Who to Save: Ethical Thinking About Stereotypes in Survival Scenarios
This paper engages a classic applied ethics thought experiment: if only a small number of people could be saved to rebuild civilization after a catastrophic event, who should be chosen and why? Working through a list of candidates with varying ages, occupations, health conditions, and backgrounds, the author evaluates each person's potential contribution to the survival and rebuilding of society. The analysis considers scientific expertise, physical capability, age, specialized practical skills, and the burden of preexisting conditions. The paper also implicitly interrogates how assumptions, stereotypes, and biases might shape such life-and-death decisions, offering a window into how we assign social value to human beings.
- Introduction: Rebuilding Society After Catastrophe: Goals for rebuilding a better post-apocalyptic society
- Scientific Expertise as a Priority: Scientists chosen first for disease and survival expertise
- Practical Skills and Physical Capability: Hunter-musician selected for food security and morale
- Guidance, Knowledge, and Cultural Preservation: Young minister and historian chosen for future guidance
- Elderly Candidates and the Value of Experience: Elderly doctor and engineer valued for transferable knowledge
- Weighing Liabilities Against Assets: Remaining candidates assessed by health burden and utility
- Conclusion: Assumptions Behind the Selections: Final picks reveal assumptions about human social value
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a concrete ethical framework — utilitarian-style reasoning — consistently across each candidate, giving its decisions a logical throughline rather than appearing arbitrary.
- It acknowledges trade-offs explicitly, recognizing that some candidates bring valuable knowledge but are liabilities due to age or health, which demonstrates nuanced thinking rather than simple ranking.
- The paper uses specific candidate details (age, occupation, sexual orientation, health status) to ground abstract ethical claims in concrete human terms, making the argument accessible and direct.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning — the practice of taking an abstract moral question and working through it systematically using real-world criteria. Rather than arguing for a philosophical position in the abstract, the author operationalizes values (scientific utility, physical health, knowledge transmission) and applies them case by case, which is the hallmark of practical ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the criteria for selection — what a rebuilt society would need — before moving candidate by candidate through the thought experiment. Selections are grouped roughly by priority: clear choices first, then borderline cases, and finally those deemed liabilities. The conclusion implicitly surfaces the tension between pragmatic survivalism and the ethical discomfort of treating human lives as assets to be calculated. The structure is cumulative rather than comparative, building the selection list progressively.
Introduction: Rebuilding Society After Catastrophe
The end of the world is a terrible prospect to contemplate. To rebuild society, while it is necessary to reproduce humans on a biological level, ideally one would hope to create a new, better society to support future life. This includes a society that is less prone to disease, famine, and basic unkindness. It would also be valuable to preserve the best knowledge of the present generation for the good of future generations — hopefully to avoid future nuclear devastation, environmental degradation, and strife.
Scientific Expertise as a Priority
Given the need for sound scientific knowledge, the first person I would choose would be the lesbian Chinese microbiologist. Not only would she know how to combat diseases that might arise in the future — potentially saving humanity — she is only 32 and would likely be healthy and able to contribute for many years, providing assistance to the remaining human beings and hopefully helping to shape the world for a better tomorrow.
For similar reasons, I would also select the gay 37-year-old male chemist. Even if his scientific specialty is not in the fields of greatest immediate interest to the surviving members of the earth, he would still bring a scientific mindset and the training needed to potentially treat disease and address concerns that might arise in saving the planet, as well as guarding against future dangers resulting from nuclear devastation. The importance of scientific expertise in post-disaster recovery is well established in disaster preparedness literature.
Practical Skills and Physical Capability
I would also save the 43-year-old musician who is an excellent hunter. Given that food supplies might be unstable, having someone who is able to hunt and forage would be invaluable. A man of this age would also be young enough to survive the potential hardships of living on a devastated planet, and the entertainment of music would be helpful in keeping the other survivors happy and their spirits lifted.
Conclusion: Assumptions Behind the Selections
I would also select the 42-year-old female linguistics professor, given that she is the least likely to require additional caregiving and may still be capable of contributing to future generations if she so desires. Ultimately, this thought experiment forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about how society assigns value to human beings — revealing assumptions rooted in age, health, occupation, and perceived utility that may themselves reflect the very biases and stereotypes a better world should work to overcome.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.