Today's thought experiement was designed with the idea of eliciting the differences (if any) between a rational decision and an ethical decision.
Imagine you are on a space station with two other colleagues (3 of you in total). There is a technical malfunction and ground control determines that you will quickly run out of oxygen. They say that you have no more than 3 days of air left, and it will take at least 4 days to send a rescue mission. You realize that if one of you dies right away, then there will likely be enough air to keep the remaining two alive until you are rescued. For the sake of argument, assume there are no other available options.
i would first try to ask for volunteers...given the oxygen you'd have about a full day to make the decision. then make the death appealing by means of drowning in nearly freezing water and keeping the body in said condition - such that reanimation might be possible. if no possible agreement could be made, a drinking game might be a nice solution...with the first one to pass out, being the one silently eliminated.
Today's thought experiement was designed with the idea of eliciting the differences (if any) between a rational decision and an ethical decision.
Imagine you are on a space station with two other colleagues (3 of you in total). There is a technical malfunction and ground control determines that you will quickly run out of oxygen. They say that you have no more than 3 days of air left, and it will take at least 4 days to send a rescue mission. You realize that if one of you dies right away, then there will likely be enough air to keep the remaining two alive until you are rescued. For the sake of argument, assume there are no other available options.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lucifer" <david@lucifer.com> To: <virus@lucifer.com> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:51 PM Subject: virus: TEOTD #14
> > Today's thought experiement was designed with the idea of eliciting the > differences (if any) between a rational decision and an ethical decision. > > Imagine you are on a space station with two other colleagues (3 of you in > total). There is a technical malfunction and ground control determines > that you will quickly run out of oxygen. They say that you have no more > than 3 days of air left, and it will t > ake at least 4 days to send a rescue mission. You realize that if one of > you dies right away, then there will likely be enough air to keep the > remaining two alive until you are rescued. For the sake of argument, > assume there are no other available options > . > > What do you do? >
This would probably a case where if you want to, you offer yourself, but you can't want someone to do it for you. But family and stuff should be taken into thought, just because we SHOULDN'T mourn death too much, we do. But I suppose they'll be sad if you all three die too, so it'd be worth it either way really.
I think that I would be willing to die to save the other two if I knew them really well. Other than that, I would just hope I use oxygen more effieciently so as to outlast them =).
David Lucifer Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:51 AM
Today's thought experiement was designed with the idea of eliciting the differences (if any) between a rational decision and an ethical decision.
Imagine you are on a space station with two other colleagues (3 of you in total). There is a technical malfunction and ground control determines that you will quickly run out of oxygen. They say that you have no more than 3 days of air left, and it will take at least 4 days to send a rescue mission. You realize that if one of you dies right away, then there will likely be enough air to keep the remaining two alive until you are rescued. For the sake of argument, assume there are no other available options.
What do you do?
---- [Blunderov]Sadly, Tuesdays are when my chess club meets and so I will not be able to join the chat. So, here are my thoughts on the problem.
Whipping out my freshly minted anaesthetic qualification, I persuade the other two astronauts to be anaesthetised by me. (It is my understanding that oxygen consumption rates are reduced under anaesthesia and this might make up the difference in the shortfall.)
In the event that this strategy does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of oxygen, one may then, with minimum exertion, strangle the largest of the unconscious astronauts, thus solving the problem.
...another possible solution would be to discuss faith. once i reveal that i am an atheist...and the other two would most certainly have SOME sort of religious inclinations, i would plainly state that they should be more than happy to go to the afterlife and live forever in heavenly bliss - whereas i would be going nowhere or worse, to hell (as many xtians would assume). once put like that, the xtian mind would be forced to aquiesce, or admit they dont really believe all that crap...at which point they would probably lunge at you in an attempt to kill you...which would resolve the problem with a winner one way or the other.
David Lucifer Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:51 AM
Today's thought experiement was designed with the idea of eliciting the differences (if any) between a rational decision and an ethical decision.
Imagine you are on a space station with two other colleagues (3 of you in total). There is a technical malfunction and ground control determines that you will quickly run out of oxygen. They say that you have no more than 3 days of air left, and it will take at least 4 days to send a rescue mission. You realize that if one of you dies right away, then there will likely be enough air to keep the remaining two alive until you are rescued. For the sake of argument, assume there are no other available options.
