Question for the parents on this board...
 

...let's say you and your child are prisoners in a war camp. The camp guard tells you that either you or your child can be set free, and the other will be executed. You have 1 minute to choose or else both of you will be executed

Which option do you choose?

Where is this POW camp located exactly? If someone has like a 2 year old, they aren't going to survive in the jungle or siberia alone...

Let's say the camp is located near the border of a neutral country, and the camp guard said he would deliver only one of you to the custody of the neutral country government across the border.

Easy... Me. I cant replace myself, but can always have another child.

i'm not a dad but most people will choose their kids to survive , it's not smart though from the selfish perspective :1orglaugh

Obviously your child.

If you chose yourself, would it even make a difference? You are dead either way.

Your child, on the other hand, can live their life without that same guilt. A parents love for their child is different than a child's love for their parents. Parents should not see their children die, but children know they will see their parents die.

it i cant have anymore kids myself

seems like someone is concerned that they might be a psychopath....

Surprised no keyboard warrior here has said - I'd go all Chuck Norris on the camp guard and save us both.

Personally, i am fascinated that the question was asked at all. The brain will never process a question like this logically... as reason only follows a strong flash of affect from emotional intuition and we then react accordingly.

It is moral question. Moral questions are processed very differently in the brain than other mundane questions.

The only way a person wouldn't process this question properly or not understand a parents instant, unwavering decision to save their child is if something is wired wrong in their brains emotional processing.... such as with a psychopath where there is no intense, internal emotional response to the loss of their child and every dilemma and every decision, no matter how disturbing to a normal person is basically a tie to them and they could go either way (i.e. kill this dog by bashing its head with a rock or pet it and give it a toy to play with).

The interesting thing in asking this question is that, though the answer seems painfully obvious to anyone, it likely isn't obvious to the person asking it, thus it suggests something is up with his brains emotional wiring... being that to a normal person the question could be likened to say, asking "if you are thirsty, would you drink something". You could only ask such a question if you weren't sure what thirst was, why people drink water etc etc etc, again, telling you that something is really wrong in this persons brain and impeding their ability to understand these things.

A very Antigonesque argument indeed. Not bad.

off with their heads

then you both die! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh eaten by the dogs

Interesting.

So in effect you're saying the OP is probably fucked up for asking the question to begin with?

No - you added the dog variable. Wasn't in the OP's scenario.

war camps have dogs. you brought in chuck :winkwink: missing in action? delta force? usually german shepards :2 cents::2 cents:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7s-8Pxp2t9...0/IMG_6801.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9g9ICz6wMD...60/huffing.jpg

https://project58illuminatinginjusti...ttle-mouth.jpg

you are a piece of shit to make fun of kids :2 cents::2 cents:

my Child,

but the question would get tougher if you had to choose between two children

Laughable insult coming from you. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What I would prolly do, is tell him take my kid and watch the look on his face as my fingers crush both of his eyes then break his fucking neck.

Now back to the real world, I would 100% without hesitating beg them to take my life once the kid is set free and the kid wont see me die.

Tom

What a shitty question.

Well, being a good person and having true human feelings, id sacrifice my self, like nature intends. God can go fuck himself.

i will take me and my child out, and offering antohter person to be executed. ( the thread starter)

wtf is this for an bullshit ?

Well, the answer should be obvious. As a parent there is zero question what the answer is. As a person of reasonably sound mind, even if one is without children, it's still obvious what a parent would say. So the question is then "how could one be confused as to what a parent might decide to do?".

Psychopaths are almost never violent. They do have brains that a mis-wired in such a way that they are usually aware that they have a real problem as all day, everyday, they are seeing that they lack the same emotional responses of others. They learn to understand the world and behavior in a very different way. They learn to fake the right emotional responses at the right time etc creating the perception of normalcy. But generally speaking, they love an a world that is emotionally gray vs ours of vivid and widely varying color). As an analogy, you and I know at a stop light to go on green. A psychopath, has learned to go when the top light is on. This is why they can be around us and not stand out in spite of their gross emotional deficiencies and seem perfectly normal until they slip up and ask a question like "why would a parent save their child"

Understanding how our brains process moral decisions and knowing that normal people experience a very strong flash of emotional affect, after which they act accordingly, it is also easy to understand how a person lacking that intense emotional response is confused at why a parent would save a child.

