…on my upcoming psychology test.
Here is the question:
My goal is to have the students really think about this question, without making it too easy to answer.
Have I “fairly” given an equally difficult choice, or is one (or two) more obvious?
How can I make the options more “even”, in the sense that really, one person is not excluded from the get go?
My gut feeling is that Billy, Jack and Mildred are hard to choose between, and Alan Beth and Jerry are way behind them. Especially Jerry. I think it would even up the odds if you added more “positive” stuff to the last three - eg make Beth 8 months pregnant rather than 2, change Jerry’s conviction to something a lot milder than pedophilia, put Alan on a methadone program.
I agree, although I don’t think that the choice between is all that hard - Mildred is 89 years old and has probably lived a full life (and might in fact refuse to be rescued), and Jack doen’t have much more time to live, anyway. Now, if you stated that Jack was the sole supported of his four children, there may be a bit of a dillema there, but barring that, Billy seems to be the obvious choice.
Perhaps you could split Alan into two people:
Same for Beth (isn’t her kid is likely to be born badly damaged?)
I don’t know what your textbook says, but would it be worth adding a racist to the list?
P.S. Hope to see you next year when I return to Vegas!
Jerry is the only one who is not either nearly dead or a positive & ongoing burden to society.
In the past he was bad, but looking to the future he’s the only one worth saving.
And no, I’m neither kidding nor trolling.
I would find “Billy: A 10 year old boy with Downs Syndrome.” an obvious choice. Despite the fact he may not contribute in the ways society deems most valuable, his own life is no less precious to him nor to those that love him. As the youngest he also posesses the greatest potential number of years to enjoy. If, however, his age was the same as another’s, Alan for example, then the choice would become more conflicted.
I’m sure there will be some student who will cite recidivism rates from the textbook for pedophilia, which would be a good answer if you can back it up with your conscience. No right or wrong answer, and all.
I’d go with Billy, though. I’ve met several interesting people with Down syndrome who are leading otherwise normal, happy lives. That’s assuming, of course, that no one of them is “easier” to save (get to, drag out, what have you) than the others. If five of them are on fire in a burning house, and one’s laying outside on the ground with a broken leg, that makes my choice that much easier.
I have nothing more to add, though I can’t help but think that if this test were being written 20-30 years ago, you could easily add “John, a 25 year old homosexual” to the list.
What does this have to do with psychology?
Same here, for the same reasons.
On review I had not noticed that Beth was pregnant. So, Billy or Beth, and all the others way behind either for being more a burden than anything else or for being likely on the verge of death anyway.
I agree with you, both your reasoning and your conclusion.
-FrL-
Are you saying they’ll reject Jerry because of recidivism rates, or that they’ll say he should be saved because of recidivism rates? (I don’t know what the recidivism rate is for this kind of crime. I’ve heard claims in both directions.)
-FrL-
They can do either. Again, your choice, depending on how your conscience backs it up.
I think it’s good. I’d probably save Jerry, for the same reason as LSLGuy, but Jack gives me pause: yes, he’s terminal, but terminal doesn’t tell me how long he’s got left, and with four kids, every minute of useful life, advice and memories he can give those those kids is gold. If I could give those kids another 3-5 years with their dad, that would be tempting. From the book, I’d discuss child development, the need for male role models and the rates of drug use, dropping out of school and teen pregnancy in children raised without fathers in their lives as support.
I can find something worth saving in all of them, with Mildred and Alan being lowest on my list. Good set up for encouraging thinking!
I wondered that too, except that upon re-reading I discovered that the question does ask the answerer to take into account “gut feelings”.
For instance, if there is a limited amount of time to make the decision in, I might pick the boy or 22 year old woman for evolutionary reasons that would override any other choices, which, if I had to justify it in a question, does pose interesting questions in hard evolutionary psychology.
For instance, would sympathy and a desire to help the disabled override the desire for a good breeding pool? If so, why save the Down Syndrome kid and not the old lady?
Yeah, assuming there’s very small amount of time to make the decision my pick would be the kid or the woman or the old lady, just because of my ingrained brain.
I notice a lot of Dopers’ answers focus on which person they’d save, which is only tangentially related to the OP’s question (I guess it’s relevant if you’re saying that your choice is immediately obvious, which means you think the choices aren’t even enough). Don’t worry, I intend to do it myself.
To answer the question, though, I think the Downs Syndrome boy skews far more sympathetic than many of the others and should maybe be either made older or cut entirely.
One could argue that despite her personal shortcomings, saving Beth means you’re saving two people and therefore she should be chosen. My choice would be Jack, though, for reasons of pure empathy as a father. Bad enough that he’s only got a short time left with his kids – I couldn’t bear to have even that short time ripped away. Besides, people DO beat the odds with supposedly “terminal” cancer.
You curse the fates (or your own personal god) and refuse to play their (or his) little mind games. Refuse to save anyone unless they can all be saved.
That said, you don’t waste time discussing or even thinking about personal histories. You save the person that would take the least time so that you try to help others.
Can you tell I hate these types of questions? We did one just like this in a leadership class except that all the people were “good” in different ways and we were trying to save them via helicopter. My contention that we could take the supermodel and the child for the price of one neurosurgeon was met with ridicule. I can’t believe how many people want to play St. Peter and decide who gets to be rewarded and who is punished based on some small knowledge about their past .
So my call would be that your students should refuse to answer a question designed to place worth on people lives with so little information.
Agreed. Jerry was my first choice as well.
Jerry would be my first choice for the same reasons mentioned by LSLGuy.
If I happened on an accident I wouldn’t have any idea who these people were much less their life stories. I would save the child. Then I would attempt to save the next closest person. I would gladly sacrifice my life to save another.
I would save the child first as children always have the opportunity to do something with their lives. Probably be a woman next. You know, women and children first, and all that.
Billy and Jack would be my first and second choices.
I think most people who are going with ‘gut feelings’ will save children and pregnant women before others, regardless of how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ the individual children or pregnant women are. Maybe make the DS guy an adult to make it more difficult?
I’ve known a few DS people, who were by no means an ‘active’ burden on society – they were living on their own, earning a living (bagger in the grocery store, &c).