You are trapped in a fallout shelter with the members of your Ethics
group. The instruments in the shelter indicate that it will not be
safe for the class to leave the shelter for six months. Luckily, there
is enough food, water, and other facilities to permit the class to
remain in the shelter for the required six months.
There is a telephone in your shelter that is linked to a fallout
shelter in another city. One member of your group just spoke with a
person who is trapped in the other shelter and reports the following
information:
"There are nine people in the other shelter. After surveying their
provisions, it has become apparent that there is only enough water to
keep four members of that group alive the six months before it is safe
to leave the shelter."
The other group realizes that five of its members will have to be put
out of the shelter so that those remaining will have a chance to live.
However, they have been unable to make the necessary decision as to
who will be put out of their shelter.
The other group has asked your Ethics group to make a decision on its
behalf. It has agreed to implement your decision immediately and
without question.
The group in the other shelter consists of the following people:

1.	A male carpenter, 25 years old.
2.	A male biologist, 50 years old.
3.	A female attorney, 40 years old.
4.	A male minister, 40 years old.
5.	A pregnant college student, 28 years old.
6.	A female college student, 18 years old.
7.	A male mental patient, 48 years old.
8.	A female child, 6 years old.
9.	A male physician, 72 years old.
Your task, as a group, is to develop a list of four people who will
remain in the other shelter.

like all those type of test, the purpose of this test is to make you
feel guilty not to take the matal patient

Provided it is indeed possible to "open" the shelter to let people out
(and this is not a trick question), my answer would be:

1. Male mental patient must go.  Without getting into details, he may
disrupt the organization, rationing, and morale of the group.  He is
also the among the least likely to be helpful to the remaining people
in the shelter.

2. Pregnant woman must go.  For one she is likely to birth the child
while they are still in the shelter.  True there is a doc in there,
but once the child is born, the remaining 4 will become 5 and disrupt
rationing.

3. The physician must go.  The old man is likely to become a health
concern of his own.  Besides, with the pregnant woman gone, who needs
him.

4. The biologist must go.  Being smart and specialized is nice in the
real world, but underground in a shelter he is unlikely to be very
useful.

5. The female attorney must go.  See biologist.

Those who stay.  

1. The minister.  A man close to God may be able to settle down edgy
nerves and keep people focused.  He is useful in a spiritual way and
still young enough to be useful physically.

2. The carpenter.  Young and able bodies, may be useful in
constructing necessary conveniences during/after the ordeal.

3. The female college student.  See carpenter.

4. The little girl.  While not as useful as the previous members, she
carries the advantage that she is low maintenance in terms of water
consumption.

My ethics group would say that it is unethical to assist someone with
a homework assignment, because if I do, next week he might ask us
about the "Prisoner?s dilemma" exercise. If I recall correctly that IS
one of the next assignments isn't it?   ;)

Seriously, my group would say it is unethical to dictate who lives and
who dies in any circumstance. If a simple water shortage is the only
problem we would encourage you to let everyone live in the shelter for
as long as they could and if anyone MUST do without water let him do
so inside, in relative safety, rather than outside, where certain
death awaits. The decision then is who wants to do without and who
doesn't. Of the ones who will not volunteer to go without water, which
ones among THEM must be forced to comply, or collectively how much
should the water be rationed among the remaining survivors in order to
insure the maximum number of ultimate survivors in 6 months.

tutuzdad-ga

I think that the point of this question is that there is no one
"right" answer.  We had this task in one of my political science
classes in college, with the goal being to make us think about what
was important.  Only in our exercise, instead of the adult male
"mental patient," we had a young mentally retarded child.  I remember
that everyone in our class "kicked out" the mentally retarded child
and our profession gave one of the most eloquent responses to our
decisions that I have ever heard.  It would be impossible for me to
come close to doing it justice here, but essentially her point was to
think about what we would be giving up.  That a young, innocent child
could provide the group with hope and joy and the opportunity to come
together and care for someone that they might not otherwise have...and
that this may be as important as a doctor/biologist/carpenter's
skills.

Bottom line, is I don't think there's any one answer and I don't think
it's about guilt.  And I'm also not sure it's an "ethical" question in
terms of trying to determine morality or what is right.  I think it's
more philosophical...trying to think about the value of lives and how
our culture may impact what we value.

I think that the point of this question is that there is no one
"right" answer.  We had this task in one of my political science
classes in college, with the goal being to make us think about what
was important.  Only in our exercise, instead of the adult male
"mental patient," we had a young mentally retarded child.  I remember
that everyone in our class "kicked out" the mentally retarded child
and our professor gave one of the most eloquent responses to our
decisions that I have ever heard.  It would be impossible for me to
come close to doing it justice here, but essentially her point was to
think about what we would be giving up.  That a young, innocent child
could provide the group with hope and joy and the opportunity to come
together and care for someone that they might not otherwise have...and
that this may be as important as a doctor/biologist/carpenter's
skills.

