Philosophical Dilemma.

[Christel]

That is precisely what is asked, if you read the whole OP and not just part of it.

Why then give a description of the situation? Why not assume someone might come up with a method to save both? I asked earlier why it is considered impossible to save both.

I don't see the sense in the experiment if possibilities are restricted from the outset.

It seems then to just gather oppinions re: Who do you find more important to be rescued: humans or other animals. Is that what it is about? The question is by this restriction polarised from the start.
Reminds me of Berty re the value of rare snails vs roads.

[evercloserunion]

Why then give a description of the situation? Why not assume someone might come up with a method to save both? I asked earlier why it is considered impossible to save both.

I don't see the sense in the experiment if possibilities are restricted from the outset.

It seems then to just gather oppinions re: Who do you find more important to be rescued: humans or other animals. Is that what it is about? The question is by this restriction polarised from the start.
Reminds me of Berty re the value of rare snails vs roads.

The possibilities were restricted by that part of the OP that I quoted. No one could possibly read the OP in its entirety and think that it might be possible to save both. I understand that you would like the question to have been stated in a more abstract sense but the fact is that the question was sufficiently restricted, and given that the thread is titled "Philosophical Dilemma" you could have inferred the spirit of the question from that. Factual circumstances often accompany questions like this, they are supposed to be a way of helping the person relate to the problem. While perhaps the OP did not do this perfectly, I find it hard to believe you had doubts as to what was being asked of you.

[cry freedom]

Save your breath, ECU.
He has to be taking the mickey.
[FONT="Arial Black"]Nobody[/FONT] could be that stupid.

[jmcc]

The possibilities were restricted by that part of the OP that I quoted. No one could possibly read the OP in its entirety and think that it might be possible to save both.

That instinctive ability to look for alternative solutions to such an "unsolvable" problem is a good way to separate people who just think that they are smart from those who are genuinely smart. Maybe you just aren't as smart as you thought you were.

Regards...jmcc

[evercloserunion]

That instinctive ability to look for alternative solutions to such an "unsolvable" problem is a good way to separate people who just think that they are smart from those who are genuinely smart. Maybe you just aren't as smart as you thought you were.

Regards...jmcc

Or maybe I actually read the OP, but you thought you were too smart for that.

[jmcc]

Or maybe I actually read the OP, but you thought you were too smart for that.

Well if the truth is to be known, I'm a bloody genius. Obviously you couldn't see the solution and assumed that there was no alternative solution that could save both.

Regards...jmcc

[evercloserunion]

Well if the truth is to be known, I'm a bloody genius. Obviously you couldn't see the solution and assumed that there was no alternative solution that could save both.

Regards...jmcc

Can you not read at all. Go back and read the OP, you will find that saving both is expressly barred, so if your answer involves saving both then you are not even answering the question, you are making up your own question and answering it instead.

[jmcc]

Can you not read at all. Go back and read the OP, you will find that saving both is expressly barred,

No. You may only save one and you are not actually barred from saving 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.

You rescue the animal and the animal rescues the human. And of course that's only a realisation that may well be faulty and can easily be overtaken by events. But it does show the difference between inventiveness and acceptance. Perhaps as a kid you watched Coronation Street rather than Star Trek.

Regards...jmcc

[evercloserunion]

No. You may only save one and you are not actually barred from saving both.

You rescue the animal and the animal rescues the human. And of course that's only a realisation that may well be faulty and can easily be overtaken by events. But it does show the difference between inventiveness and acceptance. Perhaps as a kid you watched Coronation Street rather than Star Trek.

Regards...jmcc

Given that the ibex is trapped in the quicksand now, what are the odds that it could save the man without getting trapped again, and what idiot rescues an ibex from quicksand only to send it back in again. Furthermore, if you can't save the man (having saved the ibex), how could the ibex save the man.

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.

When asked to choose A or B, choosing C does not make you intelligent. It may be a sign of a desparate desire to look intelligent. But all you are doing is completely misconstruing the question and failing to grasp what is being asked of you. That doesn't mean that the person who answers C is not a genius--they could be one of those math-type geniuses who have trouble communicating with people--but C is not itself an intelligent answer.

Admittedly I spent a lot of my childhood playing with friends when I should have been watching Star Trek.

[Cato]

Kobayashi Maru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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