[Wizard]

Like the rise of all ideologies, feminism has had effects that span the entire width of culture. One of the most troubling aspects at least is the degradation of certain masculine responsibilities.

This for example...

Link

Quote:

Fights broke out to get into the lifeboats, men refused to prioritise women, expectant mothers and children as they pushed themselves forward to escape. Crew ignored their passengers – leaving ‘chefs and waiters’ to help out.

In heart-rending footage, recorded on mobile phones, British children could be heard shouting ‘Daddy’ and ‘Mummy’ in the melee.

This seems to be an example of a culture that demands excessive equality, and the results are not pretty. Now I have no gilded delusions about what masculinity was like in yester year, to many guys tend to idealize the 1950's and forget the many downsides that culture bred.

I do draw the line though here, regardless of what shrill feminists scream or how many women sing annoying empowerment songs, etc. A man has certain fundamental responsibilities in my view. Leaving children, and pregnant women on a sinking ship to die is an abject failure of that responsiblity in my book.

I'm usually hesitant to place moral judgements on victims of natural disasters like this because hindsight is 20/20 and etc. All I can honestly hope for is that my actions match my rhetoric if I'm ever placed in a situation like that.

Still I hope that any man who did that takes a long hard look at himself, and what he has become. It also might be optimistic to hope that all those feminists might take a moment to see some of the results blossomed from their insane demands.

[UrbanNerd]

This may sound bad but I would definitely prioritize children and pregnant women because I would NEVER be able to sleep a night....but non-pregnant women??

I could sleep.

[Wizard]

(01-16-2012 03:00 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

This may sound bad but I would definitely prioritize children and pregnant women because I would NEVER be able to sleep a night....but non-pregnant women??

I could sleep.

It doesn't sound as bad you might think, when a culture demands equality it's not really surprising that men would act like that. It's only a natural consequence of destroying certain masculine roles.

[Tuthmosis]

(01-16-2012 03:00 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

This may sound bad but I would definitely prioritize children and pregnant women because I would NEVER be able to sleep a night....but non-pregnant women??

I could sleep.

Pregnant women don't deserve extra consideration. Getting knocked up is no special accomplishment and an unborn fetus--who may turn out to be retarded, a still-born, or a noncontributing member of society--has a lot less value than I do. Decades of wisdom, ability, and potential--honed by countless hours of my own invested hard work and those around me--thrown away to save some random broad that merely spread her legs? Fuck that shit. I'm not some old man who's lived a full life. I'm a man in the prime of his life. The average kid or pregnant woman simply lacks my value. If that kid is from my family or has verified value, I may consider making a sacrifice. Otherwise, it's a battle for the life boat, and guess whose hours in the gym are going to be paying off right around then?

[YoungGunner]

I can't say what I'd do in that situation, but the idea that a man has to defer a means of escape to a woman was flawed even when it was founded. There's no reason a person should be condemned to death because he was born with a dick, and another allowed to live because she was born with a vagina; without getting into a discussion on who contributes more to society. It's deciding peoples' fates based on things they can't control.

[jariel]

[Wizard]

(01-16-2012 05:12 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 03:00 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

This may sound bad but I would definitely prioritize children and pregnant women because I would NEVER be able to sleep a night....but non-pregnant women??

I could sleep.

Pregnant women don't deserve extra consideration. Getting knocked up is no special accomplishment and an unborn fetus--who may turn out to be retarded, a still-born, or a noncontributing member of society--has a lot less value than I do. Decades of wisdom, ability, and potential--honed by countless hours of my own invested hard work and those around me--thrown away to save some random broad that merely spread her legs? Fuck that shit. I'm not some old man who's lived a full life. I'm a man in the prime of his life. The average kid or pregnant woman simply lacks my value. If that kid is from my family or has verified value, I may consider making a sacrifice. Otherwise, it's a battle for the life boat, and guess whose hours in the gym are going to be paying off right around then?

