Thinking about the Titanic, there is always the iconic phrase of "women and children first!" when everyone is getting on lifeboats. (Or at least, that is how they portrayed it as is). But in this day and age, is that really still true? Chivalry and any sort of gentlemen sense of behavior has been long dead in my mind, which I find the phrase bases itself in.
In this day and age, in some sort of isolated disaster, would we still try saving women and children first based on some old archaic beliefs? People always ask for equal rights when it conveniences them the most, would woman not wish to be equal in this case? Me personally, I value my life. As selfish as it may sound, I haven't had much to live for, and thinking about it, I'd find myself very hard-pressed to give up my life willingly for a random stranger that I may never see or meet again. People can say I'm a bad person, but personally, many people say that they would willingly give up their life, but when push comes to shove, would they really?
I'm just wondering what everyone's take is on the whole issue of how can you evaluate how much more valuable one life is in relation to another. People often say that because children are young, they have so many more years to still live, therefore, we save them first. But assuming you're an above average person, your contribution to society may already be more than the child will ever contribute if they grow up to be below average. So much time and resources have been sunk into developing you already, why would we willingly give someone who has an education for someone who may never receive an education? On that note, if we value by years left, the elderly should be the last to be saved?
I'd go with a policy of survival of the fittest if a disaster like the Titanic sinking were to ever happen to me. Chivalry's dead and I think I have a higher potential to contribute more to society than the average joe, but maybe that's just me being selfish. I'd save myself.
On a personal level, I would not, I expect, give up my life for a random child/woman. I'm selfish. I likely would for a family member.
On a more general level, saving women and children is pretty hardwired into us. Women are the reproductive bottleneck in society, so in times of trouble, they're not the ones who take the risks. It's the same reason why women aren't forced into the military in times when men are. Because of things like this and others (why aren't more women working in the technical fields -> why aren't more women working in coal mines), I think that hardcore feminists aren't worth listening to. As for children, well, protecting them is also hardwired; a species that doesn't value its young isn't as competitive as one that does. While you can say, and it might even be true, that you in particular will in your remaining life contribute more than the child, in general this is not necessarily the case - and, again, if it's a girl, the reproductive bottleneck kicks in.
I suppose I'm a conservative on this issue. The sexes aren't equal, and shouldn't be treated as such. They should, however, be treated fairly.
On a personal level, I would not, I expect, give up my life for a random child/woman. I'm selfish. I likely would for a family member.
On a more general level, saving women and children is pretty hardwired into us. Women are the reproductive bottleneck in society, so in times of trouble, they're not the ones who take the risks. It's the same reason why women aren't forced into the military in times when men are. Because of things like this and others (why aren't more women working in the technical fields -> why aren't more women working in coal mines), I think that hardcore feminists aren't worth listening to. As for children, well, protecting them is also hardwired; a species that doesn't value its young isn't as competitive as one that does. While you can say, and it might even be true, that you in particular will in your remaining life contribute more than the child, in general this is not necessarily the case - and, again, if it's a girl, the reproductive bottleneck kicks in.
I suppose I'm a conservative on this issue. The sexes aren't equal, and shouldn't be treated as such. They should, however, be treated fairly.
I suppose it is hard-wired into us, but I believe humanity is much beyond the point that we would reach a reproductive bottleneck, so many children are produced each minute, I would find it hard to believe that we'd ever be in any sort of struggle to reproduce, barring a huge natural disaster or World War 3. Because of this, why would we still hold our beliefs to such an old way of thinking?
Regardless of the origin, my question still stands. In this day and age, does "women and children first" still hold any relevancy to our society and culture?
I don't really know, I don't value my life enough to have any other reason than selfishness to save my own instead of someone else. I think that I wouldn't be able to see a child or a women doomed while I am saving my butt... But I'm not sure, I may just freak out and be selfish, but it just isn't me.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 31 2010, 2:35 pm by Dungeon-Master.
Thoughts are starving. I'd simply save women and children because it might benefit me. It might make me look cool, allow me to obtain some reward, or just be fun. More often then not I'd probably save a woman and child. It's a man thing.
Survival of the fittest hasn't been an element of human society for millennia, and it isn't about to change. The fittest, bravest soldiers don't survive; they die. Draft dodgers, physically unfit men, and cowards are the ones who survive and reproduce. The morals that human society is built upon directly oppose competition; the reason that moral guidelines like "women and children first" exist at all is the unfounded fear of political incorrectness: they sound good, even though they aren't. Philosophies like that inevitably lead to the sacrifice of great men in lieu of useless and weak ones, to the loss of society as a whole.