Bottom line, is I don't think there's any one answer and I don't think
it's about guilt.  And I'm also not sure it's an "ethical" question in
terms of trying to determine morality or what is right.  I think it's
more philosophical...trying to think about the value of lives and how
our culture may impact what we value.

Oops...sorry for the duplicate

I checked with the members of my Ethics group, and we (all one of us)
agree that grappling with this kind of problem on your own will teach
you much more than paying someone else to grapple with it.

Some kinds of schoolwork involve more than just grabbing links from
the Internet. Some assignments call for real thought. Yours, not ours.
Good luck!

Ask Dr Strangelove

Pinkfreud is right, of course, and Tutuzdad and Needsomeinfo too, but
Telnady is on the phone, the nine others waiting with baited breath
(which smells fishy, by the way), each of them having considered why
he or she should be on the short list and wondering why he/she had
consented to immediate acceptance of someone else's decision.
Bang!  Immediately the five realize that they are in the majority and
reneg on their acceptance:  five versus three and a six year old girl.
 The male mental patient with his lessened sense of moral/social
commitment immediately takes an aggressively defensive stance,
upsetting the whole group's pact to accept and implement the decision
of Telnady's ethics group.  The 72 year-old physician tries to find
his scapel, knowing the decision against him is justified and
pretending to himself that he will try to defend the pregnant student
(his oath to preserve life, even unborn life), but he cannot help
recognizing that he is thinking of self-perservation.  The carpenter
recognizes that he has a physical advantage over the others - and
likes the prospect of having been chosen to survive with the younger
female student - and with the minister, in case she felt the same way
in the coming six months. The female attorney is filled with legal
thoughts about the situation  - which are not very helpful.  The
pregnant student - with growing maternal feelings -  clasps the girl
to her, not recognizing the subconscious basis for this impulse is to
protect herself behind the girl, who is on the short list.
The biologist, despite the immediate life/death situation, finds
himself wondering about the genetic problems if anyone survives in six
months, while the minister is torn between the decision that he should
survive and his feelings that all the younger ones should, indeed,
Christ-like, that it is his duty to offer his life for all others  -
but, of course, he is only human and ...

Could be a great film!  And while all this is being played, it turns
out that they all just have been anticipating Telnady's call, but
she/he has a dead line.

As a problem for the course, Running-ga, is not an absolute, correct
answer.  There is none.  The prof want's to know if you have
understood the material presented in the course and can apply it, and
justify it.

I don't know who gets put out except the only child stays. The child
is the only one who can adapt well to the new huge change in the
environment, but needs the adults for basic needs.  Without her the
adults could become depressed and lose the will to live. After all
everything they lived for is gone. The only child might keep them from
crossing that line.   All people will have to leave all they ever
worked for their kids or other kids,  putting the kid out would the a
extreme leap in values.  But once done, it would be easier next time
and that behavior could lead to extinction.  Not worth the risk, even
though it is a very low risk as I see it.

Myoarin,

I was actually thinking of James Wan (Saw) directing this, but you
seem like you have the situation pretty well digested.  Should we
start casting?

Telnady,
IF you have the financing ...  
I'd have to cast for thea role of physician or the mental patient
(type casting with a bit a make-up assistance for the age ...)

Somewhere in my outline of the roles, I lost sight of my cynical idea
that fall-out shelters would be supplied with poison pills and
placebos to handle the problem, which could be a whole different story
in itself.  (Someone discovers or knows about the pills and uses them,
secretly!, or they are used randomly - the pills and placebos stirred
around and everyone having to choose one.  Maybe the "dealer" palming
a placebo and then maybe confusing it with the pill he drew, having
generously accepted that he take the last one ... and, and, and.)
Or some farsighted person knew that the whole concept of fall-out
shelters was entirely senseless (as we probably have to expect) and
the placebos were just more poison pills ...

Very cynical!  Stay in your shelter and make friends with the strongest person!

Myoarin,

You just gave me a brilliant idea.  We should sell this to the
Survivor people.... think about it "Nuclear Survivor" or better yet,
"Survivor: Apocalypse".  Huh?  Audience votes in the contestants,
contestants live together inside 100 sq. ft. shelter, demented
humanoids are released after 6 months to tell horrible tales of
bathroom culture, biggest ratings of TV show EVER!

Of course it will have to come with the customary warning label that
"Fretting over a potential nuclear war could lead some humans to
become freakishly obsessed with buying guns and 12-pound cartons of
chips".

The only appropriate ethical thing to do is disconnect the phone.

Telnady-ga, great idea, and we can let Pinkfreud-ga's ethics group do
a voice over commentary.  I am convince that she has an alto voice
that exudes sincerety and authority, just right for explaining that
the mental patient's remark is fully in accordance with Kant's ethics,
or that the male biologist has wrongly tried to justify Darwinian
theory as an ethical defense ...

(Pinky, if you have a high, squeeky voice, please do not ruin my impression) :-)