can't do them anymore, we lose our own value. while it's true this happens, it ties in with our psychology and it's a cause for concern that we can't just live and have to be concerned with what we can do for others. if we could change our definition to 'whoever i am, i will be loved regardless' there wouldn't be any of these exercises of judgment according to who is more useful. it's racist probably, and sexist, and utilitarian. Choosing someone based on their value is only racist and sexist if you consider some races to be more intrinsically valuable than others or one gender to be intrinsically more valuable than another.
darth_frared posted:as long as we can do things, we are of value, when for some reason we can't do them anymore, we lose our own value. while it's true this happens, it ties in with our psychology and it's a cause for concern that we can't just live and have to be concerned with what we can do for others. if we could change our definition to 'whoever i am, i will be loved regardless' there wouldn't be any of these exercises of judgment according to who is more useful. it's racist probably, and sexist, and utilitarian.
Eleventh_Guard posted:There is absolutely no information given that would say much about any of the individual's worth to society as I would judge it, and such a thing is so complicated that it's hard to assess even with people one knows well. All I can go by is their worth on this particular activity - getting in the boat and getting home. There is enough info to make some slightly educated guesses on that, though they could be wrong.
darth_frared posted:but that's exactly what was done. the woman gets chosen for she can bear babies (whether that is true or not), we could make one person asian or black or whatever, and we would then go by the colour of their skin or their usefulness to their community. so, who would we think we need the least, i.e. who could die? the old, the sick, the disabled. ethics are fun.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:darth_frared posted:but that's exactly what was done. the woman gets chosen for she can bear babies (whether that is true or not), we could make one person asian or black or whatever, and we would then go by the colour of their skin or their usefulness to their community. so, who would we think we need the least, i.e. who could die? the old, the sick, the disabled. ethics are fun. Well, first of all... no one mentioned race. Second of all, with picking someone that can give birth to children... thats just going with the person that most likely can. Thats not sexist, because there is reasoning behind it. Sexist would be if the woman was picked simply because she was a woman. A woman is, clearly, more likely to be able to bear children than a man.
Eleventh_Guard posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:darth_frared posted:but that's exactly what was done. the woman gets chosen for she can bear babies (whether that is true or not), we could make one person asian or black or whatever, and we would then go by the colour of their skin or their usefulness to their community. so, who would we think we need the least, i.e. who could die? the old, the sick, the disabled. ethics are fun. Well, first of all... no one mentioned race. Second of all, with picking someone that can give birth to children... thats just going with the person that most likely can. Thats not sexist, because there is reasoning behind it. Sexist would be if the woman was picked simply because she was a woman. A woman is, clearly, more likely to be able to bear children than a man. But in a world with a population approaching 7 billion, the ability to have children, from a standpoint of human group survival or even human group quality of life, is worthless. I would actually agree with you IF the human population was so low that increasing the birth rate as quickly as possible was necessary for the survival of our species. This is very much not the case - in fact, overpopulation is more of a threat than underpopulation right now. So there is no logical basis for choosing a woman over a man solely because she can bear children.
kaicolumbia posted:What if our "boat" was off the coast of Japan where birthrates are steadily declining and the population is rapidly aging? In that situation, I would want a young, fertile woman to survive in the hopes that she would help contribute to "my" (Japanese) society, which will be failing economically because of the severe LACK of children.
kaicolumbia posted:dizfactor indicates that "knowledge" (whatever that may mean to any one person) is a quality to be favored and chosen. I would agree that it is a good trait but that it has a wide meaning and there are a lot of different metrics for evaluating it. Interesting, though: what metric would you choose?
darth_frared posted:anyone can acquire knowledge.
darth_frared posted:it's true that no one mentioned colour but we could add that, couldn't we? and then it would influence your decision just as much as gender has. what if the doctor was transsexual? or had been unfaithful to his wife? that would still make him valuable to society, wouldn't it? but say a drug user we wouldn't rescue a drug user, would we?
Onoto posted:What if the doctor is 90 and retired? Would we still pick him?
Onoto posted:Would his past contributions cancel out his inability to contribute in the future?
