Sinking ship, women and children first, agree/disagree?

[Melody]

Whole family units with children first (Mom, Dad, Children), then the eldest (Grandma, grandpa, that old couple celebrating their x0th anniversary), unaccompanied children and medically unstable or disabled (Guy in a wheelchair/crutches/mobility aid, anyone who would obviously perish if left to the seas), then finally anyone else healthy.

I feel that this is the FAIREST way. Gender is meaningless, we don't shield our women anymore because they asked us not to.

 

[Mattxy8]

I think women and children should go first, BUT if the childs mother is dead or is not on the boat than his/her father should be able to go with the child.

 

[Dawn]

It's... forced chivalry. What else am I supposed to think? That it's wrong or right? That... would be very presumptuous. I'm pretty sure there's some law somewhere that says a boat needs to be equipped with the tools to evacuate it's occupants. (See: reaction to Titanic incident) That being said, the whole let men die thing is out the window.

I personally think this system works better, if for the only reason that it adds organization where people might be a bit prone to free-for-alling if it wasn't there. (See: Chaos is bad. Mmkay)

The illusion of equality is not worth even a remote chance of problems in this case. (See: an emergency)

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

I have to say, there are certainly many brave heroes here. However I see no need for "achieving" such title. My safety + *person with me* first *(Who the hell goes alone). I am going to care much less for other people that are no more than "Saw you at the ship. Forgot about you" to me. Call me selfish. But first them, them and them while I'M FREAKING DROWNING HERE is.. *common sense applied here* Also TC explain me why you don't want men to die, yet say "women with children" as if the father is nonexistent?

 

[twocows]

First come first serve is the only fair system. The women and children crap is completely unfair.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

They should plan ahead to make sure that there are enough lifeboats for everybody anyway, imo.

 

[donavannj]

They should plan ahead to make sure that there are enough lifeboats for everybody anyway, imo.

This. Actually, lifeboat capacity should be at least 1.5 times the ship capacity in the event that some lifeboats are submerged or damaged, and if there isn't enough capacity, first-come, first-serve should be the rule, though the crew MUST ABANDON LAST since it's their job to get the passengers off the ship.

 

[Ho-Oh]

Children + older people / grandparents first.

Everyone else can go afterwards, but I would hate to see an older person have to drown than a middle aged person if anyone. Yeah that may be a terrible view or something, idc, I value older members of society. :( Children is obv imo.

Though generally I'd assume most men would give priority to the women of the ship in that case anyways, after the first group, that is.

 

[Brane]

Of course children first, but then I believe it should be sick/injured next, and then everyone else.

But to be honest, I believe they should have double the amount of safety boats for the amount of people there so everyone is able to get off without trouble or squished carriages.

 

[Shining Raichu]

First come first serve is the only fair system. The women and children crap is completely unfair.

I just had this very thought and was coming to post it. Why not scrap the system altogether and just have a first-come, first-served approach? You might end up being surprised by the selflessness of people anyway. It's a moral grey area in a life-threatening situation to put yourself over another person, but morals fly out the window in an adrenaline-packed situation.

If we do the women-and-children first thing as is traditional, it is forced chivalry, as Pkmn Trainer Yellow said. But if we go through and try to find other criteria for who should get on first, then we're playing God and deciding who has more of a right to live. The only thing that's truly fair is to let the morality of the people on board decide for themselves.

 

[Oryx]

I just had this very thought and was coming to post it. Why not scrap the system altogether and just have a first-come, first-served approach? You might end up being surprised by the selflessness of people anyway. It's a moral grey area in a life-threatening situation to put yourself over another person, but morals fly out the window in an adrenaline-packed situation.

If we do the women-and-children first thing as is traditional, it is forced chivalry, as Pkmn Trainer Yellow said. But if we go through and try to find other criteria for who should get on first, then we're playing God and deciding who has more of a right to live. The only thing that's truly fair is to let the morality of the people on board decide for themselves.

The problem with that is with things such as children and the elderly. If it's just a free-for-all, pretty much every child would be left behind, through no fault of their own just because they're not better equipped physically than full-grown adults. Because of children not being strong enough to get themselves to the front, their families will lag behind trying to help them, and then most of the families would be boarding last because they're less strong through no fault of their own. The same goes for older people, that can't fight for a spot against a teeming mass of full-strength adults.