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

When so many moral areas seem gray today, there are some which need to be clearly marked with a big red line.

Just my opinion.

[Roosh]

Logically, there is no reason for children to get priority.

The book American Psycho describes it best, saying that while a child has potential to live a meaningful life, an older person is already living that potential. More grief is cast upon the dead adult who has responsibilities, larger social network, and more family members (including dependents) than a child.

If I was on a sinking cruise ship and it was either me or some 5 year old boy who still wets his bed occasionally, he's going to have to fight me for the last seat. I have a popular blog to maintain, damn it.

[Basil Ransom]

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

When so many moral areas seem gray today, there are some which need to be clearly marked with a big red line.

Just my opinion.

The whole notion of women first probably has its origins in the fact that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

But that isn't really the case today any more. We're not on the verge of becoming extinct, and there's enough food for everyone, at least in developed countries. Even if everyone had one child, or half of us never bore children, it wouldn't be the end of the us.

In a situation like this, rationing is inevitable. You could argue all day about what puts one person over another on the "save my ass" list. Things like creativity, character, productiveness, intelligence, and even beauty ("From fairest creatures we desire increase...") might make the list. But women aren't so scarce as to supersede all men.

[Tuthmosis]

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Wanna bet? And, let's get this straight: I didn't condemn her to death--circumstances doomed us both. I'm more-than-willing to help a stranger in distress (in fact, I have), but I'm not willing to condemn myself to death simply because some old, discredited convention bids me to.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

There's a difference between masculinity and chivalry. I'm afraid you've confused the two. There are plenty of non-masculine men willing to sacrifice their lives for another human being simply because that person happens to have a vagina. I--and I'm willing to bet the majority of the men in this forum are willing to join me in this--am not among them. Chivalry, like its requisite--but often neglected--other half (traditional lady-like behavior), is dead.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

From your own description, it takes a lot more courage to look at another human being and choose yourself. If you're right that society will shun me, it takes balls to face them and say, "fuck you." It takes a man to do the unpopular. It takes a coward to genuflect to society's pressure and do what's "right" to others and not himself. I can help my fellow man a lot more alive than dead for some random broad on the street.

This isn't selfishness. This is knowing that I'm a valuable citizen and man.

[Lemmo]

The "women first" ethic makes sense in the context of a society where their inferiority is acknowledged and institutionalized. In that case, men have basically accepted responsibility to take care of the inferior sex. In a society where they are presumed equal such as modern America, no responsibility to defer to them arises.

[hydrogonian]

Oh, feminsits definately want to be given first "lifeboat priority" as women.

They just also want all of the other priveledges that men used to enjoy for their sacrifices to women. Now, men are expected to sacrifice, treat women like ladies, treat women as having more inherent value (the lifeboat), and not recieve any "thank you in the way of social priveledge (workplace priority, loyal non-whore wives, feminine women who fulfilla traditional role, etc.)

[Vitriol]

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

When so many moral areas seem gray today, there are some which need to be clearly marked with a big red line.

Just my opinion.

Although well intentioned, these notions of moral duty will cause you to get taken advantage of every time. There are always plenty of people willing to take your place in that lifeboat if you let them.

You're trying to assert a positive moral value to self-sacrifice. Isn't it convenient how the person who sacrifices himself is never around to see the consequences of what he's done?

[gringochileno]

I tend to be pretty generous and altruistic in most circumstances (I lean pretty utilitarian in my ethics and I'll probably end up donating 15-20% of my income to charity) but one area in which I think people have a right to be at least somewhat selfish is when their own lives hang in the balance. It's one thing to say that you should be obligated to help others when you can do great good at relatively little cost to yourself and quite another to say that you should be condemned for not making literally the ultimate sacrifice (I don't believe in an afterlife so sacrificing your own life is pretty close to the ultimate cost you could impose on yourself as far as I'm concerned), especially when what you would accomplish by doing so is of comparable value to what you're giving up (e.g. saving one other person's life).

