4 ms·

I find your comment fascinating purely because it's a concept that I've never been able to understand. While I can begin to understand what you're saying about

by pragone 13y ago

I find your comment fascinating purely because it's a concept that I've never been able to understand. While I can begin to understand what you're saying about the loss he inflicted on his wife and family, the life he could have saved far outweighs that loss; as I said, I couldn't live my life any other way. I often try to wrap my head around the concept of putting myself and my family before my fellow man, but it's one that just doesn't come to me easily.

gus_massa 13y ago
For simplicity, let’s assume that you value all human equally. Then the question if not if he could have saved a life. The question is if (under similar circumstances) the probability of dying was less than the probability of saving the other person. I think it’s not reasonable to attempt a rescue with a 90% dying chance, knowing that there is only a 10% chance of success. On the other hand I think it’s reasonable to attempt a rescue with a 10% dying chance, knowing that there is a 90% chance of success. It’s very difficult to estimate the chances in this case, because we don’t know all the circumstances, the available information and the point of view. And it’s impossible to be sure how I would have reacted in the very short time that was available. And if you want a more complex model and don’t mind using made up numbers, I’d prefer to weight myself and my family members with 2 points, and give my daughter at least 5 points. Condolences to both families.
hueving 13y ago
The life of the survivor is more important than his? How can you make that kind of judgment? A person responsible for providing for a family has just as much social value as an arbitrary man hanging out on some railroad tracks. To mindlessly kill yourself for any person is pointless, especially if that person is already suicidal. The burden of knowing someone died to save you is not something depressed people cope with well.

by pragone 13y ago

gus_massa 13y ago

For simplicity, let’s assume that you value all human equally. Then the question if not if he could have saved a life. The question is if (under similar circumstances) the probability of dying was less than the probability of saving the other person. I think it’s not reasonable to attempt a rescue with a 90% dying chance, knowing that there is only a 10% chance of success. On the other hand I think it’s reasonable to attempt a rescue with a 10% dying chance, knowing that there is a 90% chance of success. It’s very difficult to estimate the chances in this case, because we don’t know all the circumstances, the available information and the point of view. And it’s impossible to be sure how I would have reacted in the very short time that was available. And if you want a more complex model and don’t mind using made up numbers, I’d prefer to weight myself and my family members with 2 points, and give my daughter at least 5 points. Condolences to both families.

hueving 13y ago

The life of the survivor is more important than his? How can you make that kind of judgment? A person responsible for providing for a family has just as much social value as an arbitrary man hanging out on some railroad tracks. To mindlessly kill yourself for any person is pointless, especially if that person is already suicidal. The burden of knowing someone died to save you is not something depressed people cope with well.