Freedomain Radio

Hello everyone. I have a theology assignment to do for school and I am curious about your thoughts on it.  I am not sure if this is in the right place, so if it isn't please move it.  Please critque or comment on what I have so far.  Thank you very much.

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fallout Shelter

There is going to be a nuclear war in three days.  There are ten people who want to get into a particular fallout shelter.  Only seven however can fit into it.  There is only enough food, water, and oxygen for seven people.  After discussing the choice. the ten people cannot come to any conclusion.  They ask an impartial observer [you] to make their decision for them.

They are to stay in the shelter for three months, at the end of which time there is a possibility that they will be the only people left alive on the planet.  Or they might be rescued by other survivors and be able to move back into a safe society.  They do not know which will be the case.

You are to select the seven people whom you think should be in this shelter, knowing that they may well be the only people left on earth after the war.

The people are:

1. a women, sex months pregnant

2. her husband, and accountant

3. a seventy-year-old Catholic priest

4. a two year old pre-med student

5. a Hollywood movie starlet, singer, and dancer

6. a famous witter

7. a biochemist

8. a nun, teacher

9. an armed police officer

10. an all-American athlete

List the seven people you would choose to go into the fallout shelter and briefly tell why you choose each.  Then list the three people you did not choose and why you didn't not choose that person.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some questions I had while I was contemplating the assignment and some answers I thought of:

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Why is there going to be nuclear war?  Is it assured there is going to be war?
For the purposes of the assignment, I postulated that war will be assured and as of now am acting under the pretense that the reason for the war is irrelevant.

How does one know that there will only be enough room and supplies for a maximum of seven people for a maximum of three months?
The text does not seem to provide any details on this, so I will postulate that it is true.

What are the odds that the people in this particular fallout shelter will be the only people left on Earth after the war?  What are the odds that there will be others left, and if so how many would it be reasonable to say would be left?

The text doesn't delve into that.  As of now I am thinking I should operate under the pretense that the people in the shelter will be the only ones left alive and I should pick people according to how I believe post fallout society could be survive because of their ability to survive and thei ability to reproduce healthy children.  I feel this is the heart of the assignment.

Even if these seven people survive, would they really be enough to actually continue the human race?
I am not a biologist so I have no idea if the gene pool would be too small.  However if the above is the heart of the assignment, it means that my choice should theoretically mean something, meaning that it is safe to postulate for the purposes of the assignment it would be possible for humanity to continue with the right choices of people. For the continuation of the human race, I would pick the most fit people (fit being defined as survivability and ability to reproduce) with several more females than males so more children could be created faster.  Unfortunetly, there is no much information regarding the people, not even genders in some cases which makes this difficult.

Who owns the fallout shelter? What would they want done with it?
Once again, I do not see any clues in the text about this.  It seems as though no one has claimed ownership of it.

Is it reasonable that the ten people cannot make a conclusion on even one person being assured entry into the fallout shelter?
Given the differences of all these people, I suppose it is possible, but I am unsure.

If they could not choose one person to be assured shelter, how did they manage to choose one "impartial observer,"?
I don't find it logical that they could considering that I am very biased because of my opinions and life experiences, and these biases seem to be the point of the assignment.  But since the assignment wants to give me the power, I'll take it.

Is it moral for me to even choose for them?
Since they all have supposedly voluntarily chosen for me to make the decision, it would be a voluntary contract and thus be okay for me to choose.

Where exactly am I supposed to go?
Since I will act in my best interest and I am not an option of the people being chosen, I will assume I have shelter somewhere else.

The text claims that there are ten people to choose from, but I see eleven.  The first option is a pregnant woman.  Her child is still a human being and still has self-sovereignty.  What would be correct for me to do in regards to the child since he/she cannot advocate for his/her own rights?  Since the child cannot advocate its own rights, can it be obligated to adhere to the voluntary decision made by the ten other people?

I am not sure how to answer this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are my thoughts on each individual person.  I am annoyed that I do not have more information such as how virtuous they are.

A woman, six months pregnant:
I would like to choose her because I have evidence that she can reproduce.  Choosing her would also eliminate the above problem of whether it would be moral to exclude the child from the shelter when it did not make an volunatry choice to cede me power over its body.  I am against choosing her because I am unsure how a baby would change the situation of the people trying to rebuild humanity.  I also have no assurences that the baby would not be born prematurely, an am unsure if there would still be enough resources for the entire group if that was done.

Her husband. an accountant:
Assuming the child of his wife is his and the mother was not having an affair, it is reasonable to say he can reproduce.  I also would like to choose him because he is an accountant and with knowledge of micro-economics he would have knowledge on how to invest limited resources.