If you could save (say) 1,000 people's lives by sacrificing your own you would have a much stronger argument that you should be obligated to do so, but in this case you can really only save one person by giving up your seat on the lifeboat. Think about choices people make every day, like throwing that letter from an aid agency in the trash instead of sending in $20 to keep a few kids from starving, and then tell me that refusing to condemn yourself to death in order to save some chick or a 5 year-old kid from the same fate is such an unforgivable offense.

You might be able to make an argument for the kid on utilitarian grounds since children have more of their life to look forward to, and I'm not disputing that giving your life to save another is an extremely admirable thing, but I think it's equally absurd to say that we have an obligation to value another's life above our own in this kind of disaster scenario. In all likelihood I would be getting mine and doing what's necessary to get on a lifeboat if I were on a sinking ship.

With regard to pregnant women, I don't give a fuck any more than I would prioritize someone based on the fact that they have a vagina (which is just silly). It's not like you're dooming a kid to grow up as an orphan, the fetus is going down with the ship too.

[lurker123123]

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 05:12 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 03:00 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

This may sound bad but I would definitely prioritize children and pregnant women because I would NEVER be able to sleep a night....but non-pregnant women??

I could sleep.

Pregnant women don't deserve extra consideration. Getting knocked up is no special accomplishment and an unborn fetus--who may turn out to be retarded, a still-born, or a noncontributing member of society--has a lot less value than I do. Decades of wisdom, ability, and potential--honed by countless hours of my own invested hard work and those around me--thrown away to save some random broad that merely spread her legs? Fuck that shit. I'm not some old man who's lived a full life. I'm a man in the prime of his life. The average kid or pregnant woman simply lacks my value. If that kid is from my family or has verified value, I may consider making a sacrifice. Otherwise, it's a battle for the life boat, and guess whose hours in the gym are going to be paying off right around then?

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

When so many moral areas seem gray today, there are some which need to be clearly marked with a big red line.

Just my opinion.

your argument boils down to the man should sacrifice himself because "its the right thing to do", "because society says so." because its the "masculine" thing to do. none of those are logical arguments, give us a logical argument

[el mechanico]

It's funny that all the chivalry stuff is in place to get pussy but, you're not going to get any while you're dead. I'm not a big fan of women when it come to life or death situations they will throw you under the bus every time.

Now as far as my daughter goes? I'm her No.1 superfan. I would let a whole cruise ship go down before she even got a scratch on her.

When or if you have your own kids think of this comment.

[Wizard]

(01-16-2012 06:44 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Wanna bet? And, let's get this straight: I didn't condemn her to death--circumstances doomed us both. I'm more-than-willing to help a stranger in distress (in fact, I have), but I'm not willing to condemn myself to death simply because some old, discredited convention bids me to.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

There's a difference between masculinity and chivalry. I'm afraid you've confused the two. There are plenty of non-masculine men willing to sacrifice their lives for another human being simply because that person happens to have a vagina. I--and I'm willing to bet the majority of the men in this forum are willing to join me in this--am not among them. Chivalry, like its requisite--but often neglected--other half (traditional lady-like behavior), is dead.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

From your own description, it takes a lot more courage to look at another human being and choose yourself. If you're right that society will shun me, it takes balls to face them and say, "fuck you." It takes a man to do the unpopular. It takes a coward to genuflect to society's pressure and do what's "right" to others and not himself. I can help my fellow man a lot more alive than dead for some random broad on the street.

This isn't selfishness. This is knowing that I'm a valuable citizen and man.

Moral choices are of course the province of each man.

While I still find think it's a bit easier to hypothetically talk about what one might do when there not staring down at some random stranger, I will for the sake of argument simply believe you when you say you'll fight for a seat on the life boat.

This also isn't a rehashed version of chivalry, but a simple moral choice. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I condemned some pregnant women to death, and make no mistake that is what you're doing. We have no control over outside events, say a ship hitting an iceberg, but we do have control over how we respond to those events.