What do you do?
---- [Blunderov]Sadly, Tuesdays are when my chess club meets and so I will not be able to join the chat. So, here are my thoughts on the problem.
Whipping out my freshly minted anaesthetic qualification, I persuade the other two astronauts to be anaesthetised by me. (It is my understanding that oxygen consumption rates are reduced under anaesthesia and this might make up the difference in the shortfall.)
In the event that this strategy does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of oxygen, one may then, with minimum exertion, strangle the largest of the unconscious astronauts, thus solving the problem.
> ...another possible solution would be to discuss faith. once i reveal that > i am an atheist...and the other two would most certainly have SOME sort of > religious inclinations, i would plainly state that they should be more than > happy to go to the afterlife and live forever in heavenly bliss - whereas i > would be going nowhere or worse, to hell (as many xtians would assume). > once put like that, the xtian mind would be forced to aquiesce, or admit > they dont really believe all that crap...at which point they would probably > lunge at you in an attempt to kill you...which would resolve the problem > with a winner one way or the other.
LOL, good one.
But let's now assume that you are all atheists. You can also assume that none of you has any less reason to live than anyone else on board (due to age, family, well-being, disease, or whatever). Now what?
Sebby said: > i would first try to ask for volunteers...given the oxygen you'd have about > a full day to make the decision. then make the death appealing by means of > drowning in nearly freezing water and keeping the body in said condition -
Even if you had that much nearly freezing water on the space station (you don't) it is not really possible to reanimate someone after being dead for four days.
> such that reanimation might be possible. if no possible agreement could be > made, a drinking game might be a nice solution...with the first one to pass > out, being the one silently eliminated.
Not bad, but what if one of your colleagues doesn't drink and objects to this solution?
> [Blunderov] > > Whipping out my freshly minted anaesthetic qualification, I persuade the > other two astronauts to be anaesthetised by me. (It is my understanding > that oxygen consumption rates are reduced under anaesthesia and this > might make up the difference in the shortfall.)
Sorry, that isn't one of the two options. You have a choice of: 1) kill one person (permanently) in the next 12 hours 2) all 3 die within 3 days
Technically there is another possible option of killing 2 people within one day so that one may survive. I can't think of any reason to do that, but I'm open to suggestions.
David McFadzean Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:48 PM
Sorry, that isn't one of the two options. You have a choice of: 1) kill one person (permanently) in the next 12 hours 2) all 3 die within 3 days
Technically there is another possible option of killing 2 people within one day so that one may survive. I can't think of any reason to do that, but I'm open to suggestions.
[Blunderov] It seems to me that the circumstances are then those of pure struggle for survival. I do not foresee that any amount of rational discussion would produce any result other than the clear identification of the weakest astronaut. (It has been asserted, rightly I think, that any ethical proposition is falsifiable and I can foresee that this might be especially evident in these circumstances.)
Furthermore, each one of the astronauts has quite good reason to fear that the other two might have conspired to kill him. The only way to guarantee survival is if the other two aren't around because it is entirely possible that both of the others may have arrived at the same conclusion.
It may be that the only rational thing to do is to kill the other two ASAP!
...the honorable thing to do would be to give everyone one vote...whoever is voted on twice, is the one who goes. maybe allow everyone a final address. voting on oneself IS allowed.
> [Blunderov] > > Whipping out my freshly minted anaesthetic qualification, I persuade the > other two astronauts to be anaesthetised by me. (It is my understanding > that oxygen consumption rates are reduced under anaesthesia and this > might make up the difference in the shortfall.)
Sorry, that isn't one of the two options. You have a choice of: 1) kill one person (permanently) in the next 12 hours 2) all 3 die within 3 days
Technically there is another possible option of killing 2 people within one day so that one may survive. I can't think of any reason to do that, but I'm open to suggestions.
If all other oxygen preservation/generation methods (meditation, anaesthisizing, running electrical current through water, etc) had failed, my answer would depend on the size/strength of the remaining astronauts compared to myself. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com>
> If all other oxygen preservation/generation methods (meditation, anaesthisizing, running electrical current through water, etc) had failed, my answer would depend on the size/strength of the remaining astronauts compared to myself.
OK, what would you do if a) they are both smaller b) they are both bigger c) one is smaller and one is bigger
Author
Logged