As unappealing as "playing God" sounds, you seem to think that that doesn't happen all the time in different situations already. Organ transplant lists already refuse to admit people if they have a history of living their life wrong, no matter how sick they are or how badly they need the organ because they can't be trusted to not just destroy the donation.

While it's very admirable to have faith in the belief that in a life-and-death situation, adults may give their spots for children, I would rather not put the lives of children up to chance. I would rather organize it as "family, man, woman, elder, family, man, woman, elder", than just hoping that people are nice enough not to trample the children and elderly if they're well aware that their lives are on the line.

 

[Shining Raichu]

The problem with that is with things such as children and the elderly. If it's just a free-for-all, pretty much every child would be left behind, through no fault of their own just because they're not better equipped physically than full-grown adults. Because of children not being strong enough to get themselves to the front, their families will lag behind trying to help them, and then most of the families would be boarding last because they're less strong through no fault of their own. The same goes for older people, that can't fight for a spot against a teeming mass of full-strength adults.

As unappealing as "playing God" sounds, you seem to think that that doesn't happen all the time in different situations already. Organ transplant lists already refuse to admit people if they have a history of living their life wrong, no matter how sick they are or how badly they need the organ because they can't be trusted to not just destroy the donation.

While it's very admirable to have faith in the belief that in a life-and-death situation, adults may give their spots for children, I would rather not put the lives of children up to chance. I would rather organize it as "family, man, woman, elder, family, man, woman, elder", than just hoping that people are nice enough not to trample the children and elderly if they're well aware that their lives are on the line.

Ah, but then you have to ask, what makes a child more worthy of living than an adult? Is it because they have longer ahead of them or because they're cuter? More innocent? I'm not saying it's a happy scenario but why does it always have to be about the children? And if we're making those sorts of judgment calls, the elderly don't have as long left regardless of whether or not they make it out of this predicament alive, so why not cast them aside?

This is what I mean by "playing God". It's impossible. It's not quite the same thing in organ donation, the doctors have to use their medical judgment to decide who would make best use of the precious few organs we have. There isn't that sort of time in a boat situation.

 

[Oryx]

Ah, but then you have to ask, what makes a child more worthy of living than an adult? Is it because they have longer ahead of them or because they're cuter? More innocent? I'm not saying it's a happy scenario but why does it always have to be about the children? And if we're making those sorts of judgment calls, the elderly don't have as long left regardless of whether or not they make it out of this predicament alive, so why not cast them aside?

This is what I mean by "playing God". It's impossible. It's not quite the same thing in organ donation, the doctors have to use their medical judgment to decide who would make best use of the precious few organs we have. There isn't that sort of time in a boat situation.

That's why my suggestion rotates. One family with children, one adult man, one adult woman, one elderly person, then back to the beginning. That way the lifeboats aren't filled with families and people who are adults are left out. Couples staying together would be addressed because they could just go as two spots in the rotation. In fact, that rotation would still favor adults over children, because adults can go in the family spot with their children, and then again in the two other spots designated for adults.

I don't believe that every single child should be put in front of every single adult, but if it's left to "fend for yourself", I honestly don't believe that people would give up their own life by giving their spot in the lifeboat to a child, or assisting a child if they're not part of their family. And I would rather not have every single child die in this hypothetical life-or-death scenario. I don't care if it's unfair or something to expect that kids should get an equal chance at the lifeboat, I believe that they should.

 

[Dawn]

Ah, but then you have to ask, what makes a child more worthy of living than an adult? Is it because they have longer ahead of them or because they're cuter? More innocent? I'm not saying it's a happy scenario but why does it always have to be about the children? And if we're making those sorts of judgment calls, the elderly don't have as long left regardless of whether or not they make it out of this predicament alive, so why not cast them aside?

This is what I mean by "playing God". It's impossible. It's not quite the same thing in organ donation, the doctors have to use their medical judgment to decide who would make best use of the precious few organs we have. There isn't that sort of time in a boat situation.

Free for all promotes chaos which promotes accidents.

