Could you Leave Your Child behind to Save the Other 2?

originally posted by: ArtemisE


The OP says that if you try to save all 3 all 4 of you die. So your murdering 2 children to stay with one that's doomed already.

If those are the rules. Than the exercise would end up With all 4 gone. because no real parent would leave one behind to die. Only a sick person would do such a thing. A person like this is not strong but selfish and weak. And would probably not even feel bad about his/her Choice. Do these parents exist?? yes they do. You have parents who kill their kids for less.

This is not the stone age. People to day are not groomed to leave children behind to preserve the human race. We are groomed to try and save everyone. In some countries it is even punishable to leave someone behind to die.

a reply to: spy66
Naturally, a loving parent would want to save all of their children, but due to the limits set by the OP...it does NOT make one sick to save only 2 of their children. I cannot fathom how a loving parent would condemn all to die. Every life is precious. I am sure at least 2 of your children will hope that you realize that before you all die trying to rescue the third child.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teye22

I would save the ones I could. There lives are that important. If I couldnt live with myself afterwords then fine once they are with their mother I would kill myself. To me staying with all three for certain death would be the same as murdering two of my children.
You can't understand how some could save two and I can't understand how others can kill their children.

My feeling of guilt over my choice doesn't override my instincts to keep them alive.

If the children were dying in the hospital and there was only enough medicine to save two you better believe I would save two. I sure as hell wouldn't say "since they can't all live it's better if they all die". That really is the same scenario except me as a parent has no choice to live on. In the other scenarios you get an easy option of dying therefore you don't have to live with your guilt. Same as murder suicide. For me choosing death for them in any instance is insane and not an option. The one who has to live with the choice is me. It would be my burden but at least two could go on living and hopefully find happiness.

There's your rock solid scenario..... What if all 3 had a fatal disease or poison and you only had 2 cures.

This is a good premise for a thread however I think the scenarios need to be better. Too many are missing the point and are hung up on the story instead of the actual decision. If you would like to try again PM me. Instead of one scenario there should be several with different variations. Like one you can save two children and yourself another you can save two by throwing them clear or something but you and the third child will not survive another where the parent survives no matter what but can choose to save two or just let them all go. Then throw in a variation of the trolly problem and so forth. The combination of several variations could narrow down motives and it would be interesting if someone always answered the same.

There is a trolly scenario that would really narrow down motives, but I am afraid this thread is already too far off track itself. All the scenarios would need to be in the OP along with a very direct explanation that they are choices of either or not what are your personal skills or imagination for beating such a scenario They are multiple choice not fill in the blank.

Anyway PM me I have some things to do but I will check back later.

a reply to: Grimpachi

There is no need. This is all some kind of asshat training and a big distorted one at that, for the black ops who think that they're actually doing the right thing when they work on the various destruction and genocide campaigns, for the greater good and survival of all, not realizing they've all been lied to. But that would be a whole other thread.

In all the other kinds of situations, you wouldn't be making so much a decision, ie for example, you're tossing kids, 2 make it but you and the last don't. You would simply react, grabbing the closest, or easiest to hoist. It wouldn't involve a choice, the choice would still be saving ALL, but the order of the actions, situational, usually with andrenalin coursing through you, working from closest to furthest away.

None of them count.

And in the hospital situation, I'd have the meds shared 3 ways, and rely on a good alternative health practitioner to add some nutrients to up everyone's immune and recovery and be praying, and already know that the prayer would do the most. You either stay or go, depending on if you have more work to do, and we're all in private hotel rooms, shared with family at times, one apparently rendered reality, but its all subjective private rooms, with a team overhead.

a reply to: Grimpachi
I really liked your switching tracks one you threw out earlier in this thread. The parent has only one option, the switch...though it may make it more interesting if your spouse or significant other was on one of the tracks too. ex: spouse and one child on one track...two children on other? What do you think?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: spy66
Naturally, a loving parent would want to save all of their children, but due to the limits set by the OP...it does NOT make one sick to save only 2 of their children. I cannot fathom how a loving parent would condemn all to die. Every life is precious. I am sure at least 2 of your children will hope that you realize that before you all die trying to rescue the third child.

