comment: >
  
  Although I don't think we can measure individual people's lifes worth against each other, you do have some fair points there. That being said, as a 30yo I'd be totally fine with society abandoning me for whoever-else, since my life is past that point where I consider it fulfilled.
context: I’m so confused by this. Are you saying they’re expendable or is this just a rephrasing of the cable car ethical question?
  Should you save a young person or an old person? Should you cause the death of 1 person if it means saving 5? >
  
  Honestly, I hate these types of questions, because no matter what you say, someone will be upset, and it doesn't actually do anything, considering you rarely know how someone is actually going to react.
  Just like the question of 'your pet or a random stranger' it only serves to get people upset when someone answers differently :P >
  
  They are thought experiments. The point is to create discussion and elicit emotions >
  
  Yeah, but only among people who *want* them, these questions are just being basically used, on places like Reddit, to show one side or the other as 'horrible people'.
  If you are in a philosophy class or something like that, where such a question is relevant? sure, but on a site like Reddit, it just causes arguments and bad feelings. >
  
  I never thought I'd hear the argument made on Reddit that we should avoid certain topics because they lead to arguments.  Having an argument is basically half the reason to be on this site. On this particular sub, it's closer to 100%. >
  
  I don't really think they should be avoided, I just don't see the point of this particular argument.
  It is entirely hypothetical
  It probably also has nothing to what would actually happen in real life (ie, who would you rescue? probably no one in real life)
  The scenarios are typically set up to get *someone* upset.  The most popular I have seen is 'would you save your pet or a random stranger' and the minute someone says 'pet' they immediately get jumped and told they are a bad person for putting an animal's life over a human (which then gets counter jumped by the 'humans aren't inheritally more valuable crowd) and it just goes over and over.
  I prefer arguments where the sides are willing to listen to the other side is saying rather. (which granted most people don't want to, but this particular argument seems to get them even more entrenched)
  Edit: Basically I feel these are just low effort karma farms/rage bait... >
  
  Let me show this to my granny >
  
  Elderly people who value themselves and their own lives above all else are arguably unduly selfish. They've already lived full and long lives. >
  
  Nope. My granny >> your 30 year old ass with a God complex. >
  
  People have kinship bias. Big whoop.
  What if someone had to choose between an 80 year old granny and a 30 year old brother? >
  
  these type of hypotheticals are stupid >
  
  So many words to suggest utilitarianism. >
  
  Apparently this opinion is more unpopular than I thought. IMO, it’s the same reasoning behind why most people would save a kid instead of an adult if they could only save one. >
  
  Problem is, we go from "pick one life over another" to "kill this person because they don't matter" so easily. >
  
  Do you have a Soylent Green factory in your basement? >
  
  You're talking about 2 different things. 
  Saying that age plays a role in things like determining who to save from drowning or who to treat between 2 people with head injuries isn't anything unpopular. That's basically triaging. 
  That doesn't justify the economic or ideological premise of the elderly being more expendable in society anymore than it justifies the poor being expendable or people with disorders being expendable. >
  
  Yes but the 30 year old has a better chance of saving themselves than the 80 year old. If im in this position please save the person less likely to survive even if it isnt me. >
  
  You can have whatever opinion you wish.  (In this country -USA- at least).
  But the problem with this attitude is, that if it becomes more prevalent in society, people will establish laws/regulations and the Govt. or some regulatory agency will decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't.
  We (people) have no right playing God with lives. >
  
  Lmao yet we do all the time, government funding chooses who lives and dies far more than you’re crediting. >
  
  No, old people are treated as far too expendable as it is. What are young people even working for all these years if all they're going to be is cannon fodder when they're used up? 
  That old people consume more resources is untrue. An 80 year old has fewer years of resource consumption ahead than a 30 year old. Moreover, "Healthcare" isn't a resource; it is a service. Healthcare burns few commodities. Instead, wealth is redistributed to health care professionals who in turn redistribute it into the broader economy. >
  
  Healthcare triage is already a thing. One ventilator and two patients? The 80 year is not getting it, the 30 year old is. All things being equal, the elderly have the right to be live life comfortably. In a situation with short resources, they absolutely already get the short end of the stick. >
  
  I am 100% certain your opinion will change as you get older. >
  
  Yeah it probably will once they get older though I think his point stands that it’s more moral to save a younger person than an older person. I’d definitely want you to save an 18 year old over me when I’m 85 years old. >
  
  Fair enough I agree with you there. >
  
  The 30 year old is more likely to panic and end up drowning you both. The 80 year old will probably be too weak to thrash about and can be rescued safely. 
  What if the 30 year old is Pol Pot and the 80 year old is Nelson Mandela? >
  
  As much as everyone likes to believe old people are completely defenceless it could not be less true. Sure they are more feeble but they can hurt people, I have seen several old knock younger people out right on their ass lol.