Poll: Do you believe in "women and children first"?

[DEAD34345]

Objectively, I can't see any reason for the "women first" part, but there's still something telling me it would be the right thing to do. Probably just some remaining sense of chivalry or something bestowed on me from society, and I don't really put much weight behind the idea.

As for the "children first" part, I definitely believe in that, and think that people who don't are incredibly callous. I'm a little disgusted by the people who have said they wouldn't care about kids in that kind of situation, actually. I don't know if I'd really hold to it in a life or death situation, as I've never been in one, but I sincerely hope I would.

 

[Yopaz]

According to feminists we should all be treated equally so I vote that women shouldn't be treated any different in this case either.

 

[RoonMian]

So with a lot of focus on the Titanic tragedy's centennial this past week, I've been reading some news articles about the ship's evacuation debacle. As a result of the lifeboat shortage and the priority thus given to women and children, approximately 80% of the men on board perished. In such a time when the men were the breadwinners, this left a lot of the surviving wives and children destitute.

Now, the "women and children" principle has never been law but rather a chivalrous principle to follow and even then, it's been relatively rare in execution. Nonetheless, Hollywood has done quite the job of romanticizing the notion of the husband remaining behind while the wife and children are led to safety almost to a point where anything less would seem immoral.

So I ask you, do you believe the "women and children first" to be appropriate in this day and age?

What about the single parent father? Or the adopted child's gay parents? Should they be told to stay aboard because they are men?

How about the feminist? If she wants equal social rights, should she not cede her seat on the lifeboat to one of the aforementioned men? Or is a mother always the more important parent than the father?

I am by no means trying to start a gender war but rather, see what people think about a potentially outdated principle.

It isn't potentially outdated, it IS outdated and hasn't been in practice on ships for years, maybe even decades. The acting principle today is to keep families together. First so not every man automatically dies in an average but also to reduce chaos after.

And that really is all there is to say about that.

Edit: Whoops, yeah. Edited the "not" into a "to". That really made no sense at all, sorry.

 

[Durgiun]

Children first in general. But in time of an emergency my instincts would take over and then it's ''Fuck all y'all, I'm first!''

 

[SoulSalmon]

The acting principle today is not keep families together.

Did you mean it IS to keep families together?
Because that's the only "someone first" that makes any sense to me.

Lets go with the sinking boat example, if there's most of a family on a lifeboat, the best thing to do is let the last family member get on, they're gonna have a much better time as a group.

 

[LilithSlave]

meh it all depends on the scale...

if we are talking evacuating the planet or a large portion of a specific race or culture it is a very very valid and important point...

By the time we're able to do something like that, we'll probably have artificial wombs. We've moving to a future that neither men or women are necessary for the survival of the species.

Heck, by the time that happens, we may be fully transhuman and not even use traditional biological reproduction anymore. And in, in the coming Singularity, we may not even have babies anymore. And rely on some kind of technological form of reproduction.

Thus, in pretty much situation we're likely to encounter, the obvious logic that "people should be treated ethically and protected" applies.

 

[Agow95]

I don't believe any one group of people should fight for equality for a century or two but still claim priority on lifeboats

 

[emmettr3]

The most helpless first. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, disabled.
Of course, that is a purely moral viewpoint, without any logical consideration -
all Kant, no JSM.

 

[somonels]

No. No. No. What about her? No, we don't want a reversal, she got there first she can stay there. No.
I have not studied catastrophe scenarios, but I do think that the proponents of 'chivalry' are the people in the life boat.

The funny thing is that none of those is really their fault. They're underdeveloped mentally and are inclined to act that way. They're not jackasses because they chose to be.

There is no fault for children to that way - he never claimed there to be any - but that is his perception of them.

 

[neil1990]

If you look at some of the events you'll see the chairman of the company that owned Titanic, Bruce Ismay, was on the ship when it hit the iceberg. He took his leave on a lifeboat and made it to the rescue ship the Carpathia. But because there were so few other male survivors upon arrival he was lambasted and branded a coward by the media. The man was just trying to save his life for God's sake!!! It's almost a lose-lose situation. The man had to spend the rest of his life away from the public eye

 

[WolfThomas]

I believe in Children (with parents), elderly and disabled first. Because they are the most vulnerable. But really in this day and age no one should drown from a sinking ship.

 

[thethird0611]

Honestly, you cant blame anyone for trying to save their own life (unless its at the detriment of others), but I really believe that no matter what, children should be given priority. They've only had a few years to live, and should be given a chance.

Now past that, I think that the women first thing is pretty set in stone with me. You can argue 'Oh, social norms need to be broken, they aren't fair, yada yada' (no offense to those with those ideas, I just don't agree with them.), but men should be the brave ones. If there's enough room, then yeah, families should get on together, with emphasis on the families who have loved ones staying behind.

EDIT: Also, depending on the size of the boat and the way it sinks, men should have a much better chance of being able to escape the current pulling down from the boat and possibly stay alive long enough for rescue.

 

[The Night Angel]

No, I don't see why anyone's life should be given higher value than another's. And women have been asking for equality for years, so when a disaster strikes, they shouldn't pull that card. As for children, if there is only enough space for all the children, and you prioritise them, then what happens when they don't ration the provisions properly?? Who knows how to navigate? Or build a fire?? So if we say that some adults should go instead of children, we're back to the point where we have to decide why one life is more valuable than another.

 

[LilithSlave]

if, as you said, we get to a point where neither men or women are necessary for the survival of the species than there is no point in treating people ethically or protecting them...

Ridiculous, that isn't why we treat people ethically. What kind of ethical system would make that a qualifier for ethical treatment?

It's very problematic and disconcerting that you've arrived to such a faulty conclusion. One which neither treats moral systems as pointless or as pointful as they are. The survival of the human species is meaningless to anyone but us, so is our ethical treatment of other humans. But we human beings have ethical systems and morals that work are are valuable and sensible to us and our overall desires.

They aren't a necessity, and neither is our existence. But we desire to exist and have a healthy civilization where we can be as fair and ethical as possible. There is a severe lack of point in the survival of our species, but there is also a strong point for the ethical treatment of beings. And whether being should be ethically treated or not is independent of whether they, as individuals, are essential for the survival of the species. No one matters in a sense, but everyone already matters. That's the way you should look at humans, even if our existence is pointless. Unless you'd rather be a misanthropist.

Heck, not only is there no reason to find that inability to save the human species from extinction negate being worthy of ethical treatment. I don't even see how the survival of the human species is even equal in value to treating the humans who are alive ethically. What is particularly valuable about keeping the human species alive to begin with? The universe isn't going to shed a tear if we go extinct, and no beings will necessarily suffer if it happens.

Your conditions for human value don't make sense. Certainly not to me, at least.