We can choose to aid said women, and increase her chances of survival or we can choose not to. By not choosing to help her, we've most likely condemned her to death, and that is a decision you've made.

There is in my mind a big difference between being some starry-eyed beta walking around worshipping the cult of women, and making a choice to potentially give up your life in an extraordinary situation.

Make no mistake, I would fight to survive in the context that I would be dog paddling or doing whatever I could. I refuse though to try to justify my existence by contributing to the death of a pregnant female.

The idea goes against the grain, and my own sense of morality.

Like I said moral choices are the province of each man, and the consequences of those choices are theres to shoulder. For me personally though, there are simply some things worse than death.

[gringochileno]

(01-16-2012 07:09 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:44 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Wanna bet? And, let's get this straight: I didn't condemn her to death--circumstances doomed us both. I'm more-than-willing to help a stranger in distress (in fact, I have), but I'm not willing to condemn myself to death simply because some old, discredited convention bids me to.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

There's a difference between masculinity and chivalry. I'm afraid you've confused the two. There are plenty of non-masculine men willing to sacrifice their lives for another human being simply because that person happens to have a vagina. I--and I'm willing to bet the majority of the men in this forum are willing to join me in this--am not among them. Chivalry, like its requisite--but often neglected--other half (traditional lady-like behavior), is dead.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

From your own description, it takes a lot more courage to look at another human being and choose yourself. If you're right that society will shun me, it takes balls to face them and say, "fuck you." It takes a man to do the unpopular. It takes a coward to genuflect to society's pressure and do what's "right" to others and not himself. I can help my fellow man a lot more alive than dead for some random broad on the street.

This isn't selfishness. This is knowing that I'm a valuable citizen and man.

Moral choices are of course the province of each man.

While I still find think it's a bit easier to hypothetically talk about what one might do when there not staring down at some random stranger, I will for the sake of argument simply believe you when you say you'll fight for a seat on the life boat.

This also isn't a rehashed version of chivalry, but a simple moral choice. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I condemned some pregnant women to death, and make no mistake that is what you're doing. We have no control over outside events, say a ship hitting an iceberg, but we do have control over how we respond to those events.

We can choose to aid said women, and increase her chances of survival or we can choose not to. By not choosing to help her, we've most likely condemned her to death, and that is a decision you've made.

There is in my mind a big difference between being some starry-eyed beta walking around worshipping the cult of women, and making a choice to potentially give up your life in an extraordinary situation.

Make no mistake, I would fight to survive in the context that I would be dog paddling or doing whatever I could. I refuse though to try to justify my existence by contributing to the death of a pregnant female.

The idea goes against the grain, and my own sense of morality.

Like I said moral choices are the province of each man, and the consequences of those choices are theres to shoulder. For me personally though, there are simply some things worse than death.

Why does it matter what gender they are? Why does it matter whether they're pregnant or not?

[Gmac]

You only get one shot in life. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for some random person (woman/child or not), if it were a "them or me" situation.

[mofo]

(01-16-2012 06:32 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Logically, there is no reason for children to get priority.

The book American Psycho describes it best, saying that while a child has potential to live a meaningful life, an older person is already living that potential. More grief is cast upon the dead adult who has responsibilities, larger social network, and more family members (including dependents) than a child.

If I was on a sinking cruise ship and it was either me or some 5 year old boy who still wets his bed occasionally, he's going to have to fight me for the last seat. I have a popular blog to maintain, damn it.

You speak the truth Roosh.

[MikeCF]

I wonder how many of the, "I could never live with myself" guys have read Peter Singer?

Each day you make multiple decisions that, had you chosen differently, would have saved a life:

http://www.readings.com.au/review/the-li...ter-singer

Save me your moralistic bullshit. We are all killers who chose ourselves over others.

