Originally I thought…I would save the kid, obviously. Then I decided to think some more about it thinking about my children being motherless and the pain that I would put my own family through.
My conclusion was…I would save the kid, obviously.
That’s my feeling, too.
I would not save the child.
I’m 23 years old. I still have a long life ahead of me. I see no reason why his life is more valuable than mine. All other things being equal, the value of his life is tied with mine, and self interest is the tie breaker here.
Furthermore, while I do believe in helping people, there are plenty of opportunities for me to help many people while still remaining alive. I could become an EMT, work for a 911 dispatch center, join the Peace Corps, give blood, be an organ donor, etc. I know my own personality, and the good I’m capable of achieving. I know nothing about this kids future. It could be negative for all I know.
I think I would stand in the street corner and watch, just to fully remind myself of the decision that I’m making. That would motivate me to take one of the aforementioned alternative paths to altruism.
I love my child. I’d go through a lot of pain for her. But I think (and it’s never been tested, so I can’t be sure) that I love life more. I don’t think she can be replaced, but Skald was making some sort of argument about “evolutionary fitness” - the last sentence was in response to that, specifically - to say I don’t have all my genetic future invested in one human that must be protected at all costs.
I wouldn’t willingly give up my life for my wife’s either. Why should I? Yet I love her, and my child, I’m sure, as much as you love yours. But I love myself more, I think. I feel no shame in saying that.
I dont actually like children much,I dont particulary like being around children,hey dont look at me like that !I was a kid myself once!
Also taking into the equation that children murdering other children and sometimes adults is no longer a rare phenonemonononononon(I’m not sure if I finished the word a few too "on ons"short) plus Hitler,the Yorkshire Ripper,Stalin and Cilla Black were also children once ,my reply to the O.P. would be a definite no.
But I might be inclined to throw a couple of kids from the pavement(U.S. sidewalk)into the path of an on coming bus if it would save MY LIFE or maybe my pet Gerbils but I think that any reasonable adult would do the same in that situation.
No. If I answered yes in an honest manner, I would then have to ask myself why I haven’t tried to save a child’s life by donating a kidney to a child in need. That wouldn’t even require that would *have *to die.
No, I might risk myself if I thought I could save him, but I would not intentionally give up my life for his.
Thanks for the clarification, your final sentence in the other post just seemed very cavalier. I respect your different view, I just could respect the idea of a child being replaceable. It does not appear that was what you really meant. Just in context of a conversation I missed.
Jim
In a heartbeat. Only thing that would change my mind is the age of the child. If a child is old enough to know better, than I couldn’t do it. Let’s draw the line at age 12. By that time, you should know better. Sounds harsh, but it’s true, no?
That said, I’m only 27 y/o myself.
I suppose if I had my own kid, that would make it a much tougher decision. Right now I have a gf, but no children. The gf would get over it and move on, while the child… well, I know what it’s like to lose my father, and it’s not easy. I probably wouldn’t go through with it, with my own child in mind.
You would sure be pissed if your last realization was that you saved an undersized 13 year old.
Just for today. Release yourself from worry, pain, misery, and negativity. Everyone that you cone in contact with, simply say “Hello”. Today will be better because it’s your decision to change your immediate surroundings. It’ll be like a vacation from yourself. Deep down, everyone needs a little recognition to validate their existence. You will feel better, you will be brightening many people’s lives…just for today…
There would be no conscious decision to risk my life to save another…it’s automatic. There isn’t time to weigh the value of a life for a life. Just act swiftly knowing that whatever the outcome, it will be okay.
I’d have a hard time doing this for a stranger kid I don’t know. If it’s the kid of a loved one or a really close friend, maybe. But a kid I don’t know? Doubtful.
Maybe because I’m 29; I still have a lot of life of my own to live. Fifty years from now when I’m 79, I might do it in a heartbeat, but at 29, it would be hard to sacrifice my life for anyone who isn’t a loved one.
Odd post from a fresh poster. I’ll let the Mods figure it all out.
I would not die for a strange kid during the zombie apocalypse but in actual life I could see doing it. Burning building, heat of the moment kind of stuff. I just hope I never have to face the situation.
If I knew ahead of time I would probably avoid the street, if I were there randomly I have no doubt I would save the child because it would be an instant decision.
Years ago we are on a family vacation and my wife pointed to a kid that looked like he was in trouble swimming about 150 yards from shore. I am a weak swimmer, I doubt I could have saved the kid, just as I was leaning in to start the swim I saw another older kid who was a strong swimmer headed for the rescue. I will never know if I would have made the plunge, I was hesitating. Not knowing ruined my vacation. I had to force myself to let go of the situation. I made a decision after that that I wold weight the riskes involved and my chances of making a difference and accept whatever my decison was.
Yes. It would be nice to know that I accomplished something positive with my life.
Of course, I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t.
I thought Skald was back. 
- This what strikes me. Despite the OP’s attempt to separate ‘I’d choose to’ from ‘I would actually go through with it’ the two are not really separate. This ‘hypothetical’ actually exists in various forms in every day life. I could impoverish myself (and my family) to donate all my money to overseas relief organizations which help children in the poorest countries. The more they collect the fewer children, I’ll never know, will die of starvation and disease, which is really happening. And I don’t even have to literally die to do this or inflict the pain of my own death on my family. I’d just have to be miserable and make my family miserable.
I recall a controversial NY Times magazine article arguing that this is the only ethical approach to modern life in the rich world, to impoverish oneself to help children dying of preventable conditions related to poverty in poor countries.
But I don’t do that. I donate a fair % of my income to just such orgs, but not to the point of putting myself in poverty. So how could I reasonably maintain I’d die to save a strange child when I don’t impoverish myself to do it now? And I’m guessing few if any of the people answering ‘of course I would’ to OP question are now impoverishing themselves to save strange chlidren. So I view the ‘yes’ answers rather skeptically, to put it mildly.
- And yes to judge this by way of real life incidents we’d have to factor in the important distinction that altruistic rescuers or would be rescuers don’t typically know they’ll die, are hoping not to.