quick philosophy question

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, and I consider the best way to measure value of life (assuming no special information) is to simply estimate how many years they have left to live. By this measure the 5 year old wins easily.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, it seems that the question has been answered as who is more valuable to ME. As opposed to which ones life is more valuable to themselves. Which person has a better chance of affecting the lives of individuals not part of the question, in this case meaning the responder and asigner of value. I don't believe it is correct to respond that way when the question is about the value of life. It seems like if we rephrased the question "would you rather be 5 or 90?", we would get a better answer to the OP. I'd like to see the poeple in your class respond that they don't have a preference on being 5 or being 90.

[hashi92]

a 5 year olds life is full of potential

a 90 year olds life is full of memories and regrets

[cambraceres]

A five year old's life WILL be full of memories and regrets, however with the child, society must feel the effects of his/her actions, whereas the geriatric has little effect in that sense.

So what would Nietzhe say?

In practicality, I would choose the child because it would likely be easier to save with less risk. Now if they both appeared docile I'm not sure, it would probably come down to an emotional decision.

Cam

[coltrainSTL]

I seriously think most 90 year olds would agree that a 5 year olds life is more valuable.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously think most 90 year olds would agree that a 5 year olds life is more valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, this makes them correct.