[Wizard]

(01-16-2012 07:16 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 07:09 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:44 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Wanna bet? And, let's get this straight: I didn't condemn her to death--circumstances doomed us both. I'm more-than-willing to help a stranger in distress (in fact, I have), but I'm not willing to condemn myself to death simply because some old, discredited convention bids me to.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

There's a difference between masculinity and chivalry. I'm afraid you've confused the two. There are plenty of non-masculine men willing to sacrifice their lives for another human being simply because that person happens to have a vagina. I--and I'm willing to bet the majority of the men in this forum are willing to join me in this--am not among them. Chivalry, like its requisite--but often neglected--other half (traditional lady-like behavior), is dead.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

From your own description, it takes a lot more courage to look at another human being and choose yourself. If you're right that society will shun me, it takes balls to face them and say, "fuck you." It takes a man to do the unpopular. It takes a coward to genuflect to society's pressure and do what's "right" to others and not himself. I can help my fellow man a lot more alive than dead for some random broad on the street.

This isn't selfishness. This is knowing that I'm a valuable citizen and man.

Moral choices are of course the province of each man.

While I still find think it's a bit easier to hypothetically talk about what one might do when there not staring down at some random stranger, I will for the sake of argument simply believe you when you say you'll fight for a seat on the life boat.

This also isn't a rehashed version of chivalry, but a simple moral choice. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I condemned some pregnant women to death, and make no mistake that is what you're doing. We have no control over outside events, say a ship hitting an iceberg, but we do have control over how we respond to those events.

We can choose to aid said women, and increase her chances of survival or we can choose not to. By not choosing to help her, we've most likely condemned her to death, and that is a decision you've made.

There is in my mind a big difference between being some starry-eyed beta walking around worshipping the cult of women, and making a choice to potentially give up your life in an extraordinary situation.

Make no mistake, I would fight to survive in the context that I would be dog paddling or doing whatever I could. I refuse though to try to justify my existence by contributing to the death of a pregnant female.

The idea goes against the grain, and my own sense of morality.

Like I said moral choices are the province of each man, and the consequences of those choices are theres to shoulder. For me personally though, there are simply some things worse than death.

Why does it matter what gender they are? Why does it matter whether they're pregnant or not?

For me? Because men are biologically stronger than women, and would have a greater chance of surviving, and ethically it just does. I have no delusions about the many failures of modern females, but the idea of allowing a pregnant women to die... just appalls me. Like I said this is a choice each man must make for himself, I respect the men of this forum. I just could not personally make the choice that seems to be the majority one most would make around here.

Quote:

Save me your moralistic bullshit. We are all killers who chose ourselves over others.

There is nothing wrong with a man having a moral code, or a set of beliefs. It helps him know who he is, and what he stands for. Your free of course to disagree with one man's particular views on morality, there is nothing wrong with having one.

Quote:

You only get one shot in life. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for some random person (woman/child or not), if it were a "them or me" situation.

No one knows what happens after death, and you could be very well right that you only get the one shot. Fundamentally though in situation so rare like being a boat, and having it sink, my own personal code and views on manhood simply wouldn't allow me to take specific actions is all.

[UrbanNerd]

As Wizard said...."Moral choices are of course the province of each man."

So unless one has some OFFICIAL BOOK of law of ethics, this topic (as with many others on this forum) is purely subjective.

[Wizard]

(01-16-2012 07:24 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 07:16 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 07:09 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:44 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Declarations like these seem easier when you're not staring in the face of a women you've potentially condemned to death because you think your life holds more value, even if you could... I find it abhorrent.

Wanna bet? And, let's get this straight: I didn't condemn her to death--circumstances doomed us both. I'm more-than-willing to help a stranger in distress (in fact, I have), but I'm not willing to condemn myself to death simply because some old, discredited convention bids me to.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

Society might blissfully choose to decry masculinity, or anything associated with it but that doesn't mean that I have to join the club. Also you would be ostracized by society in general for such an action.

