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

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Grimpachi

A person that cannot make the sensible choice or is unable to make the choice would not be suited as a leader.

I'd rather die with my family than live to lead someone else's. I don't give a rat's furry hindquarters if that's "sensible". That's how I roll. And I'd rather die than live while knowing that I deliberately walked away when my child needed me the most.

But by staying your walking away from the other 2 when they need you most. Either way your screwed. I just wouldn't screw all three, because of my own mental hang up.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Grimpachi

A person that cannot make the sensible choice or is unable to make the choice would not be suited as a leader.

I'd rather die with my family than live to lead someone else's. I don't give a rat's furry hindquarters if that's "sensible". That's how I roll. And I'd rather die than live while knowing that I deliberately walked away when my child needed me the most.

At least you made a choice that is what these scenarios are about. Being able to make the decision. I was first introduced to these kinds of exercises in the military and they had some impossible ones.

There were guys that couldn't make the hard choices and many of them bollowed/failed to where they were not leadership material. It really is about making a rational choice in an extremely emotional situation and if a person couldn't make such a choice in a classroom environment where the lives were purely hypothetical then they had no chance of making a good call in a real world environment.


These types of scenarios poised in the classroom separated the leaders from the followers. The rational thinkers from the emotional thinkers.

BTW captain Kirk would have failed but science fiction is fun anyway.

I found the link. These are all variants of the Trolly problem.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I guess I would leave one.

It would be almost impossible to live with afterwards. I would only mug along for the sake of the 2 that survived. I wouldnt let all three die though. That is just illogical.

In the end the choice of who would simply be decided upon by the path of less resistance. The closest ones would be saved. The hardest to rescue would be left.

If I could get the two to safety in time though you can bet your ass I would run back for the third.

This is all assuming I couldnt just get them up one at a time and carry them all back. I can carry 3 adults if I really needed to. Saving all my children would be something I would try. I am humoring you though. If I had to, yes, just the two.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I would grab all three of them and get the heck off that rock. There is no "you can only" when it comes to saving your children. You save them all or die trying. There is no way that you are going to make a calculated decision under those circumstances.

There is no way that the OP is a parent if he or she could think of something so terrifying. There are thousands of impossible situations as a parent, it is not something you spend time thinking about or you would go crazy.

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. This entire discussion feels so pointless, like when your buddy just randomly asks what you would do given an impossible situation where your only option is to die as slowly and painfully as possible. What's the point? Getting your rocks off thinking about how a human being can suffer the most? Here's an idea - grab your kid, hug them close, read them a story, and let them fall asleep in your arms. Stop worrying about ways you might be forced to choose between them in a life or death situation. It does no one any good and raises alarm bells in my head, personally. Thank you and good night.

I am a parent. Your just getting FAR to emotional about a hypothetical situation. Parents have had to make such choices before. If anything I think addressing how you would deal with such situations could help you if such a situation ever did arise. Hopefully you would be willing to do whatever you had to help your children survive. Which could mean leaving one behind.

I would stay with them all and hug them and tell them how much I loved them. No other option, right? In that scenario, we all go together. I would never even think twice about leaving one behind. I'd rather fling myself into that volcano than do that. We would stay together and go out together. Interesting question you posed, one I would never want to face.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Grimpachi

A person that cannot make the sensible choice or is unable to make the choice would not be suited as a leader.

I'd rather die with my family than live to lead someone else's. I don't give a rat's furry hindquarters if that's "sensible". That's how I roll. And I'd rather die than live while knowing that I deliberately walked away when my child needed me the most.

At least you made a choice that is what these scenarios are about. Being able to make the decision. I was first introduced to these kinds of exercises in the military and they had some impossible ones.

There were guys that couldn't make the hard choices and many of them bollowed/failed to where they were not leadership material. It really is about making a rational choice in an extremely emotional situation and if a person couldn't make such a choice in a classroom environment where the lives were purely hypothetical then they had no chance of making a good call in a real world environment.


These types of scenarios poised in the classroom separated the leaders from the followers. The rational thinkers from the emotional thinkers.

