# Deserted Island

by tuco
Tags: deserted, island
 P: 11 so .. nobody wants to carve the pig for those guys? or is it a dumb question to ask how and why should they devide the pig? lets say they should devide the pig as equally as possible simply because they all worked together, according to their abilities, given task and momentary sutiation. anything else than equal division of the pig would be discriminatory~discriminating as in: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit - http://www.webster.com/ would anyone disagree with that statement? and if so why? edit: id like to stress that arguments of type "Einstien wouldnt eat pig..." are besides the point. we could just use person A,B,C,D,E instead but i found that boring.
 P: 14 Hello. If they didn't have some kind of prior agreement (formal or informal) as to how they would divide the bounty, then there's no way of saying how they would do it. Hitler and arguably SunTzu maybe and even Arnie if he's in his 'strong man' mode, might not even want a 'moral' or 'fair' solution. Hitler wouldn't even be predisposed to give anything to someone who he deemed as being 'weak' or less than human. Remember what the Nazis would have thought of Jews, Einstein being Jewish. So there's really no way of knowing. Ultimately, it seems you're simply asking everyones opinion as to what would constitute the proper, 'moral' outcome for this scenario in any case. Your question seems be the perennial one regarding what one does regarding 'free riders' but it also seems ask what the nature of authority is and how does the use of power affect the moral outcome of situations. My own answer is that they should divide it equally at first but that everyone in his own way must eventually contribute to some extent. That being said however, if it's the 'old Einstein' we're talking about, does one allow 'retirees' on the island, island-citizens who aren't expected to work for their share? Again, my answer would be yes, but they would have to agree to that at first. And, if some aren't predisposed to 'mutual agreement,' then who's to say what the outcome could be? It would merely be survival of the fittest. If one or a few first don't even 'believe in' or 'agree to' moral justice or fairness, then all bets are off anyway. Cheers, mrj
P: 44

## Deserted Island

If they were interested in maximizing their chance of survival it seems to me they ought to distribute it according to weight or according to expected energy output (most physical labor). I would also consider this to be the most "fair" or "moral" solution. Would they care (or think about) maximizing their odds of survival and/or come up with the same conclusion? I don't know. Maybe their odds are better with only four or three people.

edit: interesting, i realize in retrospect that i associated "their odds" with the best chance of keeping at least one person alive for the longest amount of time, as apposed to say, the whole group for the longest amount of time.
 P: 174 This is nothing that some paper-rock-scissors couldn't solve rather quickly. What would be more interesting is the moral dillemma they would be in if there was no pig and the had to determine who would be the first to be cannabalized first. That would no doubt be decided by a 4-way battle to the death unless one person willingly ageed to be the sacrifice. Arnie, being the leader as he is, should do the moral thing and offer himself up.
 P: 11 mrj - so your argument is based on "prior agreement"? that makes sense to me yes. however, there was no prior agreement in this hypothetical situation, nor "free riders" nor "retirees". the summary states the conditions present at the time. Greg825 - according to needs.. thats very good i think. how could we determine if their odds are better with only four or three? with the info we have its clear that if one of them would not cooperate they wouldnt have nothing to roast nor a shelter. RVBuckeye - paper-rock-scissors? is that what you would agree to or like in such situation? personally id be pretty mad if i wouldnt get my "fair" share simply beause i would be hungry.
P: 174
 Quote by tuco RVBuckeye - paper-rock-scissors? is that what you would agree to or like in such situation? personally id be pretty mad if i wouldnt get my "fair" share simply beause i would be hungry.
One pig could feed 4 grown men, with food to spare probably. If there is a food source on the island, I don't think they would even fight over who got what.
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 6,238 There was exactly such kind of situation displayed in some reality TV programme over here. People with totally different temperaments were released, without anything else but their clothes, on a deserted island...
 P: 11 vanesch> was there any kind of reward for the participants of the "reality" TV programme for their participation? RVBuckeye> ok since you seem to resist ;) you avoided my question. lets try one more time and lets try to picture yourself as one of those 5 (not 4 btw) men ok? say you are .. who you want to be? i will be Arnie and you will be Enrique if thats ok. i say: the whole pig is mine! you want a piece you have to fight me for it! or you know what? i will share with all of you but Enrique. what do you do? how would you feel? btw if there was no pig and they had to kill and eat each other to survive, i dont think there would be any dilema at all... survival of the fittest would solve such situation. however, survival of the fittest princile has little to do with morals.
P: 174
 Quote by tuco RVBuckeye> ok since you seem to resist ;) you avoided my question. lets try one more time and lets try to picture yourself as one of those 5 (not 4 btw) men ok? say you are .. who you want to be? i will be Arnie and you will be Enrique if thats ok. i say: the whole pig is mine! you want a piece you have to fight me for it! or you know what? i will share with all of you but Enrique. what do you do? how would you feel?
Reisistance is futile....
OK, what are enriques options? Option one, Enrique could propose to solve the situation by rock-paper-scissors. For the desired result of cooperations and survivability of all. (he is an artist you know, very compassionate)
Oprion 2- Get his own pig. This could possibly lead to several outcomes. If he kept it all to himself, he risks angering the rest of the group by not aiding in their survival. Also, he could share with the rest of the group, even Arinie (you), and raise his leadership status among the group. I doubt he would try to exclude Arnie, if he tried to share, because that wouldn't be as effective if his goal was to take over as leader. (He is an artist you know, not wanting to inflame the situation.)
Option 3- Take him up on his offer and beat his a. At the risk of being hurt or injured in the process. (Not very likely because he's an artist, you know, he's sensitive)
That's is how I think Enrique would respond, and would act in that order. Violence would be a last result.
Now, "I" (as myself, the person typing), would probably act choosing option 2, then one, then 3. (i'm not an artist) However, according to how and when your morals kick in, it is my belief that it is completely dependent on the amount of time you are given to react once the situation presents itself. If "I" had to make a split-second decision, (like Arnie was all up in my face trying to exert dominance, and I was starving, no other food in sight), I might choose the 3rd option first because my survival instinct is being threatened. Human beings have the odd ability to act irrationally when presented spur-of-the-moment decisions and would likely react how they were "programmed" to act. Do they follow their survival instinct? (the whole "fight-or-flee" routine)

 btw if there was no pig and they had to kill and eat each other to survive, i dont think there would be any dilema at all... survival of the fittest would solve such situation. however, survival of the fittest princile has little to do with morals.
I think we agree on what would happen in this situation. I just showed above my rationalle on how the two are related. (They are related by the time given for you to think and let your morals kick in)
 P: 11 you only needed to post the summary anyway, I'd divide the pig equally, regardless, to avoid any dangerous conflict

 Related Discussions Brain Teasers 14 General Discussion 32 General Discussion 12 General Discussion 24 Nuclear Engineering 9