[simiones]

That is not what was being said - they said that they personally value the lives of their own parents more than the life of someone else's child; this in the context of someone trying to argue that the life of a 1 year old is inherently more valuable than the life of a 60 year old because the 1 year old can expect 79 more years of life, while the 60 year old can only expect 20 more.

And otherwise, assume there is a fire and you are in the middle of a corridor. On one end there is your mother, on the other there is some 1 year old you don't know in any way. Which would you rush to save first? I know I would rush to save my mother before the 1 year old.

[mewpmewp2]

So the implication is that we should calculate the emotional pain value instead of expected years left and act based on that? So if for example the 1 year old in question has no parents because they died due to an accident and no other relatives it means no-one will really mourn this death so we would choose this death over a popular 80 year old person?

[rumanator]

> So the implication is that we should calculate the emotional pain

Wrong, the implications is that it makes absolutely no sense to state that society should just let old people die simply because you're so self-centered that you even fail to register the devastating effect of an epidemic just because you believe it doesn't affect you personally.