Then what is? You, who are the ultimate realist–what do you deem more important than life itself?
But fat helps to insulate to keep the warmth in, and women have more body fat on average.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I wanted to add that to the facts.
I think the other perfect master summed it up pretty well. [complete essay by RAH deleted by Moderator]
-Robert Heinlein
Personally I think a man, upon observing the stuck woman, goes a mile down the track to flag any approaching trains so they can stop well short of the woman. If the man isn’t sure which way the trains come from, he tries to help the woman and, at the last second, hits the husband over the head and drags him to safety.
Or Heinlein’s way.
[Moderator Note]For copyright purposes, could you instead provide a link to the article?[/Moderator Note]
But everybody dies someday. Your life cannot have infinite worth, even to yourself, because no matter what you do someday it will all be over. And then annihiliation. You’ll be nothing, and everything you ever had and ever did will be nothing.
And then what?
If you wanna live as the guy who pushed a baby out of a lifeboat just for a few more years of going around this planet, well, then your punishment is that you’re gonna live the rest of your life as the kind of guy who pushes babies out of lifeboats. And soon enough you’ll be dead anyway.
As the man said, you come from nothing, and you’re going back to nothing, so what have you lost? Nothing!
Anyway, it’s pretty easy to talk about playing the martyr, or being the tough guy here on dry land. A lot of people might find they’d react differently than they expect when it comes down to it. Still…what’s life for?
I would give up my spot, allowing the woman and her child on the boat, but i would use the boat a floatations aide and would alternate positions eith people on t he boat as necessary for all to survive.
Well, sure you can do that. Neither the OP, the thread title, nor the poll questions says that Leroy is choosing not to try to save himself at all–just whether to up the risk to himself or not.
I voted that Leroy should give up his seat regardless of the relationship to the mother/child, but I don’t feel that he must, exactly, only that he should, and would be a coward not to. If it was just the woman, do what you want, but a woman holding a baby is not going to be able to swim as well as an unencumbered man, and the baby is not going to survive very long in the water–Leroy has a much better chance of survival outside of the boat than they do. So he doesn’t have to give up his seat, but he’s kind of a shit if he doesn’t.
Will you please give me your first name and a quick physical description so that if I’m ever in poor Leroy’s position, and you happen to be around, I can just let your ass drown.
How dare I not rate women higher than men! The nerve!
How offensive that other people DO rate women higher than men. I am outraged!
Well, it is sexism. I don’t like sexism.
Who are you to say what other people are allowed to value more than themselves, though?
‘Women and children first’ is a very recent invention. It came in with the wreck of the Birkenhead and is known as the Birkenhead Drill.
If the woman and child were related to me, I’d definitely give up my seat. If they were not, I’d still give up my seat: I’m 43, single, with no children. I’m no great loss to the human race.
That isn’t what you said. You said “How offensive that other people DO rate women higher than men.”
Rating one sex higher than the other is sexism.
“Children first” makes sense. I have no kids and don’t even particularly like them, but it’s a human drive to want to preserve the species and protect the young. I understand that.
“Women first” is patronizing, sexist, and annoying. As a personal philosophy, each person has the right to decide on his/her own what to do in such a situation. But as a policy (say, on a ship), it’s…well…patronizing, sexist, and annoying. If you have to sort people, why not do it some other way (young before old, say, or families over singles (not that I’m advocating either, mind you, but they make every bit as much (non) sense as “women before men”)). As long as whatever way used to decide doesn’t mean that the physically stronger (usually men and younger people) get to force their way in over the physically weaker (usually women and older people) then there are many ways to decide that don’t have to be patronizing, sexist, and annoying.
As a woman, sure, I’d like to get a seat. But I wouldn’t make a man give up his for me, and I wouldn’t expect him to. And if my ship is going down and my spouse can’t get a spot too, I’d rather be like the old couple in “Titanic” and just go down with the ship together.
No, rating one’s own sex higher than the other is sexism. Valuing another perosn higher than oneself is altruism. It may be misplaced in your view, but it’s not some kind of malicious bigotry. There are worse things people could do to you than give you their seat on a lifeboat.
For me, personally, it would be more about the baby than the sex of the parent. I would give up my seat for a father with a baby just as quickly as for a mother with one, but I’m not going to nitpick anybody else’s reason for giving up a seat. If someone is willing to give up his life for you, I would hardly call that an insult.
Rating one sex higher than the other is sexism. If a woman said, “I can’t vote for a woman for president because women just aren’t capable of making those sorts of decisions. They should be at home with their children” that is sexism, even though it’s rating men above women.
I have no quarrel with someone who says they don’t want to live under the circumstances in the OP, but get this, the person you’re sacrificing for might also not want to live, knowing that you gave up your life for him/her. And then you all die and it’s very silly.
“White people are superior to my own race. I should give up my seat on the bus for them.” Altruism?