The idea is that we say we treat every life as equal, but do we really? As Pokedad has shown, and I'll bet most people naturally felt, they were squeamish about number 4. The assertion is that we treat lives equally but we in fact do not. Then we have to think if that pours into other areas that we might be misguided in. Perhaps our thoughts on the death penalty or abortion or murder or manslaughter should be changed in the wake of this?
We ought to value every human life as the same, right, so why is our intuition conflicting with our logic in these scenarios? It is because the very principles that we hold for murder are not what they actually are. Accepting this will change one's view on a whole multitude of topics. We could be wrong about, and probably are wrong about, so many different aspects of murder and killing. We don't have any sort of consensus on this forum, so I can't even imagine how the law can reflect what is right.
If every human life is equal, why specify that its a child and 2 adults in that last question? I don't see why age matters if we're all equal. Anyone else who takes this seriously will have the same problem.
Assume that the humans are gold bars(equal in size and value), obivously dropping any age, name, or any other specificalities. You want to keep them, but because of these questions, obviously your going to lose some. In every question, obviously the answer would be whichever kept more gold bars. No gold bar is more valuable that another, just like no human life is more valuable than another.
If you truly want us to take all the lives in these questions as equal, you need to drop name age or anything else that makes the human distinctive to another, and just call them humans. If your not doing that, your giving them individuality.
My name is Tim(actually Timothy, but everyone calles me Tim), so why not just give all the answers that would possibly keep Tim alive? Humans naturally have preference when given a choice between 2 or more individual and different things.
When I am watching the TV, and turn it over to a channel showing some sort of competition (a ball game, for instance), I personally cannot help but lean toward 1 team or another. The teams are distinctive, in team name, uniform color, and one team is obviously better in the sport.
But what if both teams were nameless, having just plain gray uniforms, neither team in the lead, both equally matched, no popular players, nothing distinctive about them? I would have no preference at all, because nothing was special causing me to choose 1 over the other. I would soon lose interest, and change the channel.:lol:
This is my point. When forced with a choice, humans naturally will resort to they're own preference, often affected by outside sources.
Example 1
Your an assasin, payed to do a job, but your offered more money for killing 1 important person over another, whom you would get less money for killing. Obviously, you're gonna want to make more money for your dirty work, and this would affect your preference as an outside source.
Example 2
You were invited to 2 different bithrday parties by 2 people your know from school, on the same date and at the same time, and having no other obligations, should go to one. Your invited to one by a person you barely know, who just transferred from another school. The other party you were invited to is for your best friend. I think theres an obvious choice.
These are examples of times your going to make a choice, but some outside sources "encourage" you more than others.
Bottom line. As long as these questions have room for preference, this survey is flawed.
