Which is worse? Say you had to pick between allowing a 2 month old baby to die or allowing a 10 year old child to die, which would you choose? Which would be the greater tragedy?

How do you edit thread titles? I meant to write "death" not "dead".

I would off your ass

I would choose the baby because you can make another in 9 months.

This thread is weird..I Dont know what ur getting at.

Jesus--what is so difficult about this question? Which would be sadder? If a baby died after being born or a 10 year old got hit by a car and died? I just wanted some people's opinions.

Jesus--what is so difficult about this question? Which would be sadder? If a baby died after being born or a 10 year old got hit by a car and died? I just wanted some people's opinions.

you act as if there is an actual answer to this question...

you act as if there is an actual answer to this question...

No I'm not, I just want to know how most people here feel. It is a difficult ethical question and I really thought there were intelligent enough people here to consider it.

Ok--scenario. There is a bridge collapsing and there is an unconscious newborn and an unconscious 10 year old child lying beneath it. You only have time to run and save one, which would you choose? You are not a bad person for making the choice one way or another--I just want to know what people would choose.

You would, of course, be an indecisive bitch it you let them both die.

both would be a tragedy and both would be sad.

but if i could save one i'd probably save the 10 yr. old over the baby.

Fuck that would be an extremely difficult choice. Well I'd save the one which has more probability to be saved. I mean if I have just enough time to save a kid from collapsing bridge. I'd pick the one based on the criteria like less weight etc.

Fuck that would be an extremely difficult choice. Well I'd save the one which has more probability to be saved. I mean if I have just enough time to save a kid from collapsing bridge. I'd pick the one based on the criteria like less weight etc.

Damn this is an old thread.

For the purposes of the though experiment though, it is assumed that you are guaranteed to rescue whomever you choose.

Damn this is an old thread.

For the purposes of the though experiment though, it is assumed that you are guaranteed to rescue whomever you choose.
I was hoping I'd bypass the ethics conundrum. I'll like to leave it to my instincts. I dont think we can quantify which would be a greater tragedy. Opinion?

I'd save 10 year old though. But I'd be guilty for a very long time that I wasn't able to save the 2 month old.

The reason would be that one has already started witnessing life and his parents would be more attached to him and the loss would mean much more assuming attachment is a function of time which I think is simplistic.

I'd save 10 year old though. But I'd be guilty for a very long time that I wasn't able to save the 2 month old.

The reason would be that one has already started witnessing life and his parents would be more attached to him and the loss would mean much more assuming attachment is a function of time which I think is simplistic.

Simplistic, perhaps. But time in undeniably an powerful element in attachment.

This thread didn't get as much play as I'd hoped, but I think most people would agree with your assessment.

What I think this response ultimately point toward is our desire to minimize suffering and the acceptance that a child of 10 is a) more capable of suffering and b) has established more relationships making the suffering of others because of his death greater.

a child of 10 is a) more capable of suffering

I remember this argument from the abortion debate :) . Isn't that like saying that a 2 month old baby is a lower form of life/less conscious species?

(And if it is, does it imply that we tend to equate conscious with intelligence?)

I remember this argument from the abortion debate :) . Isn't that like saying that a 2 month old baby is a lower form of life/less conscious species?

I think you are entering dangerous waters with this, because labeling a baby as a "lower form of life" is liable to piss folks off on the face of it.

We can simply say that babies cannot suffer as nuanced a way as a ten year old, nor have they established as many complex and involved relationships as a 10 year old.

(And if it is, does it imply that we tend to equate conscious with intelligence?)

I don't think so.

They would both be just as sad. All human life is precious, whether just starting out or not. All lives impact someone in a particular way. John Donne said "every man is a part of the continent, a piece of the main. If a clod be washed away, Europe is the less of it...As well if a promontory were... ANY MAN'S DEATH DIMINISHES ME FOR I AM INVOLVED IN MANKIND!'

I find truth in this, and my answer is that no one death would be more tragic, it would be a devastating loss either one

death of 10 year old would be much sadder, although both would be traumatic.