Eh - the girl I love doesn’t love me, anyway. And she’d despise me if I let 10,000 people die in the hopes the Mephisto wouldn’t drive her even further away.
The 10,000 live. My hopes die, but they’re feeble things anyway. A fair trade.
As described, keep the beloved. I know him. I don’t know those kids and they’d have died if I hadn’t been presented this choice, so I’m not causing their suffering, just failing to alleviate it.
Would I hate myself for it? Quite possibly. But I think it’s human nature to look after one’s own folks in preference to those strangers over there.
Ew. I’m not a buddhist, and I don’t have any desire to be.
Because I don’t care that much about them, nor do I feel obligated to. If I did, I’d give all my cash to charity and my computer away to some poor kid who can’t afford one. If I won’t even deprive myself of a house, various creature comforts, and my pets for others’ benefit, I’m sure as hell not giving up my husband for them.
I am using the word evolve in the narrower, biological sense. Humans are evolved to be omnivorous bipeds who live in groups, not quadrapedal obligate carnivores who live alone. Similarly, we’re evolved to care more about persons we know than persons we don’t. Also, no single individual evolves, anyway; only populations do.
I am not contending that persons who make the choice to favor their relationships over the sufferings of thousands are making the moral choice. I’m saying that they are making the choice human evolution has caused to be the most likely choice in a given population.
Again, I’m not saying that everyone will make the choice to preserve the love. I’m saying that the vast majority will, just as the vast majority of healthy adults, if asked to run a marathon, will crap out around mile three.
Oh, bullshit. I think I would choose to save the 10,000 (or at least I hope I would), but I am not going to be unaffected by my wife or baby sister suddenly hating me. And I don’t want to be a person who would be unaffected by their hatred. I love them; I want them to love me.
And I DON’T believe that I am “lacking absolutely nothing in yourself or outside of yourself, then your loved one cannot take anything away from you when they go.” I don’t even want to be the guy who is that self-sufficient, because that guy is an asshole.
ETA: If relinquishing my companion causes me no suffering in the first place, then I don’t love her or him in the first place. Buddha is as imaginary as Gandalf.
Of course, Mephisto is going to present you with a different quandary. 
They are toast. 
Ain’t no way. I don’t care if it’s a million people - my husband and daughter come first.
FWIW, the idea that losing someone you love would not affect you negatively doesn’t really strike me as Buddhist, or in any way realistic. Buddhism isn’t about the absence of pain, just the acceptance of it.
So we’re clear: You’re not being asked to let your husband and daughter die. Mephistopheles is just taking the love felt by (one of) them and turning it to hate.
Absolutely not.
Everyone will die in random ways. That is not my responsibility. The love of my life IS my responsibility.
I’d surrender my life to save hers. 10,000 strangers rather than her life?
Absolutely not.
Again I am unclear if you read the OP, so I’ll reiterate:
You’re not being asked to allow your beloved (who need not be your romantic beloved) to die. You’re being asked to consent to having that person hate you. In other words, it is not her well-being that is at stake (unless you’re saying she cannot be well unless she loves you); you are being asked to sacrifice the relationship.
I read the OP again. That is not clear when you said, “sacrifice the relationship.” Could be anything; could be they died. And the title definitely implies death.
Here is the OP in its entirety, sir or madam, with the relevant passages bolded:
You are correct, I did mis-read.
The reply remains the same.
Not a chance.
Yep. The love of my life is about to be deported anyway. It won’t hurt any more if he thinks I don’t love him.
If the person itself is not being sacrificed, only my relationship with them I cant see the debate as its ultimately my happiness vs 10000 lives, and my partner would have the opportunity to find other relationships - I am not that special that I think I am irreplaceable.
This scenario also seems to make it so an afterlife really exists, making this life less meaningful than it otherwise was. This also would suggest sacrificing myself in this life is the sensible thing to do in the long run for myself as well and that I will see my partner in the other reality in the long run anyhow.
Otara
That is because those people have lost their right to live, these people clearly have not. Killing al-Alwaki for example would be its own reward.
In what sense? Romantic love?
So you wouldn’t give a damn for World War 3 or a dinokiller asteroid striking Earth provided the life of them were guaranteed.
^That. I am not causing anything to happen that was not already going to happen, and I am already buggered anyway by having caught Meph’s attention, why should I play his game, which by his very nature will be stacked so I can’t win?
Well, that much is true. BUT the reference to how “the Carpenter could heal them” suggest this hypothetical’s world runs on Christian theo/cosmology, wherein the only response to an offer from such a source is “Get Thee Behind Me”.
It’s not that simple. For my husband to end up hating me would mean I have betrayed him and caused him pain. It goes against my commitment to him to cause him the kind of pain that comes from the betrayal of a loved one. Also, my daughter deserves to grow up with the benefit of having her parents in a loving, committed relationship. Why should she suffer?
Those 10,000 people already afflicted? Don’t know 'em, didn’t cause their suffering. It’s a pity and I can sympathize, but there’s nothing I can do for them.
Adult love. The kind of love that comes with the responsibility for the health, happiness, and well-being of another human being.