A seventy-year-old Catholic priest:
Being the real life teenager that I am, I am unsure about the issue of God.  However, if there is a Christian God I would believe that the Catholic priest would be in the best position to obtain salvations.  If there is no God, then it would be a step to eliminating religion from society if he was to die.  Considering that he is seventy years old, I do not see him as a boon to the revival of the human race.  He will not survive for long nor would he be able to reproduce.

A two-year pre-med student:
Medicine is very important to the health of human beings.  He or she would be a great asset.  Further he or she is young, meaning that he or she should be more fit than some other options given to me.  For whatever reason, when I think of this person I picture him or her as a female, so that is also another plus for the reasons I have listed above.

A Hollywood movie starlet, singer, and dancer:
Someone familar in the arts and entertainment would be important, especially if people have to survive together for three months or more without any other human contact.  As a starlet and dancer, I picture this person as a young and fit female, which is very good.

A famous writter:
My opinions on this person are similar to the student and the dancer.  I am unsure if this person is male or female (hopefully female) but this person could be a great asset for writing ability and communication.

A biochemist:
I do not know of this person is male or female. However the sciences are very important and this person seems educated.  If they are still a biochemist and not retired, I would believe they are middle aged which is still young enough to reproduce in some circumstances and this person may have a long natural life ahead of them, at least more than some other options.

A nun, teacher:
See my comments about the existence of God above and the fitness of the priest. They apply here as well.

An armed police officer:
While the police officer part is bad because he or she is trained to work for the state, it may be plausible that the person is fit. I see this person as more likely being a male, which is not as good as if it was a female. On another note, the weapons themselves might come in handy in fending off attackers in a post-fallout world.

An all-American athlete:
I am not familar with exactly what an all-American athlete it, but it sounds like it would be a really fit male, possibly with a better gene pool to generate offspring with.


Based on the above, I am leaning towards choosing:

 

1. The pregant woman
2. Her husband the accountant
3. The pre-med studen
4. The Hollywood starlet, singer, and dancer
5. The famous writer
6. The biochemist
7. The all-American athlete

Based on the above, I am leaning towards not choosing:

1. The seventy-year-old Catholic priest
2. The nun who is a teacher
3. The armed police officer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, your comments would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you so much for your help.

 

 

What I would like to know is how the knowledge that there is going to be a nuclear war in three days and that there is an empty fallout shelter nearby affected you decision making. I certainly wouldn't be leaving myself outside I also fail to understand how there is no opportunity to secure further supplies in the three days before the event. If I remember correctly the Policeman is inseparable from his gun which I submit to you means your decisions are meaningless if he isn't included i.e. the fact that he won't give up his gun implies that when the time comes to enter the shelter there will only be 7 people remaining one of which will be a policeman with 3 rounds expended.

Seeing as how it's a Theology assignment, if I were you I'd cook up some fine reasons why the 70 year old Catholic priest and the nun/teacher would be numbers one and two into the shelter. I have to ask, if there's going to be a nuclear war in three days, how can the observer (me) be impartial? I would convince or try to convince them to let me be in the group of seven. If they are dumb enough to believe that they are finding someone impartial, they might be fairly easy to convince. Anyway, I predict a low mark if you carry out your plan to exclude the priest and nun!

Wow, what an interesting task. I remember my Theology classes, that I chose because we could do other homeworks in this class. On the other hand, I was very apathic and depressed in school, so I wouldn't really care at that time what task I was given.

But you sound like a very intelligent young fellow, way more philosophical than I was, your answers looks insightful and well thought out.

As you've pointed out, this text lacks information, in some parts probably that's intentional (like about the peoples characters). It's strange that you yourself must describe the situation (why theres a nuclear war), "know" the details (who owns the shelter, wloud the be enough to continue the human race) etc.

Maybe you in this scenario are an allusion to God, who knows everything and can make such decisions; or on the smaller scale - you're "The State". Somehow your wellbeing is not improtant in this scenario: it's unclear why you're in this position and what's for you after all of this... But that's just my brainstorm

I wouldn't write that the policeman is trained to work for the state, but rather say, that he solves problems with force and is agressive, therefore he's not the best fit.

I also don't see a great value in this Hollywood persona. Probably he/she could produce beautiful babies, but we don't even know if (s-)he's fertile. But she's way better that the three that you've chosen to ditch. By the way, those are the three that I would ditch too.

I can see your potential difficulties in a Theology class explaining why you would "kill" a priest and a nun, so be prepared or just play dumb By the way, your approach that you're not sure about God is pretty save. However, while in reality priests and nuns are evil, your approach is neutral, when in Christians eyes priests and nuns are the highly virtuous people, so...

Just some of my quick thoughts

OutSider:

Maybe you in this scenario are an allusion to God, who knows everything and can make such decisions; or on the smaller scale - you're "The State". Somehow your wellbeing is not improtant in this scenario: it's unclear why you're in this position and what's for you after all of this... But that's just my brainstorm

I thought this passage of yours was so excellent that I wanted to post it again.

