Eg. 2- wrt to physical strength, information, skill----- the armed force is much better equipped to save themselves should some invader attack us . They would be one of the first select groups to know exact situation in case of an invasion. Cant they simply escape to safer places? Why should they sacrifice their lives for the weaker civilians! Here you would say that they are paid to do so. But is money more valuable than their own lives? Is it only for money that they sacrifice their lives.!
Still want to advocate first come first ?
Eg 3- An aeroplane develops a technical snag. Should the pilot having access to a parachute, by virtue of being the first person to have access/training to it jump out to save his life leaving all the rest in the lurch!
As for the situation of "the very existence of human race coming under threat"- why would a person who grudges giving up personal comforts for someone else during normal time , be willing to give up ones life for humanity? What significance would humanity have for him/her? In a society that would encourage keeping ones own personal interest always uppermost would a thought be likely to be spared for humanity when individual human beings don't mean much? 😕
1) Abducted
2) Made to walk for long distance
3) Travelling over rough terrain
4) And hostage is kept tied and blindfolded all the time, even while moving around
However, most hostage situations don't match the above description. If a plane/ bus is hijacked, the hostages won't have to even walk, most of them are not even tied up or blindfolded. In any kind of hold up, the hostages will live inside the building. If someone is kidnapped, they are moved around in a car. But irrespective of the situation, the order of priority remains the same for the negotiators and young men come last in that list.
Let us examine the Titanic scenario- wrt knowledge and first come first basis vis a vis accessibility is concerned ----- The elderly captain and chief engineer and his crew members (all presumably less affluent than the wealthy passengers aboard the Titanic) were the best positioned to grab the boats and escape the ship which was to sink in about an hour's time. They did not appear to think giving up that opportunity- as being penalized for their position or responsibility. Going by the policy of first come first serve they should have escaped with the boats long before any of the able bodied young man on the ship could even get a whiff of the approaching danger.
Eg. 2- wrt to physical strength, information, skill----- the armed force is much better equipped to save themselves should some invader attack us . They would be one of the first select groups to know exact situation in case of an invasion. Cant they simply escape to safer places? Why should they sacrifice their lives for the weaker civilians! Here you would say that they are paid to do so. But is money more valuable than their own lives? Is it only for money that they sacrifice their lives.!
Still want to advocate first come first ?
Eg 3- An aeroplane develops a technical snag. Should the pilot having access to a parachute, by virtue of being the first person to have access/training to it jump out to save his life leaving all the rest in the lurch!
As for the situation of "the very existence of human race coming under threat"- why would a person who grudges giving up personal comforts for someone else during normal time , be willing to give up ones life for humanity? What significance would humanity have for him/her? In a society that would encourage keeping ones own personal interest always uppermost would a thought be likely to be spared for humanity when individual human beings don't mean much? 😕
One basic difference. The captain, the pilot and the soldier willingly took the responsibility of the safe keeping of others and are being paid for that. But the passengers on Titanic didn't willingly take the responsibility of sending the other passengers home and dry while they themselves will drown. Whether they wanted it or not, that decision was dumped on them.
As for the question that you have for the scenario when the very existence of human race is under threat, I never said that people would necessarily feel that they should place the interest of human race before themselves. Infact, I said that chances are they won't give up their chance to survive. What I wrote was that if such a crisis arises then skewed gender ratio with very few females, will not be helpful in continuing the human race. And I felt that such a skew in the gender ratio is more likely to happen if we follow first come first serve order. Since, I felt that first come first serve won't give us the ideal result in the particular scenario where human race's existence is under threat, I said that for such a crisis first come first serve may not be the best possible solution.
- As contribution to statistics- yes.
- If its impact that one life has on other lives - NO.
The idea of every negotiator at least in our country appears to be to get the maximum hostages released, even if it happens to be in exchange for the release of some hardened criminals or terrorists! Its just that some may have to wait a bit longer. As far as I know they get released in batches and not at one go.. A few at a time, followed by some more bargaining/appealing and the next batch freed and so on.
Whatever be the order, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, sooner or later – death is certain.
I rest my case with the following lines by Rumi-
"Pain only exists in resistance.
Joy exists only in acceptance.
Painful situations which you heartily accept become joyful.
Joyful situations which you do not accept become painful.
There is no such thing as a bad experience.
...Bad experiences are simply the creations of your resistance to what is."