Also, children are more worthy because it's a bit of chivalry that we as a society consider mandatory of even the most half-decent human beings to protect children. It has to be about the children because we as a society have standards. Those standards are probably based on factual inequalities, and even if for whatever reason they weren't, the inequalities are there to justify it anyway. You already pointed out two perfectly valid reasons. While it's true that children should logically take precedence over elders in terms of keeping them safe, (Emphasis on "logically") elders like children are also far less physically capable than adults. Their weakness is generally not considered their own fault, and so they are considered deserving of protection.

 

[Esper]

Ah, but then you have to ask, what makes a child more worthy of living than an adult?

The goal is for everyone to survive. That idea usually gets forgotten in these disaster scenarios. It's important to have this as the goal regardless of what actually happens. You wouldn't want to be in a situation where the captain says: "Everyone stay calm there are enough... what's that? Not enough life boats? Free-for-all folks! Outta my way!" That's why you need to have rules and stick to them.

 

[Pokepal17]

Why not none?
Ships these days should have enough lifeboats for everyone.

But supposing they don't, I'd say first come, first serve. :3

 

[Shining Raichu]

Hmm... well I'm not exactly disagreeing with the idea that children should go first, or the idea that we need to protect children, I was just challenging the idea as it seemed to be one of those things we hold onto out of tradition. That said, Toujours is right, I very much doubt that I would put a child's life before my own in that situation. If I were lucky enough to be one of those on a lifeboat, and I saw people left behind on the ship to die because of that, I wouldn't be able to live with myself - but whether those people were children or adults would have no effect whatsoever on the level of guilt I felt. It's equally heartbreaking either way.

The rotating idea is interesting, but may not be practical in a situation this time-sensitive. I'd see it as a numbers game; rather than deciding WHO would get on the boats (if not everyone) I would be focused on HOW MANY people ended up on the lifeboats to determine the success of the evacuation.

/formal language

 

[Oryx]

Hmm... well I'm not exactly disagreeing with the idea that children should go first, or the idea that we need to protect children, I was just challenging the idea as it seemed to be one of those things we hold onto out of tradition. That said, Toujours is right, I very much doubt that I would put a child's life before my own in that situation. If I were lucky enough to be one of those on a lifeboat, and I saw people left behind on the ship to die because of that, I wouldn't be able to live with myself - but whether those people were children or adults would have no effect whatsoever on the level of guilt I felt. It's equally heartbreaking either way.

The rotating idea is interesting, but may not be practical in a situation this time-sensitive. I'd see it as a numbers game; rather than deciding WHO would get on the boats (if not everyone) I would be focused on HOW MANY people ended up on the lifeboats to determine the success of the evacuation.

/formal language

In that case, you would want to pack it with as many children as possible, because you can fit more into a smaller area/weight limit. :P

Yeah, the rotating system to me is ideal, but tough to pull off, so there would have to be some concessions. For example, if they call for a family and no one shows up or makes themselves known (yelling if they're in the back and can't get past adults, etc) within 10-20 seconds, they would just move on to the next rotation. The hardest part of it is of course order, but that's true of any escape plan. If it was a first come first served system, I would be terrified that a lot of people would just pile onto every lifeboat, sinking all of them by going over the weight limit because they wouldn't see the harm of one more person, especially if it's their own life they're trying to save.

I also find it amusing that we're assuming the situation is a boat sinking. It could just as easily be escaping from a burning building, or people trapped in a crashed bus, or many other kinds of disasters. At least we're all referring to the same situation though. xD

 

[Dawn]

If it was a first come first served system, I would be terrified that a lot of people would just pile onto every lifeboat, sinking all of them by going over the weight limit because they wouldn't see the harm of one more person, especially if it's their own life they're trying to save.

That's exactly my problem with it. Not only is it incredibly silly to presume that elders and adults are equal, let alone children and adults, but a free for all doesn't offer a whole lot of structure, which slightly raises the chance of someone doing something stupid that gets people hurt, killed, or otherwise impedes survival. Such is human nature, y'know?

 

[Azureth]

Methinks if such a situation were to occur you better believe there'd be plenty of women saying "I'm a woman please let me get ahead" even if before they talked of "equality".