[Discussion] who would you save?

[Cunning Linguist]

My reply in a thread pretty much like this one:



Probably my child. I think that actually, the chances of my lover remaining my lover after I choose to let our child die is pretty slim. Maybe we can have another child, but would she doubt how strong my love is for that child when I just let our other child die? In fact, how would she then know for sure I don't value my life more than the both of them? My decision at that cliff will most likely make her question my priorities. The idea that a child's life is more valuable than the parents would certainly not be unique to her, it's drilled into most of our heads. I'd be betraying an indisputable concept to her (most likely - this really depends on our philosophy and relationship, but I'll just go with the "average" person).

Her friends and family may even help planting these ideas in her head, since I'm sure the decision would make them question me as well. She'll probably never feel secure with me alone with our next child again...

Don't forget this is midst the usual trauma that may ensue when a child is lost in a relationship and it appears to be somebody's fault.


Basically:

>It's pretty much guaranteed I'd have a child after I save him/her (he doesn't really get to choose to leave me lol)

>Chances are I won't even have a lover after I save her

And I'm sure I may be influenced by what the adults would want, I'd probably think "What would they want me to do?" It sounds unfortunate, but we don't embrace a child's opinions in such matters because we think the child is too young to know better (which may be the case in a lot of cases).

Now for the mother, the reasoning is probably even more simple, if I choose her I'd be losing my "second family" entirely. My wife and child would be gone... cruel it may sound, but prior to that event, I'd be spending most of my time with my wife and child and not my mother. They would have become a new part of my life, the future. There's many things my mother won't be able to relate to because of the generation gap, and parts of me and my life that I'll never be able to share with my mother. The bond between a mother and child is unique, sure, but so is a bond between father and child, husband and wife. The mother would probably feel horrible and always feel that she owes me something for taking away that part of my life. It'd be a terrible way to live the rest of her life (of course; my father may try and comfort her).

Either way, I'll be losing a part of my life. And again, it may sound distasteful, but the life I spent with my mother is deeply rooted in the past. All those good memories, fun times, a lot of the things that helps make her a mother occurred in the past. Think about that for a second. We may visit our mother only from time to time, particularly when we have a wife and child.

Mother isn't going to be chasing me around the house anymore (playing), pushing me on the swings, attending my school events, telling me bedtime stories; she's even going to be teaching me less about life. My future would be with my wife and child.

Also, what would my second potential partner think if I let my child and wife die to save my mother ? I'm sure she'll respect the love there, but again, she probably wouldn't feel secure and comfortable around me. So it may even prove very difficult to get another wife, assuming I'm honest with her from the start.

Of course, all of this wouldn't have gone through my head if this did happen.

You're way overthinking this. There isn't a good parent out there that wouldn't save their child. So that one is obvious. Your wife vs your mother comes down to either your child or yourself losing their mother. Chances are good that your mother is older than your wife and would be expected to die sooner. So you pick your wife knowing that it is what's best for your child. Your own mother dies proud of you for manning up and saving your family

 

[roncato]

if your mother son and wife are dying and yoou can only save 2 2 who would it be ? please no hxh answers(XD) and please make the answer as simple as you can, i am just trying to test somthing *_*

I'd save my wife and son. What about you ?

 

[uchihamad]

You only need to save one..Then the one who saved will save others.

 

[Disquiet]

You're way overthinking this. There isn't a good parent out there that wouldn't save their child. So that one is obvious. Your wife vs your mother comes down to either your child or yourself losing their mother. Chances are good that your mother is older than your wife and would be expected to die sooner. So you pick your wife knowing that it is what's best for your child. Your own mother dies proud of you for manning up and saving your family

@Bold, oh, but there are. You seem to have already tacitly committed yourself to believing he/she won't be a bad spouse for letting their partner die. Why exactly? Because they're supposed to love their child more and their spouse less? It makes for good rhetoric and all, but such decisions in what seems like a split second can be devastating if the rhetoric don't match the reality. Many values are learned, and many lessons in life are never actually, experienced.

I mean think about it, is there some fairy going around sprinkling stardust over parents' heads and bestowing them with a love greater than the love for the person they may have experienced a decade with? Maybe even grew up with that person from childhood before making them their significant other? I know not every pair of love birds have hung out in the same nest since their early years, but you seem to be making this absolute and so black and white. What if they have indeed known each other since elementary school, had a baby in their late 20s, and was faced with this dilemma when their child was only a couple months old?

The value, "the child's life comes first" then becomes much harder to do, than simply say. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, as some can most likely make the decision without hesitation. It's just easy to put faith in a value that's hardly ever tested. I mean how do we even know the majority of humans won't flunk the "test"? We have no accurate way to quantify this love, it's something we believe in, something we "feel". And the belief itself seems to stem from a regurgitated ideology.

