We receive +1 shelter because we are "important", just that. I do not interpret this premise as mandatory or an accessory of the two main options of the dilemma. I interpret that the +1 shelter was given randomly in the present scenario.

On the other hand: let's say we use your premise and we say that this +1 shelter is mandatory. What would be your choice and why has it changed from the original position?

A mandate is "an authorization to act given to a representative" (Merriam-Webster). The idea was that our ticket derives from a mandate or charge that we have received from the community on account of our importance. The question inquires into how our +1's are related to that mandate.

The idea was that our ticket derives from a mandate or charge that we have received from the community on account of our importance — Leontiskos

That’s your idea.

Yes, but the only other way to read it is that you were given a ticket on account of celebrity, which would be a rather strange reading.

Suppose an epic disaster is about to hit your town, and there aren't enough shelter spaces for everyone. — Paul

Greetings, Paul. Glad to see you visit your grand child (TPF, child of PF) every now and then.

Time is of the essence here, since whatever is going to happen is already on its way. Given a shortage of time, and given the faster speed of emotional decisions (as opposed to decisions based on working out the logic of it all), I would choose my mother. Most people would.

"Reasons of the heart" may be quite different than the reasons of utilitarian logic. Mother dear will be a burden once the first wave of the epic disaster is over and we leave the shelter. She was a widely respected art dealer, for which the demand will be seriously diminished. Aside from art, she promoted nouvelle cuisine. Soon people will be lucky to have skinny cat for dinner. Hang out at your gallery, mom, and the bomb, meteorite, tsunami, level 6 hurricane, or shit storm will be your last customer. I hope the 20 year old who is taking your place will have loads of practical skills. We didn't have time to administer aptitude tests. He was close to the door so we grabbed him.

I will advise the in-shelter survivors not to dither over who survived and who didn't. Mass death obliterates morality. "The living will envy the dead" Nikita Khruschev said.

Sartrean-type dilemma — Baden

Sartre wrote a short story in which a member of the underground resistance was captured and under torture revealed where the rest of his 'group' would be located. The captive made up as unlikely a location as he could, but it turned out to be exactly where his comrades had gathered. The Nazis killed them all.

I can't remember the name of the story, and perhaps it took place in Spain. The 'lesson' I took away from the tale was that 'absurd', even tragic consequences can flow from our best-motivated decisions.

It is the norm, yes. But the context gets serious when your mother is involved. You would not speak about "folks go without" because your sense of attachment to a beloved member would make you think otherwise or at least more seriously. I think this is the "dilemma" that @Paul proposed. The context changes fully when a mother is included

Exactly, it does change. You pick your mom, therefore no dilemma. The 20 year old just stands in line with the 30, 40, 50 and 60 year olds.

How hot is the 20 year old and how hot is my mother in this thought experiment?

Also, if I'm important enough in this town to decide who lives and who dies, the town is fucked regardless.

:lol:

Soooo... if your mom is crazy hot, that changes your calculation how?

In that case the 20 year-old might actually be attracted to him. The truth table gets tricky.