BTW captain Kirk would have failed but science fiction is fun anyway.

I found the link. These are all variants of the Trolly problem.

The most intresting part of the thought experiment to me is the reaction of the women and mothers. For the most part they won't even consider the OP or choose the illogical answer out of a misplaced sense of duty and love.


If I had stated the kids were some one else's. Then I bet they grab 2 and take off. However they would rather, basically murder 2 of there children then allow one to die.


I'm not bashing the women-folk. Just saying it's an intresting Psycology. They are so focused on the one they have to leave, they ignore the ones that are save able.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The thing is, when it comes to helping strangers, or any non-family members -- I could make the hard choice on who to save and who to leave behind, even if it meant leaving some children behind. But when it comes to your own children -- no, I couldn't leave one behind. In this hypothetical situation as it is presented, we just wait to die together. In reality, I would not just sit and die, I'd die trying to get us all out. Either way, we stick together.

a reply to: ArtemisE

But by staying your walking away from the other 2 when they need you most. Either way your screwed. I just wouldn't screw all three, because of my own mental hang up.

The entire situation is a sick question to ask anyone, in my opinion. So don't act like there was a better answer i could have given.

There is no wrong answer Sheba. But isn't that kinda throwing the other 2 into the volcano? Isn't that deciding the other 2's lives aren't worth the pain you would feel over leaving one? I think the courageous choice would be to accept the pain and save who you could.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ArtemisE

But by staying your walking away from the other 2 when they need you most. Either way your screwed. I just wouldn't screw all three, because of my own mental hang up.

The entire situation is a sick question to ask anyone, in my opinion. So don't act like there was a better answer i could have given.

It's not sick. It's a very realistic choice thousands have had to make.

Why could you only carry 2? Are these children morbidly obese? Why would you take 3 children to the rim of volcano? I'm guessing they can walk. If I could only hypothetically take two, I would grab the two smallest ones and tell the oldest to haul ass.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sticking by my answer, unless it was a trick question? I do have three children, and I would no more leave one over the other. Your question was if you could only choose to save two, which two would you save? I do not have an answer for that because I love them all equally and their lives are of equal value. Despite one being the oldest and male, or the middle one male, or the youngest female; etc. Doesn't matter. The trauma the survivors would have to deal with after the fact, knowing that "we" as a collective family group, left one behind would likely destroy us in the end anyway. We, as humans are not animals and don't do that, at least I don't think like an animal. Perhaps if there was time we could put it to the vote and collectively together decide which one gets to stay behind. In that case, I would stay behind and tell the oldest to grab your siblings and run for your lives. I would sacrifice myself in a heartbeat.

a reply to: kaylaluv


It is good to know ones limitations. The scenario offered gives no room for hope o save the third child however in the real world these types of things happen far too often.

Think about how many house fires there are on a daily bases. I imagine there have been many parents that have faced similar situations of saving those they could. I think they are able to make those choices because they hold a false hope they can return for the others. The mind if a funny thing because I am sure many at least subconsciously know that there would be no hope of actually returning so they lie to themselves and save the ones they can.

I wonder if there have been those who were completely honest with themselves about the situation and simply sat in the house with their children so they would all die together instead of saving the ones they could?

I think as I said if they can convince themselves there is even the slightest chance to return they would take it, but with such slight of a chance they are still faced with the same decision as the volcano scenario.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DonVoigt

What he meant was if you can think of a better example of the question. Not a better example where you can save everyone.

This is a philosophical question with real world applications posed in classes across the globe. They have many such examples of the question but it is always an impossible scenario. One of the purposes is to train or find those suited to be leaders as whether it be leading a nation or leading an Army the individual in charge of making the decisions will be faced with many such as the one in the OP except they will have hundred or thousands of lives in their hands.

A person that cannot make the sensible choice or is unable to make the choice would not be suited as a leader.

I had not thought about it in those terms. You bring up some very valid points in regards to having leaders with the ability to make tough decisions with human lives.

