Is the life of a Child more precious than an Adults?

[Lord Porpington]

I think we can all agree that anyone who takes advantage of a child in certain ways is a sick f***.

Children deserve extra protection because they are vulnerable. They need to be looked out for more carefully.

However, the way society looks at it these days, they make it out like the life of a Child is more significant and precious and should be valued more than the life of an adult. It's quite ridiculous how if everyone was given the choice to choose to save a 3 year old or a 25 year old, the majority choose the 3 year old simply because it's a kid.

That 25 year old may not be a quarter of the way through his/her life yet! Who's to say that kid is going to grow up and benefit society more? If it was the life of a little kid vs the life of an old person who has already lived most of their life, then I'd understand, but I really don't get how a Child's life is more important than the life of an Adults, simply because it's a Child.

It's a young version of it's older self. That's it. It's not special or precious. Having children can be a wonderful thing and can change the life of the people involved in raising them. But that does not mean that the childs life should automatically be valued more highly than the life of someone who is an adult.

[Dr. Bishop]

However, the way society looks at it these days, they make it out like the life of a Child is more significant and precious and should be valued more than the life of an adult. It's quite ridiculous how if everyone was given the choice to choose to save a 3 year old or a 25 year old, the majority choose the 3 year old simply because it's a kid.

...

Children deserve extra protection because they are vulnerable. They need to be looked out for more carefully.

You have kind of destroyed your own argument there. Our instinct as humans is to protect the weakest. A child below the age of ~7 is not going to fully understand a situation, whereas an adult will. Therefore, reason suggests that an adult is more likely to save his/her own life without the help of someone else, or at the very least survive longer so there is a possibility of saving both. This of course refers to a situation where they are both in equal danger.

[Lord Porpington]

However, the way society looks at it these days, they make it out like the life of a Child is more significant and precious and should be valued more than the life of an adult. It's quite ridiculous how if everyone was given the choice to choose to save a 3 year old or a 25 year old, the majority choose the 3 year old simply because it's a kid.

...

Children deserve extra protection because they are vulnerable. They need to be looked out for more carefully.

You have kind of destroyed your own argument there. Our instinct as humans is to protect the weakest. A child below the age of ~7 is not going to fully understand a situation, whereas an adult will. Therefore, reason suggests that an adult is more likely to save his/her own life without the help of someone else, or at the very least survive longer so there is a possibility of saving both. This of course refers to a situation where they are both in equal danger.

I did not destroy my own argument actually.

I stated that Children deserve extra protection because they are vulnerable, just like physically and mentally disabled people. That's different to treating their lives as if they are more valuable than an able bodied adults.

I would try to help a little kid that's drowning in the sea before helping an adult, because it's less likely to be able to fend for itself, but if I was put in a situation where one would definitely live and one would definitely die, and I had to choose, I'd not necessarily choose the kid simply because it's a kid.

That's my point. Yes, Kids deserve extra protection, but that does not mean their lives are more valuable and precious than an adults.

[Dr. Bishop]

...



You have kind of destroyed your own argument there. Our instinct as humans is to protect the weakest. A child below the age of ~7 is not going to fully understand a situation, whereas an adult will. Therefore, reason suggests that an adult is more likely to save his/her own life without the help of someone else, or at the very least survive longer so there is a possibility of saving both. This of course refers to a situation where they are both in equal danger.

I did not destroy my own argument actually.

I stated that Children deserve extra protection because they are vulnerable, just like physically and mentally disabled people. That's different to treating their lives as if they are more valuable than an able bodied adults.

I would try to help a little kid that's drowning in the sea before helping an adult, because it's less likely to be able to fend for itself, but if I was put in a situation where one would definitely live and one would definitely die, and I had to choose, I'd not necessarily choose the kid simply because it's a kid.

That's my point. Yes, Kids deserve extra protection, but that does not mean their lives are more valuable and precious than an adults.

My point was merely in regards to the quoted parts and not the whole topic, and I did describe the equal chance scenario.

Back to the point, I would say the majority of people would make an instinctive calculation as to whether it is actually possible/impossible to save someone before they act upon it.

I also agree with you in that no life is worth more than another, no matter of age, gender, riches, education. Only certain crimes would diminish my view on that.

Edit: Just realised the initial quote contained the sentence about how people value life as well. My bad .

[Amnesiac]

It's quite ridiculous how if everyone was given the choice to choose to save a 3 year old or a 25 year old, the majority choose the 3 year old simply because it's a kid.

A 25 year old has a greater chance of saving itself than a 3 year old though

[Lord Porpington]

It's quite ridiculous how if everyone was given the choice to choose to save a 3 year old or a 25 year old, the majority choose the 3 year old simply because it's a kid.

A 25 year old has a greater chance of saving itself than a 3 year old though

But I'm talking about a situation where one is definitely going to live and one is definitely going to do, and you have to choose who lives or dies.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

I think the argument goes that a 25 has had some life experiences and made some choices to be where they are. Whereas the child hasn't. Maybe it's more tragic that the child has never been able to experience that, denied so much life experience.
In the hypothetical dichotomy you put forward, I struggle to get a convincing argument of why one is better other than a gut instinct. Is that instinct just culturally instilled? I'd tend to believe we are built to feel a sense of protection towards kids that is hard to shake. In the same way that if a male and female 25 year old were in that situation, many would try and save the women first without knowing why.

[TJR]

A 25 year old has a greater chance of saving itself than a 3 year old though

But I'm talking about a situation where one is definitely going to live and one is definitely going to do, and you have to choose who lives or dies.

All you can go on is the age of the person though. If the one you picked was going to be saved and the other was going to die and all you knew were the ages of the people then you can't really make the choice on anything other than 1 person has experienced life for 25 years, the other for 3 so I'd save the 3 year old to let them have the opportunity to go and experience life. Its not because they are a kid its because they are younger, if it was an 42 year old and a 25 year old I'd save the 25 year old. There is nothing else to make the decision on.

[Dr. Bishop]

A 25 year old has a greater chance of saving itself than a 3 year old though

But I'm talking about a situation where one is definitely going to live and one is definitely going to do, and you have to choose who lives or dies.

In the case where it is equal chance to save both but one has to die, I can almost guarantee that 90% of the 25 year olds in said situation would say save the child.

As I said in a previous post, we instinctively protect the most vulnerable in these sort of situations.

[PTAO?]

But I'm talking about a situation where one is definitely going to live and one is definitely going to do, and you have to choose who lives or dies.

In the case where it is equal chance to save both but one has to die, I can almost guarantee that 90% of the 25 year olds in said situation would say save the child.

As I said in a previous post, we instinctively protect the most vulnerable in these sort of situations.

f*** that, save me!

[Dr. Bishop]

In the case where it is equal chance to save both but one has to die, I can almost guarantee that 90% of the 25 year olds in said situation would say save the child.

As I said in a previous post, we instinctively protect the most vulnerable in these sort of situations.

f*** that, save me!

Your a low life murderous bastard, why should I?

[PTAO?]

f*** that, save me!

Your a low life murderous bastard, why should I?

Fair