Put bluntly, this ideology makes it a sin for two lovers' love to exceed the love of their child.

Let your child die - you're a bad person. Let your spouse die - you're a good person. And if I were to reverse that ideal, it'd be inferior because of what? They'd both be seeking to legitimize "how good" one person's death was over the other despite both being very dear...

There are so many scenarios that could exist. You can't honestly tell me that a 16 year old is expected to end his/her life because the baby have soooo much more of a future. If we start getting into arguments about how that baby could have been Einstein or something, well then what if the parent is Einstein? People argue about how the baby could be someone successful and all, well what if the parent that's supposed to die is already majorly successful? Surely it'd be a guaranteed loss?


This also abandons the idea of saving the child on basis of a deeper love, and more into the idea of, "I'm saving you because you're an asset to society".


Actually I find it interesting that this question is basically asking which of our loved ones' lives is less valuable.


As for the mother, meh, you used a cliche but so did I, don't really see how that was overthinkng it (though I could just say you're "underthinking" it - when we're really just thinking about different things). My post stems from my observations, and I almost always hear mothers (and fathers) talk about their child "moving on" in a sense, how one day they're going to have to let them go and start their own life with their new family.


I think that, in the end, one isn't a bad spouse if they don't save the partner, or a bad daughter/son if they don't save the mother, or a bad parent if they don't save the child.

 

[regnis3]

I'd have to say wife and son because the pain of growing up without a mother is something I wouldn't want anyone to go through, especially my own child.

 

[silmarill]

If your mother is also your wife u can save everyone

 

[BlacLord™]

*stays silent* Do I win?

Assuming I had a mother, son, and wife, I think I would choose my mother and my son. A wife is replaceable.

A mother isn't though, and you're stripping your son of that. Putting yourself before your child isn't how parenting is, you should always put the interests of your child before your own.

OT: Son and wife.

 

[Zee Seh]

Assuming I had a mother, son, and wife, I think I would choose my mother and my son. A wife is replaceable.

^^ this is what i exactly planned to say xD

 

[iNotorious]

Mom and Son u_u

 

[Conspirator.]

Son and wife of course. As much as I love my mother, when you marry and have kids-that is your future. Your spouse and kids come before your parents IMO, for the simple reason that the rest of your life is with them, whereas you have "moved on" from your parents nest. If that makes sense.....(plus my parents wouldn't want me to put there lives above my own children)


A more challenging question would be:

Your son,wife, and brother/sister are going to die: Which two would you save?(presuming your brother/sister has a family too...)

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

I would save my son and my mom. I mean you can always get another wife and most marriages end in divorce anyways. Can't get another mom.

 

[Cornson]

I love my mom I really do, but there would just be on way in hell I would sacrifice my wife or my son to keep her alive.

save: mom and son.

 

[Xlad]

I......have to go with wife and son, assuming that I have them. I love my mother a whole lot. I think a lot here would understand that. But...the given choice would include the son in it. It honestly would be selfish of me if I save my mother, but then force my son to lose his as well. I have been with my mother for as long as I was born. It's only fair if my son goes through the same thing. Plus, we all will die someday and I think it's too early for my wife to die.

I think I'll have to sacrifice what I love the most.

 

[Gamaken]

Could I be the one to die instead? Otherwise it would be an impossible decision, even though I don't have a wife or child.

 

[Benjamin King]

The mother lived long enough to raise and take care of you. She, herself, would completely be disappointed at my choice of saving her over my wife and son, as they are the next generation. So I'll save my wife and son over my mother, because I can reproduce with my wife to create a new generation.

 

[Prometheus Beta]

Suppose you were to conduct a hypothetical experiment where a very large number of men are thrown into this real world scenario, what would be the outcome (is this what you want to know)?

As with most things, there will obviously be statistical variation in the choices but I believe that the statistical pattern will be the following in decreasing order of incidence: child (most saved), spouse, mother (least saved). You see, no matter what most of us will rationalize here, there is a juggernaut of scientific/experimental evidence accumulating about human "morality": in a nutshell, Hume was right, Kant was wrong. Human moral behaviour (most social behaviour in general in fact), in the real world, is mostly intuitive, as opposed to being based on conscious/deductive reasoning ("ratiocination").

As to why I believe the incidence would be in that order, well to clarify that Id have to explain the evolution of altruism and all that and I don't want to write an essay no one will read but if you're interested, you can start out here.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[CrimsonReaper]

I would pretty much pick my wife and son, if my mom was and old geezer if she's not then that's her decision.