Who scoffs at that? Don't most agree that children should be saved first? It used to be women and children, but now with women's rights movement and all...

14-50 year olds saved first, children next, then the elderly, then the terminally ill. If your going to use some kind of utilitarian argument you want to save those with the most immediate value in terms of skills, saving a 6 year old means you then have to commit more resources to keeping them alive till they are productive enough themselves. Saving a 20 year old usually means saving a productive worker who will help out with the saving of others and the clearing and rebuilding. You need to maximize those high leverage work hours.

I covered that, I think, I asked somewhere earlier for someone to give me the rationale that leads to "more money spent=more lives lost and more suffering." I wasnt claiming it was impossible that it was true, just that it seemed pretty unlikely to me. And that if that was SERIOUSLY the argument he wanted to make, he should make it.

BBC just did a report on the possibility that aid to Ethiopia could have funneled nearly $100 million to rebel groups participating in the civil war

Ethiopia famine aid spent on weapons

its a stupid whale... execute it

You're assuming a mass catastrophe of some sort. Explain the philosophy of saving the 50 year old before the 6 year old in an isolated incident or case by case basis where resources aren't an issue.

If resources aren't an issue then just save both.

C'mon. I meant future resources. The question Andy asked (as I understood it), is if a 50 year old and a 5 year old are in the way of a run away freight train, who would you save?

What reasons would you have to save the 50 year old in this scenario? You don't have to worry about the resources of raising the 5 year old, since we can assume he'll go home to his mother if saved. You don't have to worry about his resources in helping rebuild from the tragedy either.

You were assuming a catastrophe on a mass scale, in which case, you have a point about saving the 40 year old before the 6 year old. However, in the train scenario (and most scenarios), I don't see the logic in it.

I think we should be saved in order of income, since that shows our value to society. I always carry a copy of my W2s when traveling, just in case.