Philosophical Dilemma.

[evercloserunion]

Isn't that adorable...

[jmcc]

Originally Posted by evercloserunion

Essentially, there is a shortage of facts here, and you can either infer from the facts given that
a) circumstances are such that it is possible to actually save both, thus removing the "philosophical dilemma" element, or
b) circumstances are such that you cannot save both, thus forcing you to make a value choice as to who to save.

It should be very obvious to most people that (b) is the proper inference.

The obvious fact is that you fell for the premise and created an unwinnable situation where one did not exist. Perhaps it was that the OP framed the scenario badly but it was you who assumed that it was unwinnable. Someone with an inventive mind will try to figure out how to save both whereas someone with a more mundane intelligence will not even try having created, in their own mind, an unwinnable situation. And the uniform the kid is wearing is that of a science officer rather than a command uniform. But then you probably wouldn't have known that either.

Regards...jmcc

[evercloserunion]

Originally Posted by jmcc

The obvious fact is that you fell for the premise and create an unwinnable situation where one did not exist. Perhaps it was that the OP framed the scenario badly but it was you who assumed that it was unwinnable. Someone with an inventive mind will try to figure out how to save both whereas someone with a more mundane intelligence will not even try having created, in their own mind, an unwinnable situation. And the uniform the kid is wearing is that of a science officer rather than a command uniform. But then you probably wouldn't have known that either.

Regards...jmcc

If you had an inventive mind you would have told the child to put on a command uniform...

[cry freedom]

Originally Posted by Cato

Kobayashi Maru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For all you Star Trek fans; jmcc seems to think that he is Captain Kirk.

"Beam the Ibex up Scotty" ffc

[Christel]

Originally Posted by cry freedom

"Beam the Ibex up Scotty" ffc

Okay, now, why is it so obvious that it isn't possible to save both?

[cry freedom]

Originally Posted by Christel

Okay, now, why is it so obvious that it isn't possible to save both?

"You, standing on the edge of the quick sand suddenly realize you can only rescue one or the other of then, but not both."

Apart from the above, and allowing for my limitations with the English language, surely it is implicit in the dilemma posed.
If there was any way of saving both there would be no dilemma.
The problem would therefore be practical/mechanical and not philosophical.

[iartaoiseach]

Originally Posted by Cato

I'm afraid not, although I think his one involved a gun and a charging rare elephant...

You heard Sam Harris' one about the herd of rare animals vs the human zygote? similar kind of argument to the OP. not so related to the morality discussion though. more to do with the sanctity of human life argument. I'd be tempted to rescue the animal in the OPs case. but thats just me.

[paulp]

Save the man. Who are you to judge whether this human is more worthy of life than any other human.
If you don't save him, you could be accused of being
untrustworthy and cruel and an altogether unpleasant member of the human race.


I love the conributions from Christel and JMCC - top notch stuf.

[jmcc]

Originally Posted by cry freedom

"You, standing on the edge of the quick sand suddenly realize you can only rescue one or the other of then, but not both."

Apart from the above, and allowing for my limitations with the English language, surely it is implicit in the dilemma posed.

The problem is your poor use of the English language. Had it been a no-win situation then you should have set the condition by saying that you could only save one. By saying that this was a sudden realisation that only one could be saved and then giving an hour as the timelimit allows for at least the possibility of alternative solutions. So as you can see, your premise is flawed. It is no longer a no-win philosophical dilemma but a problem to be solved. Some people will instinctively look at it as a problem to be solved whereas others will jump for joy at the chance to finally employ what they learned in a philosophy class or read in some style/arts magazine.

If there was any way of saving both there would be no dilemma.

The problem is that you said that "you" can only save one and then you gave people a one hour timelimit. Now anyone approaching this as a problem to be solved will try to figure out a solution. Someone approaching it as an exercise in first year philosophy will accept that it is a no-win situation and moralise about the inherent cruelty of Man/Nature/the quicksand and by the time they had finished their pseudo-intellectual masturbation all three would be dead - the man and the ibex from the quicksand and the philosopher from exposure from sitting from on their ass doing nothing.

Regards...jmcc

[Half Nelson]

Originally Posted by jmcc

The problem is your poor use of the English language. Had it been a no-win situation then you should have set the condition by saying that you could only save one. By saying that this was a sudden realisation that only one could be saved and then giving an hour as the timelimit allows for at least the possibility of alternative solutions. So as you can see, your premise is flawed. It is no longer a no-win philosophical dilemma but a problem to be solved. Some people will instinctively look at it as a problem to be solved whereas others will jump for joy at the chance to finally employ what they learned in a philosophy class or read in some style/arts magazine.

The problem is that you said that "you" can only save one and then you gave people a one hour timelimit. Now anyone approaching this as a problem to be solved will try to figure out a solution. Someone approaching it as an exercise in first year philosophy will accept that it is a no-win situation and moralise about the inherent cruelty of Man/Nature/the quicksand and by the time they had finished their pseudo-intellectual masturbation all three would be dead - the man and the ibex from the quicksand and the philosopher from exposure from sitting from on their ass doing nothing.

Regards...jmcc

Good one.

The obvious? solution is to save your assistant, who then does his job and saves the ibex, since you cannot save it, having exhausted your chance.