So basically this isn't any sort of test or discussion... it's a brainwashing exercise to get the subject to put themselves into the position of a violent and opressive 'authority,' while attempting to justify the crimes of God and the goverment.

Horrible...

 

No matter what choice you make... the point is that you thought it was virtuous to make such a choice.

EDIT: I wonder if the class would accept the answer "I don't have the right to make this decision"

MarkIX:

What I would like to know is how the knowledge that there is going to be a nuclear war in three days and that there is an empty fallout shelter nearby affected you decision making. I certainly wouldn't be leaving myself outside I also fail to understand how there is no opportunity to secure further supplies in the three days before the event. If I remember correctly the Policeman is inseparable from his gun which I submit to you means your decisions are meaningless if he isn't included i.e. the fact that he won't give up his gun implies that when the time comes to enter the shelter there will only be 7 people remaining one of which will be a policeman with 3 rounds expended.

The whole situation seems improbable to me, especially knowing about a nuclear war three days before it happens. What, did they announce it on the BBC or something? Give me a break. I wouldnt leave myself outside either. Bring up the idea of getting more supplies before the bombs are dropped is a good point. I would also agree that the gun is a big factor. If he has access to lethal force, is trained to use lethal force to solve social and economic problems, and is faced with a social and economic problem, I figure he would use a weapon. But Im not sure if that's what the teacher was going for, seeing as he is a statist and the entire Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of social justice approves of a huge welfare state backed up by a huge warfare state.

Testudines:

Seeing as how it's a Theology assignment, if I were you I'd cook up some fine reasons why the 70 year old Catholic priest and the nun/teacher would be numbers one and two into the shelter. I have to ask, if there's going to be a nuclear war in three days, how can the observer (me) be impartial? I would convince or try to convince them to let me be in the group of seven. If they are dumb enough to believe that they are finding someone impartial, they might be fairly easy to convince. Anyway, I predict a low mark if you carry out your plan to exclude the priest and nun!

Lol, I was thinking about that. Although I have found that with this teacher, as long as out answers have thought and reason behind them, even if he disagrees with them, I'll get a good grade.  I just need to put in the effort and thought, which I'm happy to do.  Although I'll be sure to let you know what mark I eventually get. I agree that the people are ignorant for thinking that anyone could be impartial.

OutSider:

Wow, what an interesting task. I remember my Theology classes, that I chose because we could do other homeworks in this class. On the other hand, I was very apathic and depressed in school, so I wouldn't really care at that time what task I was given.

But you sound like a very intelligent young fellow, way more philosophical than I was, your answers looks insightful and well thought out.

As you've pointed out, this text lacks information, in some parts probably that's intentional (like about the peoples characters). It's strange that you yourself must describe the situation (why theres a nuclear war), "know" the details (who owns the shelter, wloud the be enough to continue the human race) etc.

Maybe you in this scenario are an allusion to God, who knows everything and can make such decisions; or on the smaller scale - you're "The State". Somehow your wellbeing is not improtant in this scenario: it's unclear why you're in this position and what's for you after all of this... But that's just my brainstorm

I wouldn't write that the policeman is trained to work for the state, but rather say, that he solves problems with force and is agressive, therefore he's not the best fit.

I also don't see a great value in this Hollywood persona. Probably he/she could produce beautiful babies, but we don't even know if (s-)he's fertile. But she's way better that the three that you've chosen to ditch. By the way, those are the three that I would ditch too.

I can see your potential difficulties in a Theology class explaining why you would "kill" a priest and a nun, so be prepared or just play dumb By the way, your approach that you're not sure about God is pretty save. However, while in reality priests and nuns are evil, your approach is neutral, when in Christians eyes priests and nuns are the highly virtuous people, so...

Just some of my quick thoughts

Thank you very much for the compliments my friend. I too can feel depressed in school. It's not a pretty place.

While I don't have to discribe the situation myself for the assignment, the questions I asked myself above were really for my own thought process. I tend to critically analyze things like this, and considering that I want to apply things like the non-aggression principle and property rights, I am at a lack for information. 

I actually did not think of the idea that in this I am in a sense playing the State or playing God. It's a great insight, thank you for it.  I agree with your insights on the hollywood star and the police officer. On the topic of the hollywood star, while she might not be the most intelligent I imagine she is very beautiful and talented. I'd like to keep some of that talent in the world. On a more objective basis, according to my (limited) understanding of genetics, beautiful women tend to have better genes and thus it would make for a better gene pool. 

