• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

An Ethical Dilemma

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Bear with me here.

I know there are a lot of people who hate "unrealistic" hypotheticals, but here goes:


Imagine that a great catastrophe has happened in the area you live in. It doesn't really matter what the catastrophe is, but
all of a sudden, food and water become a very scarce resource. Despite trying to ration your supplies sensibly, the food and
water is running thin. There are only enough supplies to last five people for a week. If you can last for one more week, you
may be rescued from the catastrophe, but it isn't guaranteed. If you can last for two weeks though, it is 100% guaranteed
that you will be rescued.

For the sake of argument, we will say that there is no significant reason to have either a positive or negative bias towards
anyone in your group. (If you're straight, imagine they are the same sex, if you are a homosexual, imagine they're the
opposite sex. If you're bisexual, imagine them being equally unattractive.)

You are in a situation where you must decide how to split the rations amongst yourself and 9 other people. No matter what
you choose, someone will die. (Cannibalism isn't a valid resource in this hypothetical because the corpses will be all skin and
bone.)


Sharing your rations equally amongst all ten people condemns all of you to die.

Sharing the rations amongst five will guarantee that the five people will live for one week, but their chances of being rescued
aren't guaranteed.

You could steal enough food and water to live for two weeks, but you would steal enough resources to cause another person
to die.



What would you choose to do in this situation and why? What rationale do you have for your hypothetical decision? In this
situation, is stealing the same as murder?
 

Vie

Giggity
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
792
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8
Ah.

If my loved ones died in the catastrophic event, then I would probably just become a jaded bitch and kill everyone, eat all the food, then die a miserable death.

But if they were alive and well? Then we hoof it out of the catastrophic area. If getting out isn't an option, you make it one. Simple. Get out or dye trying.
 

Words of Ivory

facettes de la petite mor
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFJ
Sit everyone down and tell them the severity of the situation. Tell them that we all need to fairly compromise, and pull straws.

If someone wasn't willing to make the same sequel sacrifice as the rest of us? We'd probably be forced to kill them, especially they would likely become violent and try to kill us.

There should be no "choice". I think that's the only noble way to handle the situation.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I feel like I can't give this a proper answer because I don't exactly know what the different odds are between waiting 1 week and 2 weeks. For me, that would make a pivotal difference in deciding.

But basically, which course of action results in the most people continuing to live? That's the one I go with, at least on the face of it.

There is a second matter, though. How many of these people want to be saved? That might seem like an odd question but we're talking about miserable circumstance and serious trauma. I say any person that doesn't want to go on can obviously be sacrificed for someone who does. If nobody wants to go on, then it is possibly more ethical to let everyone die.

That would lead to the question of whether or not we can assume the misery felt now really honestly reflect the person's future will to live. There's no good way to figure this out, and I tend to lean toward the notion that people exaggerate their current miseries.

So, I think if anyone says they don't want to go own, I could sacrifice them to save the others. But everyone said they didn't go on, my skepticism would now be combined with a sense that nothing good would come out of everyone dying, so my decision in that case would become essentially the same as my decision in the scenario where nobody wants to die.

So, my conclusion has been drawn here partially through my concept of what is moral, and some admittedly unreliable assumptions on what is factually the case.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I know this is an unrealistic hypothetical situation, but this is what I would do anyway. I'd ration out all of the food and water equally. I'd have everyone spend one day looking for new sources of food and water. If that didn't work then I'd donate my food back to the group and start drinking my urine. Hopefully this would encourage the others to do the same. A person can survive quite a while without food anyway. Water is the real issue, so if we drank our own urine we'd have the best chance of all surviving.
 

Pixelholic

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
550
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
8w7
Probably draw straws or something. But there are too many variables. Meh hypotheticals.

Assuming everyone has an equal chance of survival, a lottery is probably the best way to go. Of course who knows, I may crack under pressure and kill them all, or just curl up in the fetal position and starve, I dunno.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I'd share them equally and the first despicable bastards to make a power play or try to usurp anyones share would be eliminated, then the next and the next, I'd say eventually there'd be enough food to go around.

People can be depended on to behave like bastards but I think its also good criteria for thinning the herd when they do and simultaneously providing an example to the remaining people. Fundamentally you keep your nerve, you provide example to others, even in the face of uncertain rescue or certain death.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
I suppose I would do my very best to make friends fast. Also, cannibalism will almost always still be worth it. Skin and bones (not to mention the mostly functional organs) is better than nothing.
 
Top