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

a reply to: 3u40r15m

Well the OP gave a set of rules that makes it impossible to save all Three kids.

In reality the only Choice you have is Death to all 4 or to leave one kid behind.

From Reading some of the arguments on this topic. Some would leave one of their kids behind. And some would not.

In reality that is also what would happened. We all make indipendent and different Choices.

But the OP is not just asking for who would leave a kid behind. The OP is also challenging the question of who would stay behind and let all 4 die. That is a moral Choice. The OP is also challenging Our moral values. Because we are being set up to have two Choices. We must choose one over the other and give a reason.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Obviously, my dear husband would be out of luck, though I would expect him to make the same choice if I were on the track.

The human lottery clipping you added was an interesting read. It differs from what the OP and your other scenarios though by giving up your freedom of personal choice. I imagine such a proposition on a conspiracy site would make one too paranoid that random lottery selection would become corrupted and abused.

I have friends who check that organ donor box on the driver's license, I do not. My significant other and family know that I am willing to donate and if by chance, it cannot be medically done in timely fashion...my body can be donated towards research. That way, I feel like I have control over the lottery, while I am alive.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Absolutely. That's easy for me to say since I only have one child and she would obviously be one of the two I would carry when I imagine this scenario. I would guess this would be a harder question for the parents with three or more children.

If I had three hypothetical children, I would choose the two who were the kindest and most gentlest of heart and leave the one who had shown the most cruelty during childhood.

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: ArtemisE

Absolutely. That's easy for me to say since I only have one child and she would obviously be one of the two I would carry when I imagine this scenario. I would guess this would be a harder question for the parents with three or more children.

If I had three hypothetical children, I would choose the two who were the kindest and most gentlest of heart and leave the one who had shown the most cruelty during childhood.

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

Assuming there's a time frame and you must pick fast. Could you decide who to leave behind if only given a minute to decide?

I think I would fail here. Even if I knew the correct course was to grab 2 and run. I'm likely to miss my chance trying to decide.

a reply to: Cuervo

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

Do you think the chield left behind thinks its Ok for you to leave him/her to die?

Why should the opinion of the two others have more value?

PS. might have missunderstood you.

I wouldn't think but work through getting all kids out, maybe we wouldn't make it but I believe its possible to bend space and time, drive through the hologram, and if any one of us had to be here, or all, we'd all make it.

The only ones who could conceive of this are those in boxes, or materialists. People nudge them to wake up, share experiences that counter the material view of the world, and I truly believe how you perceive the world you're in makes a huge difference to how you would respond to this.

Even continually presenting the rigid outlines of this morality question, without acknowledges that most people faced in rigid lines, would color outside them or bend them or blast through them to accomplish what they believe in. They don't believe in the lines.

Those who don't accept the lines of the game are the most dangerous people on earth to the PTB by the way.

But the ones most likely to follow the lines are the ones without deep inner wellsprings and who haven't even started their journey, it seems, in questioning the world around them. Though in emergencies a person's maternal/paternal parenting skills may kick in and override all their logic and reptilian brain programming.

Because you wouldn't sacrifice the whole world because a few would die. It's horribly illogical to sacrifice all 3 children because you can't save one.

I would never sacrifice parts of the world to save the world. I would know right away, this is a test, and would you want your new eden based on genocide. This is exactly what the elite are doing, some thinking its the right thing.

You are always expected within your ability, to do all you can to help others and never to harm. That will either bring in the good you need to survive the situation, OR you'll have passed the test and get your medal and cold smoothie.

Digital reality. You entered a training manual. There is no world. Only the people and life here counts. You haven't really left home.

Kick them all in and high tail it out of there.

Seriously though, those of you who would stay and burn everyone alive are seriously selfish twatheads.

a reply to: darrellabbott

Thats the thing. Someone wrote up a few lines to say if you don't grab 2 you are crazy glued to the ground.

No one would be doing that, they'd be actively trying to get all 3 out.

So nada on that one. In reality if older they'd all be running with you and I know they'd outrun me. If one was a toddler and you had twin babies, you'd get the toddler on your back piggy backing and carry the twins. If one fell you'd move two ahead and go back for the fallen one.

If they were older, my boys, some would go back themselves for the fallen one.

If it was me fallen, I'd be yelling like Gandalf in the movie, RUN FOOLS.

Here is the thing, ruling classes love to conduct little paradigm emergency scarcity experiments and set these rigid and unrealistic boundaries. Any 5 year old could speak up to the politician, tug on his pants, and say, hey wait, why do those people have to starve, can't we just give some land and put up some teepees and do greenhousing like my dad does.

