Philosophical Dilemma.

[cry freedom]

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

The only thing poorer than my usage of the English is your ability to read it!

Again I quote:

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

Now, what part of that did you not understand ?

My reason for allowing the hour to elapse was to give you sufficient time to
make a considered decision without forcing you into a panic reaction.

A panic reaction would dilute the logic/morality/philosophy of your actions.

Simples!

[Toland]

If the person was Bertie Ahern, I'd definitely opt to save the ibex/elephant.

[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.

Yet another brilliant solution to a "no-win" situation.

Regards...jmcc

[Cato]

If the person was Bertie Ahern, I'd definitely opt to save the Ibex/elephant.

If the person was Bertie Ahern I throw myself in to make he drowns.

[Darthweasel]

Do you reckon he would offer you a brown envelope to save him instead?

[jmcc]

The only thing poorer than my usage of the English is your ability to read it!

Really?

Again I quote:

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

Now, what part of that did you not understand ?

You have not applied the no-win condition. You have only said that it is a realisation (with an 's' rather than a 'z'). That realisation can change over an hour as other possibilities can be evaluated. What happens if the man tells the philosopher of another method that could be used to save both?

My reason for allowing the hour to elapse was to give you sufficient time to
make a considered decision without forcing you into a panic reaction.

A panic reaction would dilute the logic/morality/philosophy of your actions.

You screwed up. Rather than creating a no-win situation, you provided people with a problem that could be solved.

Simples!

Are we doing your philosophy homework for you?

Regards...jmcc

[Half Nelson]

Are we doing your philosophy homework for you?

I'm just worried that this is an exercise in economics.
It's really the taxpayer and the banks that are mired in the sh1t.
Now, guess who is saved.

[Cato]

In the first case: You are standing on a railway bridge. Looking down onto the track you see that it splits in two. On one siding there is the last remaining female Walia ibex (you are an expert on this animal); on the other siding there is a man. On the track there is a run-away train carriage. As things stand it will go onto the siding where the man is. Beside you there is a lever that controls which siding the carriage will go on. By pulling the lever you will save the man but kill the Walia ibex. It is impossible to alert the man (or the Walia ibex) to the danger. Your only choice is to pull the lever and save the man but kill the ibex or to leave things as they stand and allow the man to be killed.

What do you do?

In the second case: the situation is as above but is reversed; if you do nothing the ibex will get killed; if you pull the lever the man will get killed and the ibex will be saved.

What do you do?

In the third case: As in the second case, but you know the man to be a serial child rapist.

What do you do?

[skev]

The guy knew the dangers before you started the trip. Get the job done. Save the animal. Its probably worth more anyway. And your plight would make a good news story that would increase awareness in the conservation project that you and the a-hole were working on....

[loaf]

There is no system of rules by which to judge this 'dilemma', no resource to generic terms such as 'human' or 'animal'. Any such objective notion of morality would necessarily dilute the significance of the actual, experienced, consciousness of the situation.

For me, becasue of this, a question framed in such terms is quite simply unanswerable.

(I don't mean to criticise the OP btw - just stating my thoughts on this).