The document discusses a group assignment where students had to choose 4 out of 16 people to admit into a bunker during an apocalyptic scenario with limited supplies for 2 years. The group prioritized logic over morality, choosing to save a scientist who could grow plants, a druggie wife to care for a 5-year-old girl also selected, and a doctor for healthcare, leaving out a priest, military officer, elderly, disabled and others deemed less useful for survival. The goal was keeping the 4 individuals alive for the duration.

1. William Spiegelberg
Our first assignment was that we were given an apocalypse scenario where we can only
pick 4 people out of 16 to let into a safe bunker. The bunker only has enough supplies to keep 4
people alive for the 2 years they had to stay in the bunker. Our choices between the 16 people
were as follows:
a. Scientist
b. Priest
c. Married druggie/hippie couple (1 person each)
d. A single pregnant mother with a 5 year-old girl (5 year-old counts as 1 person)
e. An army officer who has a mental instability
f. An elderly woman
g. A disabled person
h. Lawyer
i. Lazy welfare dependent
j. Doctor
k. University professor
We grouped up and decided amongst ourselves who we would kill and who we would save. In
the end, my group threw out any sense of morality. We decided solely based on logic and who
would be most useful to the group. My group chose to kill the following: priest; male hippie;
pregnant mother; army officer; elderly woman; disabled person; lawyer; welfare dependent; and
university professor. We kept alive the scientist because we made her a horticulturist who could
grow all kinds of plants. We kept the druggie wife to be a mother figure for the 5 year-old and to
grow weed for entertainment. We kept the 5 year-old for reasons I currently can’t remember.
We kept the doctor because he would be important to the general health care of the other three.
Our group focused on keeping the group alive for those 2 years so that they could be free to do
what they wanted once they got out.