Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There are 4 people trapped on a sinking boat. Unfortunately, there is only 1 life jacket. The people are:

    1. An elderly nun, who is scared and afraid and yearning for her convent so she can commune with the Lord. Has never had a family of her own.

    2. A seriously handicapped child. He is from a single-parent family.

    3. A young male, aged 21, with 7 previous convictions and currently awaiting trial for manslaughter. He has a wife and young child.

    4. Young female Junior Doctor with so much to give, but also suffering from terminal cancer. She has no family.

    So, who would you save and why?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No wonder their boat is sinking if none of them can pilot the damn thing. I won't even ask what they are doing together in the first place. Let them all drown.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The young male, because people can change. Also, you don't say what the convictions were... and manslaughter is a crime without intent.
    Also, he has a family to support.
    The nun should be able to find God anywhere, and the doctor doesn't have long to live, whereas the man has the rest of his life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Me. Because I am awesome.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    The young male, because people can change. Also, you don't say what the convictions were... and manslaughter is a crime without intent.
    Also, he has a family to support.
    The nun should be able to find God anywhere, and the doctor doesn't have long to live, whereas the man has the rest of his life.
    You don't say why you wouldn't save the disabled child...

    ...but really I aree with what you say about saving the man. Given the evidence there it looks like more people would be disadvantaged to a serious extent by the loss of the man than any others...the cause of action which causes the less pain and suffering in the long run is probably to save the man.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the handicapped child should be saved. I suppose it's because he's young, and I feel like he should have a chance at life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would say the nun. The young bloke is scum, a seriously handicapped child would probably be better of dead anyway and the female Junior Doctor probably has less time to live than the nun.
    Offline

    18
    THe child.
    A child with disabilities is still a child.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Each of the people here are definitely worth saving, just hard to figure out which. I would choose child. he/her has a whole life to live.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the real issue is which person has the most to offer society (though that includes them too). If the child is still conscious enough to live an enjoyable life, and is capable of bringing happiness to others through more than just his physical existence, I would say him. Otherwise, the child is just a sap on his parent and society. We cannot know what the young man will do with his life, only that his existence probably improves the life of his wife and child. He may change he may not- his past actions may not be an indication of his future ones. The doctor probably has the most to offer in the short term- but how short? If her continued existence helps others who would otherwise not be helped, and she is not in pain/ incapacitated, then she may 'deserve' life the most. From the information given I see no reason why the nun should live- surely she does not fear of meeting God, and without wanting to make further assumptions would probably find it most moral to allow another to live in her place.

    Too much guesswork!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here is a logical solution:


    with one life jacket

    An elderly nun,
    A handicapped child,
    A Young female Junior Doctor with cancer

    will all struggle to survive in the cold sea anyway.


    However the young man probably can
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    In this situation I suspect I'll probably be directly responsible for the fact the boat is sinking, so will simply hasten things along and attempt to brain the crippled child with the life jacket.

    Also, what are the man's convictions for? How crippled is the child? How long does the doctor have before she dies? How far are they from shore? What are the weather/sea conditions like? What's the probability of a rescue helicopter?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)
    I would say the nun. The young bloke is scum, a seriously handicapped child would probably be better of dead anyway and the female Junior Doctor probably has less time to live than the nun.
    Probably be better off dead? What a disgusting thing to say :rolleyes:

    I would say the child should be. The young man will probably end up in jail, the doctor is dying, and the nun would end up "in a better place" (assuming such a place does exist).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    Probably be better off dead? What a disgusting thing to say :rolleyes:
    Not disgusting, just incorrect. We have no reason to assume there is such thing as consciousness after death, so it is impossible to 'be' anything dead. However, if the child's existence is one of constant pain with zero chance of improvement, there would be little justification in forcing the continuance of such a 'life'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nah, I'll stick with disgusting. In my opinion, saying someone should be dead because they are disabled instead of living their life is quite rude.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    Nah, I'll stick with disgusting. In my opinion, saying someone should be dead because they are disabled instead of living their life is quite rude.
    But theres not a divide of handicapped/ non handicapped. The vast majority of people who are less able bodied live happy fulfilling lives, albeit with inconveniences. It would be wrong to just assume this hypothetical child is living a life of pain and anguish, but its a possibility. You hear about some disabled people fighting for their right to die- it is simply a logical possiblity that this child is in such a state that life is something to be endured rather than enjoyed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheesecakebobby)
    But theres not a divide of handicapped/ non handicapped. The vast majority of people who are less able bodied live happy fulfilling lives, albeit with inconveniences. It would be wrong to just assume this hypothetical child is living a life of pain and anguish, but its a possibility. You hear about some disabled people fighting for their right to die- it is simply a logical possiblity that this child is in such a state that life is something to be endured rather than enjoyed.
    Eh? In this case there clearly is a divide between handicapped and non handicapped, because the description clearly said "seriously handicapped". I'm not saying anything about the child enjoying/enduring his life, I'm just saying it's wrong to just write him off simply on the grounds that he's handicapped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    Eh? In this case there clearly is a divide between handicapped and non handicapped, because the description clearly said "seriously handicapped". I'm not saying anything about the child enjoying/enduring his life, I'm just saying it's wrong to just write him off simply on the grounds that he's handicapped.
    I mean there are degrees of being handicapped- "severe" tells us nothing about his quality of life, but it could refer to a state of being in which there honestly is no reason to carry on living, thats all. Agree with last point, there is not enough from the proposition "this child is handicapped" to make the judgement that he should be the one to die.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Probably the child because he/she has a much longer (hopefully) life ahead of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if its in the middle of the sea a really healthy child doesnt have much chance of survival and if this child is handicapped in legs or arms i doubt the would paddle around to shore.. and if they got caught in the current?
    the nurse with cancer.. depends how far its developed cause agian she may be to weak to get to shore... just relying on floating there which is what they would have to do they could alkl do by hacking of a bit of wood from the boat to make them float...
    the nun who is very old probably has more chance of catching hypathermia in the sea... even with the life jackect.
    the man could try swimming with out the life jackect...
    and could probably support at least the woman or the child with him.

    no matter what they can do for society by being given the life jackect to get to shore its if that even with the jackect will they manage to survive to get to shore.
    they must be far out other wise there wouldn't be the chance of only 1 surviving.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.