On the subject of God, I am not sure where I actually stand on that point. I understand one of the major themes of FDR tends to be atheism, and I respect your stance in that.  I've been reading more of Stef's work on atheism, including what he had written in RTR. While I have recently had major intellectual breaks with the Catholic Church on things such as economics and such, it hasnt been proven to me that there is no God. Or rather (since in my understanding of philosophy one finite failable entity cannot totally disprove the possibility of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent entity) I have not had the approtunity to examine more ideas on the subject, especially when some try to disprove the existence of a prime mover (to use a term from Thomas Aquinus). As of now, Im trying to remain curious, rational, and emperical.

MrCapitalism:

OutSider:

Maybe you in this scenario are an allusion to God, who knows everything and can make such decisions; or on the smaller scale - you're "The State". Somehow your wellbeing is not improtant in this scenario: it's unclear why you're in this position and what's for you after all of this... But that's just my brainstorm

I thought this passage of yours was so excellent that I wanted to post it again.

So basically this isn't any sort of test or discussion... it's a brainwashing exercise to get the subject to put themselves into the position of a violent and opressive 'authority,' while attempting to justify the crimes of God and the goverment.

Horrible...

 

No matter what choice you make... the point is that you thought it was virtuous to make such a choice.

EDIT: I wonder if the class would accept the answer "I don't have the right to make this decision"

Could you expand on what you meant by the brainwashing exercise to put people in the position of a violent authority? It struck a cord with me, and I'd like to hear some further explaination of it.

I was thinking of answering that I dont have the right to make the decision. But if the people are voluntarily letting me make the decision, would it be moral for me to do so? I dont think Im violating non aggression or property rights if its voluntary expect for the unborn child, but if I choose the mother like I wanted than that's a non issue. Would I be in violation of UPB? I havent had the chance to read it yet, so if I am please let me know and the reason for it.

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to update you on the situation.  We had a discussion about the assignment in class today, which went interestingly.  I explained my view on not wanting to play God part, and the teacher understood where I was coming from on that but that I still had to have done the assignment.  Through about a half an our discussion, I was able to explain why I choose or did not choose most people. I was able to further explain on the nun and the priest, which caused some comments thrown my way about needing religion. When someone talked about needing the police officer for order, I disagreed and explained why in the little time I had. I further explained that because he has a weapon, Id never expect to have him accept my decision instead of killing me. The teacher then commented that I don't like authority, to which I responded that I like legitimate authority, but legitimate authority is not the violent authority of the State. When asked why I thought the Church was violent, I simply said the church supports state violence. I was able to explain about the false dichotomy that the assignment creates, like all lifeboat questions.  While I dont think I changed anyone's mind, I believe I held my own and I think I will get a good grade. We'll have to see. I realized today that I'm not the only anarchist in the class. I converted a friend of mine to anarchism a few months ago and he is in that class, and another friend that is a socialist or an anarcho-socialist is also in the class. Their supported was a lot of help.

Revolution Russo:

 I explained my view on not wanting to play God part, and the teacher understood where I was coming from on that but that I still had to have done the assignment.

Hmm...

EDIT: I wonder if the class would accept the answer "I don't have the right to make this decision"

hmmm....

So basically this isn't any sort of test or discussion... it's a brainwashing exercise to get the subject to put themselves into the position of a violent and opressive 'authority,'

I feel like I'm reading too much into this... I had a similar experience in government class, we were all told we must design a system to organize a small society to perform certain needed tasks. The outcomes ranged from socialism, democracy, and monarchy. I'm sure the answer "just let people do what they want" was also not accepted....

from purely pragmatic point of view, I wouldn't choose policeman - no use of him and his gun. Priest? No use. The only two left - nun or writer...Dunno, what's valuable, but I think a teacher is more useful than a writer.

 

And it's only implying I have no consistent morality, because if I really had to choose - I wouldn't make a decision.

Montag:

 From a purely pagmatic perspective, the females of childbearing ability should all go in.

I don't see this as pragmatic after all being able to bear children is not going to affect their short term survival and would it could be argued adversely affect their medium term survival

After that, the men of the greatest physical ability should probably have the priority because of the need of them immediately after the survivors leave the shelter.  Books don't eat, drink or breathe.  Taking someone in just because of what he knows or what his profession is is not practical unless it is specific to the survival situation.  Keeping the gene puddle as deep as possible is probably the most important.  Nuns and priests take vows of celebicy; not helpful.

Something I have never fully understood is why people automatically presume the survival of the species is of paramount importance, in a group of 10 people cut of for an indefinite period of time in an extremely adverse situation breeding is IMO not a priority.

I'm picturing them being a bunch of wacky cultists who for no real reason think the world is ending in three days.  The reason they go up to me and talk about a "nuke" is just so I think thay're slightly less nutty.

I really can't do this unless I know the sexes of everyone involved.  I'm assuming that 4 females and 3 males would be the ideal here?

Funkmaster_A:

I'm picturing them being a bunch of wacky cultists who for no real reason think the world is ending in three days.

Hahaha.  "You have to tell us what you think we should DOOOOOO !"