Riddle

In my advanced English class today, students had to discuss a riddle or philosophical problem. Basically, six people are marooned on a deserted island: a Buddhist priest, a high school boy, a sick man in his 60s, a famous doctor, a politician, and a 3-month pregnant woman. A rescue plane can only take one person back. Which person should the pilot save?

Students were told to choose the "most important" person, and then arrange all 6 people in order of importance, or priority for being rescued.

(If you're interested, decide your order before reading on).

Students worked in groups to make their choices, and then wrote the results on the board. I was surprised to find that each group selected the SAME person to be rescued first. Likewise, each group selected the SAME person to be rescued last. Which people do you think they chose? None of their answers coincided with mine. I was intrigued.

Each student believed that the sick man in his 60s should be the first person rescued, because he was most immediately in need of help. When they had to prioritize, each student chose the Buddhist priest as the one to be saved last. Explanations for the Buddhist priest were all similar, but each student had a unique--and fascinating--translation of the idea. One said, "because he is best prepared to receive destiny;" or in this case, death on a deserted island. Another said, "because his spirit is strong." Yup, there's plenty of time for zazen on a deserted island. But sadly, no one to beat you with a stick.

(Joking aside, I have an enormous amount of respect for Buddhism and anyone who makes a genuine effort to practice it).

My goal was to maximize life. So, I chose the famous doctor as the first person to be rescued. Hopefully, many lives could be saved if the doctor returned to society. Following this model, my 2nd choice was the pregnant woman, because one rescued pregnant woman can mean 2 saved lives. For last place, I chose the sick man in his 60s, because he had the smallest chance of survival no matter where he was.

My students seemed really shocked by my choices, so it turned out to be quite a cultural lesson for all of us. Of course, the more I considered it, the more confused I became. Japanese people usually consider the group before the individual. Americans usually put the individual before society. But it seemed that we had done just the opposite: by saving the old man, the students were focused on individual needs. By saving the doctor, I was focused on societal needs. Why the switch?

The only explanation I could come up with is that I examined the problem from outside the group, and the students examined it from inside the group. It should not be surprising that the American set herself apart, while the Japanese were inclusive of everyone, even themselves. Ultimately I was trying to benefit myself. I thought I was trying to benefit society, but in this case, society = me. The students were trying to benefit only the group, by saving the person most in need, regardless of the people outside.

What do you think?