That's some food for thought.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Exactly why I thought it was a trick question. I would never make a good military leader who was willing to make those types of decisions. As a mother, it is an impossible question! At least for this mother. Of course, I lead a life of comfort where these kinds of questions never come up while shopping for toys, or the newest gadgets or planning a decadent birthday party. It is so far off my normal range of thought process it is in fact quite unbelievable. Yet, still to this day there are those that do make those kinds of decisions and that fact truly humbles me. I am grateful that today, I don't have to make that decision for anybody, least of all for my kids. Makes one think, though.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

There is no wrong answer Sheba. But isn't that kinda throwing the other 2 into the volcano? Isn't that deciding the other 2's lives aren't worth the pain you would feel over leaving one? I think the courageous choice would be to accept the pain and save who you could.

But here's what bothers me about the scenario. In a real life situation, you don't really know what the outcome is going to be. You may know what your odds are, but it IS possible to beat the odds if you are clever enough. People have beaten the odds many times in real life disaster situations. So in real life, I would think fast and find the smartest way to get us all out. I may not succeed, but then again, I might. I'd have to try. I'm just telling you what I would do in real life, verses your scenario.

Another example would be your house is burning down and you have 3 kids you have to get out. In real life, if I couldn't carry all 3 of them out in my arms, I would find something I could wrap them up in (blanket, sheet, etc.) and drag them out by pulling the blanket behind me. The time it would take me to wrap them up might doom us all, but then again, it might work. The point is, I'd have to try...

Yup I'll leave one... Sorry I got high as a giraffe and decided to take my kids to the edge of a volcano but I'm taking 3 and comming back with 2...

The question was posed without context so that may change the outcome of the decision. If it were in prehistoric times, or on the verge of human extinction time where survivors were needed to keep the human race going, or a viral disease or pandemic where one was sick and was on the way out anyway; the answer might be different. However, my mind answered the question based on my life right now. I imagined being in Yellowstone or Hawaii or New Zealand on the dream vacation of a lifetime where my cell phone texted me an alert stating that the volcano was ready to blow and I had sixty seconds to save only two. What to do? In that case, my answer stands. Making that decision to leave one behind would destroy a person's mind and cause a self destructive cycle that would likely end in a slow, miserable death due to substance abuse, self harm, psychological distress, trauma, etc...kind of like our vets now with PTSD and the rampant suicide rates among them. I'd rather call it right there and be done with it all. There is no happy ending with survivor's guilt, just a slow, drawn out painful process of self-inflicted guilt, harm, sadness and pain.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I totally agree. The question may have been better directed at the choice to save children who rent your own because parental instincts are much stronger than human survival instincts. Therefore you would rather die together as the thought of on of YOUR children dying ALONE is not going to happen if theres a choice.

Because when it comes down to it, you arent saving them for eternity but just for another day. Be it next week or 50 years each one of those days will be horrible to have the memories of your child/brother/sister.

Therefore to take all these feelings out and more straightforward make them 3 random kids. Therefore id save 2 and leave 1. Because my survival instincts will not be nullified by love. As terrible as that sounds its embedded in all of us.

originally posted by: queenofsheba
a reply to: ArtemisE

I'm sticking by my answer, unless it was a trick question? I do have three children, and I would no more leave one over the other. Your question was if you could only choose to save two, which two would you save? I do not have an answer for that because I love them all equally and their lives are of equal value. Despite one being the oldest and male, or the middle one male, or the youngest female; etc. Doesn't matter. The trauma the survivors would have to deal with after the fact, knowing that "we" as a collective family group, left one behind would likely destroy us in the end anyway. We, as humans are not animals and don't do that, at least I don't think like an animal. Perhaps if there was time we could put it to the vote and collectively together decide which one gets to stay behind. In that case, I would stay behind and tell the oldest to grab your siblings and run for your lives. I would sacrifice myself in a heartbeat.

I apologize if I worded it that way. Which kids you save isn't relevant. It's the choice of to stay and all die or leave one behind.i think all would sacrifice themselves for there children. That's primal. It's the could you leave one to save the rest that mattered.