Jump to content

Who would you save?


m4rble

Who would you rescue from drowning?  

53 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you rescue from drowning?

    • A twelve year old who had an 11% chance of survival.
      22
    • An adult in their thirties who had a fifty percent chance of survival.
      31
  2. 2. Who would you rescue from drowning?

    • Your pet
      30
    • A human stranger
      23


Recommended Posts

This is based on the question asked in the movie I Robot. Robots in that world are supposed to be perfectly logical and programmed with Isaac Asimov's Three rules of robotics. Will Smith's character dislikes robots because he was saved by a robot instead of a twelve year old girl because he had a much higher probability of survival. He took this as evidence of a robot's cold calculating nature. I would probably save the adult with a much higher chance of survival over a child (unless it was the child of the adult that was drowning because then they might feel a lot more guilty) though, because 11% seems so low. I added the second question because it relates to this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not both? 

 

I never got why the robot couldn't go after the girl first and then save the guy. Judging by the significant difference in % Smith's character would have had a decent chance, even if left alone for a little while. Doesn't the fact that it ignored a human in peril and allowed them to die conflict with the 3 laws? It 'chose' to let her die.

 

Or... wait, did it go back into the water after it saved him?

 

Also, my pet above a human stranger, obviously. ;p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I wouldn't know about any survival chances in that situation, I'd go for the 11yo because that would be easier to manage.

 

As to #2, I'd pick my pet. That's a no-brainer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most human adults weigh a lot more than I do, so I think it would be easier for me to drag an 11 year old or something no larger than a dog out of the water. If I tried to save an adult human from drowning, we might both end up dying anyway.

 

However if there was some weird scenario where I could actually save either one, I do think it would be more logical to save the one with the highest chance of survival. Whether I would save my pet depends on which pet. I don't think I'd choose my hamster over a human, but if I had a cat I do think I'd choose my cat over the human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like @Moophie was saying, I'd save the 12 year old (first) because the adult has a higher chance of surviving on his own, especially if the robot goes back to save the adult afterwards (the adult is likely stronger/more experienced swimming and can likely hold their own in the water a minute or two longer than the child could, allowing the possibility to go back for the other to exist at all).  Either way, the chance of two lives surviving would be highest if the child was saved (first, or at all).

 

As for the second question, the human stranger without a doubt or hesitation.  I think people have placed far too much value on their pets than they do on others (fellow humans).

 

EDIT:  assuming chance of survival means surviving of their own accord, not survival after saving.  If the latter, then I'd save the life that had the higher chance of living (the adult), because the chance of at least one life living would be higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just an owl

I'd save the 12 year old, I'd feel way too much guilt for letting a child die when I had a chance of helping them survive.

And a human stranger, for a similar reason. I love my pets but I couldn't deal with the guilt of letting a person die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen that movie, but I like the questions.  Since I can swim; I'd most likely save both.  I'd go after the child first because the child needs a chance at life versus an adult with a higher probability for survival.  I'm not really into animals like that & since they don't contribute to civilization like man kind does; I would save the man.  The nihilist in me would probably watch all four of them drown anyway; depends on if I woke up on the wrong side of the bed or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Homer said:

Since I wouldn't know about any survival chances in that situation, I'd go for the 11yo because that would be easier to manage.

 

As to #2, I'd pick my pet. That's a no-brainer.

 

13 minutes ago, Gloomy said:

Most human adults weigh a lot more than I do, so I think it would be easier for me to drag an 11 year old or something no larger than a dog out of the water. If I tried to save an adult human from drowning, we might both end up dying anyway.

 

However if there was some weird scenario where I could actually save either one, I do think it would be more logical to save the one with the highest chance of survival. Whether I would save my pet depends on which pet. I don't think I'd choose my hamster over a human, but if I had a cat I do think I'd choose my cat over the human.

I don't think the weight was really an issue for the robot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) A twelve year old. The adult's additional weight could cause me to drown.

2) My pet, obviously. I've been asked a similar question a few times already, and this is apparently a contentious answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, m4rble said:

 

I don't think the weight was really an issue for the robot. 

