Tabling Adults vs Children for the moment:
Posit: All children are equally valuable and valued equally.
Consequence: People protect their children equally.
Result: Choosing a child to rescue in a hypothetical scenario will be randomly distributed equally.
Conclusion: The value of a child's life overrides circumstances as a rule.
Here's a question:
Scenario I
A woman crashes her car into the lake with her two children X and Q. They are equidistant from her on opposite radii. She can only reach one in time to save it. How does she choose? (They are gender-neutral for this example).
Now while you mull this one over, answer this question first:
What would you expect the outcome of this survey to be (if conducted properly and scientifically)? Would you expect:
A) an even 50/50 probability tail
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
Go ahead and answer now before reading ahead. I'll wait.
...
Scenario II
OK? Now let's try the question again, but in this example:
X is seven years old
Q is three months old
Would you expect:
A) an even 50/50 probability tail
B) a slight tendency toward one over the other (random)
C) a slight tendency toward one over the other (specific)
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
E) both drown because the woman loves them equally
(Please withhold any spoilers for now).
Ok, and now for the results....
Scenario I:
All things being equal, this one is a coin flip. There is no difference in these theoretical children that we can base a decision on. Perhaps you considered factors like
birth order,
gender,
whether they were twins, etc, but without these givens the test would come out to
A) an even 50/50 probability tail. The "let them both drown" option might remain a negligible statistical outlier. We'll know why in a moment.
Scenario II:
X is seven years old
Q is three months old
In this survey, the results are:
D) a vastly different skew toward one over the other
The results very clearly favor the choosing of one child over the other.
Final Solution:
Which one does she save?
Most participants favored the Seven Year Old.
Why?
And here is the crux of the matter. In evolutionary terms, the seven year old has already survived many common risks associated with infancy and toddlerhood. This child clearly has a
better pre-existing chance for overall survival. The infant still faces a multitude of threats to its survival. The mother intuitively, instantly and instinctually chooses the child with the best chance for - and here it is - reproductive fitness and survival of the species.
These are not higher-order moral choices; these choices sometimes cut to the most basic motivation of the human brain: survival. The options that give our genes the best chance for continuance. Everything else falls into that paradigm.
Posit: All children are equally valuable and valued equally.
FALSE
Consequence: People protect their children equally.
FALSE
Result: Choosing a child to rescue in a hypothetical scenario will be randomly distributed equally.
FALSE
Conclusion: The value of a child's life overrides circumstances as a rule.
FALSE
The protection of life is not a matter of status nor ethics.
It is, at the most fundamental, instinctual biological level, a function of genetic reproduction. Sometimes the parent saves themselves. Sometimes they save the child. (Proof: Ever hear a flight safety presentation advise parents to put oxygen masks on themselves before tending their children)?
Conclusion: Society values the continuation of the species above the status of its individual components.
