To you young males ought to give up their seats to women who've babies with them, to elders and to those who are ill. Most people in the society will agree as it's accepted as common courtesy. All I'm asking is why this order? Why can't those who are not fit enough to travel in a crowded train or bus, take some other means of transport? Why should a young man have to sacrifice just because he is physically more fit? Essentially we're penalising someone for being better.Of what use is a person's physical fitness when that person considers giving up seats in crowded buses to women with babies, elderly and the ill as penalizing and sacrificing? There should be serious doubts about the "fitness" of this person!
This may not make much sense in this scenario since it's only a matter of giving up of a seat and we're talking about local travel where a person will have to stand and travel for an hour at the most. But it becomes more serious when the same attitude is carried forward even when it comes to saving people's lives. It means we're assigning values to life of individuals. And by placing young men at the bottom of the list we're saying, 'You're the least deserving of all to live'.
A person who grudges giving up one's seat for women with babies, an elderly person and the ill, if forced to be in a position to place others lives above his own can only be expected to view it as "being considered the least deserving of all to live". But guess what ! Sometimes even they can get eureka moments!!! Sometimes Truth dawns while life seems to ebb away.😆I've already said that according to me, first come first serve ought to work fine in most scenarios except for one, when the very existence of human race is under threat.Let us examine the Titanic scenario- wrt knowledge and first come first basis vis a vis accessibility is concerned ----- The elderly captain and chief engineer and his crew members (all presumably less affluent than the wealthy passengers aboard the Titanic) were the best positioned to grab the boats and escape the ship which was to sink in about an hour's time. They did not appear to think giving up that opportunity- as being penalized for their position or responsibility. Going by the policy of first come first serve they should have escaped with the boats long before any of the able bodied young man on the ship could even get a whiff of the approaching danger.Eg. 2- wrt to physical strength, information, skill----- the armed force is much better equipped to save themselves should some invader attack us . They would be one of the first select groups to know exact situation in case of an invasion. Cant they simply escape to safer places? Why should they sacrifice their lives for the weaker civilians! Here you would say that they are paid to do so. But is money more valuable than their own lives? Is it only for money that they sacrifice their lives.!
Still want to advocate first come first ?
Eg 3- An aeroplane develops a technical snag. Should the pilot having access to a parachute, by virtue of being the first person to have access/training to it jump out to save his life leaving all the rest in the lurch!
As for the situation of "the very existence of human race coming under threat"- why would a person who grudges giving up personal comforts for someone else during normal time , be willing to give up ones life for humanity? What significance would humanity have for him/her? In a society that would encourage keeping ones own personal interest always uppermost would a thought be likely to be spared for humanity when individual human beings don't mean much? 😕
You're only taking one extremely specific situation into consideration, that of being:1) Abducted
2) Made to walk for long distance
3) Travelling over rough terrain
4) And hostage is kept tied and blindfolded all the time, even while moving around
However, most hostage situations don't match the above description. If a plane/ bus is hijacked, the hostages won't have to even walk, most of them are not even tied up or blindfolded. In any kind of hold up, the hostages will live inside the building. If someone is kidnapped, they are moved around in a car. But irrespective of the situation, the order of priority remains the same for the negotiators and young men come last in that list.
I can only assume that most negotiators have their own families consisting of women, children and the old and are well aware of the problems that can arise .They may be of the opinion as you yourself have expressed earlier that a young man is better equipped to deal with his captors and not because they feel that a young man deserves to be the last to live.
Cricket
20