Look at the activity condemned by society: eugenics. There is nothing inherently wrong with eugenics: Carry it out for two generations and all the autosomal dominant, Y-linked, X-linked dominant and mitochondrial diseases disappear. Reproduction isn't a right; it's a privilege. Why should you have sex and produce offspring if you knowingly confer an incurable genetic affliction on them? It is akin to giving birth to a child then stabbing it in the face: you are better off not having children in the first place. Yet, any serious attempt to promote eugenics is stifled by outcries from uninformed civilians, simply due to its association with Nazi Germany. Do people never grow up and think?
Intelligence is not rewarded in the modern world; it is discriminated against in all levels of society, at all ages ("nerd", "smartass", "overqualified"). We tax hardworking middle-class families and force their children to attend a state university instead of Harvard because they cannot afford the tuition; the money instead goes directly to Viagra prescriptions for retired old men who do not contribute anything to society. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are all government programs to subsidize the act of doing absolutely nothing; they were only passed for the sake of vote-snatching from the interest groups in question. Why do they exist? Naive subscription to these things called morals.
I believe it is because of a deep moral value, which is being lost in today's society. I couldn't condemn a small child to his/her death, but I would make sure that I am reasonably safe before beginning to rescue others.
Like I said in the Shoutbox, that for some reason you disregarded.
The saying "women and children first" is rooted in naval tradition, per the link I posted. A matter of fact, if you wanted to dig further back, the original phrase was coined by Thomas Aquinas, and was relating to warfare: they were not to attack women and children (noncombatants). If you were to expand it to modern day, it would probably be "civilians first." I would expect the military to protect and not harm civilians as a matter of duty in any disaster. Afterward I'd expect civilians to fight among themselves and to try to justify why they should be the one's to live while another dies, because humans are petty and if they have no higher calling they can only answer to themselves.
That's pretty much the reasoning it all started. Now we don't need to have more people, as the world is ginormous. Children still live longer.
In some cultures however, the elderly are treated better and with more worth because "we can always make more babies".
I believe the elderly are the least important in a disaster, and most of them would agree with me. They have already lived their life. If it were a global catastrophe, then I might consider the "women" part, but if not only the children matter.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
If no man ever showed bravery, then no brave man would ever die because there would be no brave men. Saving the women and children has always been about honor. As men we do everything we can to protect our families, and give them the best chance possible to survive a dangerous situation. A strong man can make a swim that a woman or child can't. If I had a wife and child I would give them the first chance to survive, and I would let other men save their wives and children ahead of my own life.
If no man ever showed bravery, then no brave man would ever die because there would be no brave men. Saving the women and children has always been about honor. As men we do everything we can to protect our families, and give them the best chance possible to survive a dangerous situation. A strong man can make a swim that a woman or child can't. If I had a wife and child I would give them the first chance to survive, and I would let other men save their wives and children ahead of my own life.
Assuming you have no family then during this disaster in immediate danger, would you still be willing to give up your life for people you've just met, random strangers that you never meet again? I applaud the notion of honor, but what's the point of maintaining any sense of honour or pride when you're dead?
I'd let women and children go ahead of me. The point isn't to maintain honor when I'm dead, but while I'm living. Will it mean nothing to me, since my last honorable act comprises the last few minutes of my life? No, because I will have acted in such a way that I deem right and honorable. If I didn't do that, and I survived somehow, it would haunt me forever. I'm not afraid of death, I could just as easily die tomorrow in a car accident as I could in a sinking ship. I'm not saying I'd throw my life away, I'd jump in the water and try to swim to shore, or if it was something like the titanic, try to get up on a raft or something of course. The real point is to say, even if its only for a split second before death, "Yes, I am that sort of guy."
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
Imo it still stands because of Rockz' and Vreal's arguments: 1) 1 Man can impregnate many woman (if we're talking about threat of extinction) 2) Children live longer (more potential is saved) 3) Men can survive situations children or woman can't
BUT if we were to select 100 people to board a rocket 'cause earth will be destroyed we will have to choose people by their usefulness, and as awful as it may sound that's not children. We need mainly scientists and engineers, preferably woman, but also about 10-20% of men. Maybe a cook too.
Ultraviolet shouted: How about you all send me your minerals instead of washing them into the gambling void? I'm saving up for a new name color and/or glow