There is always a solution.

But that would mean some of their controls drop away. They don't want 5 year olds to be able to do that.

Instead they create rigid boxes, very small ones and try and enslave minds to conform to those.

Well they can line up for the big narding, but I don't think in their boxes, and when I was 4 or 5, after watching vietnam and napalmed babies was having a temper tantrum outside saying, what what what, they still don't get it, so little kids have to save the world, and met my Higher Self, who told me I chose to come.

No one would be crazy glued to the ground with 2 5 or 10 kids.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Watch Sophies Choice, in movie she has to choose between her children, which one to save, which one to be sent to Nazi death camp

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Cuervo

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

Do you think the chield left behind thinks its Ok for you to leave him/her to die?

Why should the opinion of the two others have more value?

PS. might have missunderstood you.

A parent assumes their children are all of equal worth and "value" but this has a definite answer. If you were to do nothing, you lose three children and yourself. If you were to carry two of them, you save three lives.

By choosing themselves, I just meant that I doubt the children would choose for the parent to do nothing and cause all four of them to die.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: ArtemisE

Absolutely. That's easy for me to say since I only have one child and she would obviously be one of the two I would carry when I imagine this scenario. I would guess this would be a harder question for the parents with three or more children.

If I had three hypothetical children, I would choose the two who were the kindest and most gentlest of heart and leave the one who had shown the most cruelty during childhood.

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

Assuming there's a time frame and you must pick fast. Could you decide who to leave behind if only given a minute to decide?

I think I would fail here. Even if I knew the correct course was to grab 2 and run. I'm likely to miss my chance trying to decide.

Even if I had to just randomly pick two because of time constraints, I'd just choose the two closest. To do anything other than save two of your children would be killing all three. Draw straws, have them guess the closest number you are thinking, if you have two of one gender leave one of them behind, etc. It doesn't matter how you choose if you don't have time; you just need to grab as many children as you can (in this case, two) and run.

Draw straws or have them guess the closest number what the? You do realise this time spent standing there getting them to guess or you deciding which children to save and which to leave to a horrible painfull death, you could be running away with all 3 and atleast attempting to get them to safety.. Wow i have 2 boys and 1 girl and theres no way i could pick which of my boys to leave behind just so i could save atleast one of each gender.. I wouldn't even consider that id just grab all my 3 kids and run i just couldn't leave one to die like that, i believe in life after death though which i think changes how i look at it also we all have our own beliefs and i think these all factor in to our decision making on this subject which is why i dont judge the people who would leave their kid to die with their last memories of their parents abandoning them.

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Cuervo

For those who are saying they would die with all three, keep in mind you are making a choice to kill two of your children when it was preventable. That's a choice I'm sure they'd rather make themselves.

Do you think the chield left behind thinks its Ok for you to leave him/her to die?

Why should the opinion of the two others have more value?

PS. might have missunderstood you.

A parent assumes their children are all of equal worth and "value" but this has a definite answer. If you were to do nothing, you lose three children and yourself. If you were to carry two of them, you save three lives.

By choosing themselves, I just meant that I doubt the children would choose for the parent to do nothing and cause all four of them to die.

There is no doubt that some will choose to leave one behind. Some would even leave all Three kids behind just to save them self. People will do what they think is right and just.

a reply to: Shana91aus

That's not part of the OP's rules, though. Grabbing all three is not an option. The options are either save two of the three or let all three die.

It's really that simple. Of course a parent's first reaction is to say "I'd grab all three!" but that's (for whatever reason) is not an option. To choose that is to not participate in the exercise or answer the question.

I was saying "draw straws" because it doesn't matter how you choose if you can't make the choice yourself. Personally, if I had one child that hit kids on the playground and tortured dogs for fun, I'd probably choose that one to leave behind. If, however, they were all perfect angels (which they all are in a parent's eyes), I would just grab the two closest to me or the two lightest to ensure their survival.

To grab all three in this scenario means you would be killing all three.

Unpopular opinion, I'd leave all three behind. Yes, heartless I know, but I'd rather look out for myself in a situation such as that. Another reasoning is that due to volcanic eruption, a lot of things are gonna be destroyed, eespecially food supplies. To try and scrounge meagre food for myself and 3 kids would be harder than anything else, and thus watch them die a slow death of starvation. Having the kids wiped away in a wave of lava would be a relief as they went without suffering...and also having a death worthy of a black metal song.