I know. The first part of my answer was what I would do in my current human form, not if I were a strong awesome robot. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of Asimov's robots would have gone for both, even if it resulted in them burning out in the attempt, the standard Asimovian robot will jump into an electric field designed to kill it if there is the slightest chance a human can be saved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The 12 year old. And yes, I realize I'm not maximizing number of years lived (unless life expectancy is like 42 in this scenario).
Doesn't change the answer.

 

2. A human stranger.
The stranger might live on to solve global warming. It's unlikely to happen, but I'll take my shot. The pet is guaranteed to do nothing of real consequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond Ace of Hearts

In an exact re-run of the I, Robot scene, I'd save Will Smith because he was easier to get to than the girl (for me, that is, the robot could have gotten to either), but all else being equal I'd go for the child because I'd be more likely to be able to drag them to safety than a quite heavy grown man.

 

I'd save my pet. I'd probably save most animals over most human strangers, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis

No matter what I do, I'd probably feel like a terrible person afterwards either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough questions. My likelihood of success with either the child or the adult would depend on where the drowning was occurring.  In a confined body of water like a pond or swimming pool, I might have a chance with either one before they sank. I'm a super lightweight myself (105 pounds), but in lifesaving class I was able to do a swimmer's "carry" of people far larger than me. If it's cold water, or in the open ocean with surf, forget it. I'd go hypothermic within minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Neither without knowing their current and future values

 

2) Pet

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CBC said:

The adult. Does that make something wrong with me? Actually wait, what does this "chance of survival" mean? Chance of surviving after being rescued, I assume? As opposed to their chance of surviving the incident without my intervention? If that's what it means, then yeah, the adult. Makes more sense to me.

 

As to the second question, I wouldn't know until I was in that situation. Unfortunately perhaps, because I'm human, I would probably make judgements about the person based on somewhat superficial reasoning, and weigh that against how I felt for my pet.

Yes, it's likelihood of surviving after intervention. Likelihood of surviving with no intervention is 0%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Diamond, Ace of Hearts said:

In an exact re-run of the I, Robot scene, I'd save Will Smith because he was easier to get to than the girl (for me, that is, the robot could have gotten to either), but all else being equal I'd go for the child because I'd be more likely to be able to drag them to safety than a quite heavy grown man.

 

I'd save my pet. I'd probably save most animals over most human strangers, tbh.

Yikes, I got the title wrong. I was thinking of it like iPod. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CBC said:

Okay yeah, then definitely the adult. Saving the kid seems illogical to me.

Me too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, one thing that my one psych class taught me is people hate these questions. People hate feeling personally responsible for death, and by actively making choices they feel responsibility.

 

So basically everyone who answered probably feels sad now.

 

I want to end on a positive note because I'm sad, so, A Major!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id go for the adult and my pet and feel miserable afterwards.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming I was actually able to save anyone at all from drowning (I'm not the strongest swimmer, and there's a chance that even the kid will be larger and heavier than me), I would definitely save the adult in the first question. They have a much higher likelyhood of survival, and I've never been onboard with prioritising the well-being of children over adults. They're all people, and being younger doesn't give you more of a right to live.

 

As to the second question... probably my pet, presuming we're talking about the pets I have now (cats). If we were talking about some pets I've had in the past (hamsters, gerbils, etc.), I'd try for the human. Would I feel bad about it afterwords? Yeah, probably, because it's objectively not a great decision to save my cat over some human... but I don't know the human at all, and I do know my pet. Plus, logically, I have a much higher chance of actually fishing my cat out of the water successfully than a full-grown, or even not full-grown, human.

 

Realistically, however, what I'd actually do in all cases is stand around looking horrified and helpless and try to get somebody else to save the creatures in question, because I'd be more likely to drown myself by going in after them. I can barely swim straight with light waves, so rescuing people or animals is probably pretty out of the question for me. The only people I might try it anyhow with if I couldn't get anyone to come would be my parents or my brother, but even then I'd probably realistically have better luck trying to hold out a stick for them to hold onto or something until I could get somebody else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Diamond Ace of Hearts
On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 6:58 PM, Purest Innocent said:

I would save both. 

You never said if they were drowing at the same time. 

 

you sneaky bugger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Save none, save all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would save whoever was closest to me in the first situation, and then go back for the other if possible.

I have no pet so the human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 year old. That's still pretty young, still some life to live, etc. 

 

The human stranger. Like, come on....Lol. I like my pet, but I wouldn't put it above a human being. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...