There's a difference between masculinity and chivalry. I'm afraid you've confused the two. There are plenty of non-masculine men willing to sacrifice their lives for another human being simply because that person happens to have a vagina. I--and I'm willing to bet the majority of the men in this forum are willing to join me in this--am not among them. Chivalry, like its requisite--but often neglected--other half (traditional lady-like behavior), is dead.

(01-16-2012 06:20 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

A man has to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday, and do so with pride. If I ever took the action you advocated, I honestly hope I have enough dignity left to put a bullet to my brain for acting like such a coward.

From your own description, it takes a lot more courage to look at another human being and choose yourself. If you're right that society will shun me, it takes balls to face them and say, "fuck you." It takes a man to do the unpopular. It takes a coward to genuflect to society's pressure and do what's "right" to others and not himself. I can help my fellow man a lot more alive than dead for some random broad on the street.

This isn't selfishness. This is knowing that I'm a valuable citizen and man.

Moral choices are of course the province of each man.

While I still find think it's a bit easier to hypothetically talk about what one might do when there not staring down at some random stranger, I will for the sake of argument simply believe you when you say you'll fight for a seat on the life boat.

This also isn't a rehashed version of chivalry, but a simple moral choice. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I condemned some pregnant women to death, and make no mistake that is what you're doing. We have no control over outside events, say a ship hitting an iceberg, but we do have control over how we respond to those events.

We can choose to aid said women, and increase her chances of survival or we can choose not to. By not choosing to help her, we've most likely condemned her to death, and that is a decision you've made.

There is in my mind a big difference between being some starry-eyed beta walking around worshipping the cult of women, and making a choice to potentially give up your life in an extraordinary situation.

Make no mistake, I would fight to survive in the context that I would be dog paddling or doing whatever I could. I refuse though to try to justify my existence by contributing to the death of a pregnant female.

The idea goes against the grain, and my own sense of morality.

Like I said moral choices are the province of each man, and the consequences of those choices are theres to shoulder. For me personally though, there are simply some things worse than death.

Why does it matter what gender they are? Why does it matter whether they're pregnant or not?

For me? Because men are biologically stronger than women, and would have a greater chance of surviving, and ethically it just does. I have no delusions about the many failures of modern females, but the idea of allowing a pregnant women to die... just appalls me. Like I said this is a choice each man must make for himself, I respect the men of this forum. I just could not personally make the choice that seems to be the majority one most would make around here.

Quote:

Save me your moralistic bullshit. We are all killers who chose ourselves over others.

There is nothing wrong with a man having a moral code, or a set of beliefs. It helps him know who he is, and what he stands far. Your free of course to disagree with one man's particular views on morality, there is nothing wrong with having one.

Quote:

You only get one shot in life. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for some random person (woman/child or not), if it were a "them or me" situation.

No one knows what happens after death, and you could be very well right that you only get the one shot. Fundamentally though in situation so rare like being a boat, and having it sink, my own personal code and views on manhood simply wouldn't allow me to take specific actions is all.

Quote:

So unless one has some OFFICIAL BOOK of law of ethics, this topic (as with many others on this forum) is purely subjective.

He makes a good point, most arguments on hypothetical morality situations are subjective.

Quote:

You could also argue that choosing the woman/child over yourself shows low self worth. You think you have such small potential to do good, and have contributed so little to well-being of the world, that a stranger who you know nothing about is worth more to the world than you.

It has nothing to do with the other person, it's about my own ethical code and the rules I've chosen to govern my life by. What's the point of having a code if you can violate it whenever the going gets a bit tough?

Post Edit- Sorry didn't mean to double post

[YoungGunner]

You could also argue that choosing the woman/child over yourself shows low self worth. You think you have such small potential to do good, and have contributed so little to well-being of the world, that a stranger who you know nothing about is worth more to the world than you.

If I knew I could do more good than anyone else on that boat, even though it would be painful, I would take their spot on the raft, and do it with little regret knowing it was for the greater good.