The OP's set up leaves the parent With only two Choices. Because The OP wants you to argue against the set up. Because the set up is mute.
Two lives are not better than one, because you are left With guilt after you have made Your Choice of leaving one behind. Guilt is the judgment of Your actions. If leaving one kid behind was the right thing to do than that Choice would be easy for each and every parent, and there would be no guilt. But it dosent work that way. Not for everyone.

Moste parents would sacrifice everything to save even the less wanted kid. Or the one that is less worthy. I dont know how some of you would rate Your own kids that would make one Worth the guilt.

a reply to: spy66

Guilt? You would rather you and all of your children die because you wouldn't want to live with the guilt of your decision? Guilt is an emotion that one will feel in any mourning process, it is human nature. In time, having your two living children apart of your life, will diffuse the guilt of your choice.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: spy66

Guilt? You would rather you and all of your children die because you wouldn't want to live with the guilt of your decision? Guilt is an emotion that one will feel in any mourning process, it is human nature. In time, having your two living children apart of your life, will diffuse the guilt of your choice.

It seems sooooo crazy to allow 2 of your children to die, because of a fear of the guilt you would feel!


However I can't imagaine how you would choose who to leave.... I would probubally die knowing that I needed to grab 2 and run, but unable to choose who to leave and who to save.

a reply to: ArtemisE

What if her name is Meg? lololol

seriously though, im not a parent, but if i did have mulitple children, and sacrificing one to save the others, i would have to go for it, but it would be the most useless and pinheaded of the bunch

I would throw the OP into the volcano thereby appeasing the volcano gods and avoiding the eruption. My two kids and I would stroll leisurely down the volcano and have froyo.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: spy66

Guilt? You would rather you and all of your children die because you wouldn't want to live with the guilt of your decision? Guilt is an emotion that one will feel in any mourning process, it is human nature. In time, having your two living children apart of your life, will diffuse the guilt of your choice.

I am not saying i would rather die. What i am saying is that i would rather die trying to save all three. That is a big difference. Just like leaving a chield behind to die is way different.

Guilt. You cant argue away this kind of guilt and try to justify it With selfishnes. But if you are selfish enough i gues you could justify it to Your self. It is your kid and Your life. You have to live With your Choice. I dont.

I feel sory for you and Your kids if you ever happened to encounter such a senario. I am glad i am not in Your Family. because you cant be counted on to step up if you are needed. You are to selfish to take the risk. For some there is nothing wrong With leaving a kid behind to die. But i would never have done it. I would be to scared to leave a chield behind that is scared to Death to die all alone.

I brought the kids to the valcano i it is my duty as a parent to step up and be there no matter what. I dont leave a chield to die all alone. But that is me.

a reply to: Unity_99

I am sorry but you really don't understand the purpose of such exercises.

This is the first time I have seen these types of Trolley problems with ones own family in them generally they are with theoretical people you don't know.

Thing is if you can't make a good decision in a purely hypothetical situation with the options presented you have little or no chance of making a good decision in a real world situation.

In the real world you may be faced with one or two options what I see here seems to suggest many facing such a dilemma would simply crumble under the pressure unable to make a decision which would be making the worst possible decision.

I am sure you don't get that because I have said it plenty of times already.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah there are a lot of scenarios one can come up with. Yours is pretty good adding in another element.

With the OPs hypothetical I wonder if he had said they were children you didn't know if that would have made a difference. I think it would have for some because their emotion wouldn't have clouded their judgement as much.

That would be food for thought. It is hard to get people to participate correctly online though without going way off script which makes the entire exercise pointless.

BTW this is the original Trolley problem with a variable called the fat man.

I think it is normal for peoples emotions to get involved when it pertains to these type of questions. The bottom line should always be....where there is a will there is a way. This question cannot be answered without people bringing their own scenarios to the table and offering them up for discussion.

