My perspective is also largely influenced by my Christian faith. But there does not seem to be a specific theological principle that applies in a useful way to this hypothetical. If you take the "all life has value" position (for example), it still doesn't tell you which of these lives to save.

And you really are playing right through with anecdotes:

It doesn't even matter whether these statements are true.

I agree with you, but this isn't relevant and nobody has made this claim.

In the scenario presented, you know nothing beyond the information provided. I notice that you haven't actually made an argument yourself for which you would have chosen. What would you do?

I didn't say I didn't use anecdotes. I said my questions have nothing to do with anecdotes. And yes, people have said the college guy offers more to society.

I save the child.

Still ignoring my questions. I suspect you have a Bachelors degree and I hurt your fragile ego by informing you that you aren't the savior of society as a result of your degree. Sorry about that.

People have said that from a financial perspective, people with Bachelors degrees are on average more productive than people without.

Nobody has said that they are a "more valuable asset" in some broad sense.

Because... ??

You're coming off as if you're the one with the fragile ego. Nobody has claimed that bachelor degrees are saving society.

Your "questions" were based on a flawed argument. Pointing that out should be all the answer required. If you want serious answers, post valid questions.

It is also interesting on who does the saving. Just to add some fuel to the flames, take an old Jesuit as the deciding savior. Using this Jesuit Motto: Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man; a Jesuit takes the 5-year old, every time*. And for their own draconian ends, if you wish to view it that way. Others may view it differently and find my use of the word draconian a bit much. So be it. Worldviews often clash, openly and in supposed secrecy.

* Of course I know that the Jesuit doesn't own the child etc, it's still an interesting thing to contemplate.

Every single one of my questions are valid and not predicated on the anecdotal statement I had made. Your evasiveness speaks volumes.

Yes they have and I'm surprised that you either can't see it or purposely ignore it.

The reason for the child is twofold: first, it's the concept of saving the innocent. Second, I think it's about longevity. Similar to why hospitals are more inclined to give organs to the young than the elderly. More bang for your buck, so to speak.

All have sinned. And not one is righteous, not even one. The child is no more innocent (morally speaking) than the adult. I don't find this argument to be Biblical.

What it feels like you're doing is a "women and children first" type of mentality, which is also not Biblical.

This isn't a Biblical argument, either.

Are you familiar with the age of accountability? Do you believe newborns who die go to hell?

Yes, but I find the theology of it to be a bit sketchy, depending on how exactly that "innocence" is understood.

But wouldn't this argument suggest that you *shouldn't* save the young child since their eternity is currently secure?

I believe God is graceful, merciful, kind, and understanding. Yes, the child was born in sin but I believe he will be saved if he were to die. I believe the child has sinned less in his short time alive than the other two have. For this, I believe him to be more innocent. But that doesn't mean I believe he should be one left to die simply because he will go to Heaven while the others may or may not. Consider all the lives that child will touch throughout his lifetime and the potential he has to bring many others to Christ. Certainly, he may not become a Christian but I don't want to be responsible for denying him the possibility of touching many lives and bringing many souls to Christ. It goes beyond who is most likely to go to Heaven but to who has the greatest potential to bring others to Him. Given the spiritual lack of information in the situation, common sense says to save the youngest.

So, you're measuring volumes of sin? And "more innocent" means "more worthy of life"?

I find this to be speculative and without merit.

So... there's literally nothing theologically Christian about your position at all. It's just "common sense."

Just because you find something "speculative and without merit" doesn't mean that my position is not based on my Christian beliefs. That just speaks to your own closed mindedness and refusal to accept my position. Your issue, not mine.

You continue to allude to a Biblical answer to this hypothetical situation. What, pray tell, is your Biblical answer?

You didn't really present an argument grounded in anything Biblical. It may be true that your position is based on your "Christian beliefs." But I'm not really arguing that. But that you classify them as "Christian beliefs" does not make them "Biblical" or "theologically Christian" (which could be either Biblically-based or based in traditional lines of theological thought) nor does it give them "merit."

The only part that was somewhat Biblical was when you tried to talk about innocence and the age of accountability, but then you just turned your back on the implications of that belief and went to "common sense."

There is no issue with rejecting your position. I'm just straight up rejecting it. The part that was quoted is speculative and without merit. And to be clear, I'm also rejecting that you've even made an argument about anything. You boiled down everything to "common sense" which really doesn't say anything at all.

I never alluded to a Biblical answer. In fact, I explicitly stated the exact opposite.

So I'm really not sure where you got your idea from.

As a non-believer who thinks this life is likely to be the only one we get I would save child > college senior > elderly person

Here is your post that I replied too.

It is clearly based on anecdotes and trying to argue against people talking about averages and trends.

"What if a person who doesn't have a bachelor degree is worth more than a worthless person with a bachelor's degree" (paraphrased) is not an interesting question. Obviously, pointing this out makes you angry. That's your problem.

The serious answer to your question is very obvious. "I've met jerks who once were children". Now your point is refuted by your own argumentation. Do you think I made a good argument? I don't.

"Because they are innocent" isnt really a reason. why is innocence a relevant factor in deciding?

Nope. Still being evasive.

It's absolutely a reason. To demonstrate this, suppose you have a convicted murderer drowning and a kindergarten teacher drowning. You can only save one. Who do you save? Obviously, it's not the same as the initial scenario but the concept of innocence still plays a role in your decision, does it not?

You can't argue, or even state, your opinion and you refuse to accept the rationale for my answer because you don't like it and feel it is without merit. So why are you even responding to me? Because I disagreed that someone's value and worth to society isn't measured by how much money they make? I just don't see your endgame plan with this discussion other than to attempt to insult and degrade without even accepting the basic premise of my response.

I believe your refusal is without merit and a cop out. Incidentally, why haven't you offered an answer to my questions or OPs question? It's easy to sit back and say you refuse to accept someone else's viewpoint because you don't like it while not sharing your own answers and opinions. Easy but cowardly. Certainly not a Biblical strategy.

It's great that you want to abandon your original logic ("I knew some college graduates and they were worthless" - paraphrased) and go on to argue a general point about "what constitutes worth". But you want to do it pretending you never presented a faulty argument and that me pointing it earlier out was a result of an inflated ego and being evasive. That's like saying "Officer... I did not drive while impaired and the the drinks I had are irrelevant, stop being an idiot".

And it now seems like you're stuck in an endless loop of parroting "evasive". It doesn't really change your original post, it is still there - and you still have failed to address your flawed argumentation. I wouldn't talk to loudly about "egos" if I were you.

1) I gave my opinion based on an analysis using the types of things that economists tend to use in this type of analysis.

2) "Common sense" is not a rationale. It's just a way of masking that you're just stating an opinion.

Because you wanted to know what Christians thought.

I'm challenging you on the idea that your belief is actually one based on theology. You have yet to demonstrate that.

You're free to believe what you choose. My assertion is that you have not presented anything Biblical to support your position.

Again, I really wonder whether you're actually reading anything. I've stated my answer to OP's question. I'm quite sure I've responded to most of your questions, but it's possible I've missed some.

This criticism comes up empty coming from someone who hasn't even made a Biblical argument for their own case.

Again, if you accept this idea of innocence as being relevant, but you also take the "age of accountability" into play, it seems to be a higher risk to save the child than to save the college senior because you risk the child's salvation.

Op, if God forbid you are one of the adults involved in the accident and still you are capable of doing something, what you will do?

A-help the child?
A-help the other adult?
C-take care of just yourself?

P.S. By the way, my answer to your question is: Instinctively I give the first aid to the child.