This scenario, if followed to a tee would require a parent in real time to stop for a moment and think "which kid means more, which kid offers more, which one should survive. These are questions no real parent can answer, not a mother nor a father and if they can then I feel for the child they obviously care less for.

In the amount of time it would take a parent to ponder on which child they could just callously leave behind, they instead could have been well on their way to safety, instead of wasting precious time. Where there is a will, there is a way. I made both of my children a promise when they were born, part of it was that I would do whatever I could to ensure their safety always. To leave behind one would be to break the promise I made to that child.

What if the op got what they wanted and everyone answered relatively the same within the confines of the question? what a boring bunch of robots we would be. When it comes to a life especially one of our children is the answer really "well this one is better, less annoying than those others....time to leave them behind?

a reply to: ArtemisE

Joke's on you, I only have two kids...
The 3 of us would be down the mountain, safely driving away while you're stuck at the ri, pondering hypotheticals and watching the pyroclastic bubble inflating.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
files.abovetopsecret.com...

This one would be a hoot to discuss at Christmas or Thankgiving dinner. If you are a happily married man with children, there is absolutely no way to answer that which doesn't leave you sleeping on the couch. It's "I can't believe you'd let that trolly run over me, your wife" versus "I can't believe you'd be that cold and callus with the lives of the children I bore you." It is the familial equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

This one would be a hoot to discuss at Christmas or Thankgiving dinner.

That would be a holiday for the books.

Tell you what I will not be trying that one if anyone does I so hope they start a thread here describing the ordeal.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ArtemisE


The OP says that if you try to save all 3 all 4 of you die. So your murdering 2 children to stay with one that's doomed already.

If those are the rules. Than the exercise would end up With all 4 gone. because no real parent would leave one behind to die. Only a sick person would do such a thing. A person like this is not strong but selfish and weak. And would probably not even feel bad about his/her Choice. Do these parents exist?? yes they do. You have parents who kill their kids for less.

This is not the stone age. People to day are not groomed to leave children behind to preserve the human race. We are groomed to try and save everyone. In some countries it is even punishable to leave someone behind to die.

The judgement shouldn't be who what or how many kids they save, it should be towards why he took kids to the edge of an active volcano to begin with.... One of the kids obviously pissed them off...

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Shana91aus
I have 3 children, and there is no way i could leave one behind to save the other 2, i would rather us all go together, that may sound selfish because i know if i left one i could be sparing 2 of my childrens lives, but i couldnt live with myself after abandoning one of my children and leaving them to such a horrible death. In reality i would probably just run like crazy with all 3, the thought of leaving one behind to save the other 2 honestly probably wouldnt even cross my mind anyway. Man what a horrible situation that would be to have to decide that, its sad because people actually do have to make these decisions every day in some parts of the world it seems so cruel..

You don't think the lives of your children aren't worth any pain you could feel?

I knew someone would twist my words and say that but couldn't word it any other way, no thats not what i meant at all i was just pointing that out im pretty sure any parent would feel the same even if they did choose to leave one that has NO influence on my decision though just abandoning my child is just not something i would think about doing, and my kids lives are worth alot more than preventing myself from any pain, obviously!!!!!!!! i have been a mum since 16 my kids are my whole life, im their protector i couldn't just leave one of my kids behind... basically theres no way id abandon my child id die trying to save them all is what i meant, but i dont know what instincts would kick in when actually facing that kind of horror no one really knows until they are in that situation

Any one here know what it is like to lose a child? How about all your children?

I would rather only be able to save one, than condemn the other two to die because I couldn't save all three. I wouldn't look at their faces I would just grab and go. I wish I had been given that choice. Unfortunately, the judge and their father stole that choice from me. The judge by knowingly ordering them to go with a man with a history of DUI's and their dad for...well

I am just so tiered of the pain and grief. To have just one of them back... I shouldn't have read this thread...