Psychopaths have no emotional attachment to their children. They don't experience love. To them, their children are objects and possessions. Letting one die is the emotional equivalent of throwing away an old shirt. In most cases, a relief unless that child brought something to the table (achievements, abilities/talents, attractiveness etc) which reflect well on the parent or some other benefit to the parent which they would regret losing.

Anyway, sincerely not understanding why it's an absurd question to ask, suggests quite a bit about the emotional wiring of the person asking the question.

What a brilliant idea you comeup with

A few things should also be said. People generally don't understand what "psychopath" and psychopathy are. It's not like the movies. Psychotic and psychopathic are not the same either. Generally speaking, though a range of common personality traits are common to psychopathy, it stems from a deficiency in specific areas of the brain, resulting in severely retarded or absent emotional responses. Some psychologists argue that up to 3-4% of people in the USA are psychopaths. They are doctors, lawyers, physicists etc etc etc and at most just seem "abrasive" or "a little eccentric" or "kind of a dick" to others and lead pretty normal lives

That's classic Sophie's Choice problem.

By the way I asked the question, not because I fear I am a psychopath LOL, but because I wanted to see who would answer consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy that one should consider his own life above all others, all the time. I am surprised no one here caught on to that.

For the record I would choose my child to be released in a heartbeat, no doubts whatsoever.

Interestingly, psychopaths don't fear they are psychopaths ;)

Ayn Rand may feel that from a rational perspective, it makes sense, but our brains do not process moral decisions with rational reason.

Further, there is additional genetic encoding in our DNA to further ensure we sacrifice for blood relatives (kin altruism related behaviors) to protect and further our genes.

Sociopath World: Guest post: Ayn Rand :winkwink:

All kinds of opinions and posts about this topic and Rand.

Ayn Rand's integral part of her philosophy, Objectivism, is to act only upon reason....and nothing else.

I do not agree with that philosophy, just was curious to see who agrees with it.

You are assuming that I asked this question in order to seek guidance on the proper way to act. You fail to realize that one can ask questions in order to develop a debate even when the questioner already has an answer in mind.

You quoted me where I used very clear and unambiguous language, specifically saying "sincerely not understanding....." obviously taking that into account. I didn't state specifically that you didn't understand, as I have no clue as to your motivation for asking the question.... though, it is again worth pointing out that the answer for any sane parent is obvious. So obvious that a non parent would not hesitate in answering the same. This would make the very asking of the question suspect.

After all, if Ayn Rand said that drinking water is unnecessary, no one would come to a forum to ask the masses what they think as the answer would be obvious before asking.

First you said: "Personally, i am fascinated that the question was asked at all. The brain will never process a question like this logically... as reason only follows a strong flash of affect from emotional intuition and we then react accordingly."

Stating that assumes you thought I was asking this question in order to seek guidance.

Then you said: "..suggests quite a bit about the emotional wiring of the person asking the question."

Stating that suggested you failed to realize one can ask questions in order to develop a logical debate rather than an offer to explore one's personal emotional wiring.

It's fair to say that quite a bit can be inferred about a person who asks a question of 1000s of strangers with such a universally obvious answer. Maybe you'd like to "just ask" some other questions like "should I fatally stab a pregnant woman" or "should I eat my child"... after all, just questions and who really knows what people will say??

It would not make asking the question suspect. It would make the philosophical view suspect. Those are two different things.

There's no debatable issue there because that would not fit into AR's philosophy. Doing that will end one's life. She advocated selfishness as a virtue, one's life above all others. Recognizing that POV allows for a debate.

I remember now... she espoused those views and then later tapped the health care system for her health problems or something similar

I tried to lay out the fact that there is no debatable issue in the choice of parent over child. A mentally sound parent will choose the well being of the child every time. I also said many times that in addition to genetically encoded reasons, moral questions are not processed like other questions, so there is no rational argument taking ace to begin with. Only an emotionally impaired person would see it as a math formula.

There are thousands of Ayn Rand followers. And her books have sold millions of copies. So it's not a stretch to suspect that some of her followers might be on this forum. Especially given the Capitalistic nature of this forum.


I do not know of any philosophy that has thousands of followers that advocates for what you just posted. So no, i would not ask that question.

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. I was simply addressing your defense that a question is just a question - in spite of your willful denial of the fact that is not true at all, I can ask 5 questions from strangers that would leave them thinking I was the kindest person on earth or a mass murderer.

You say there is no debatable issue. But then later on you just listed a debatable issue...the person who acts upon reason only, and thus is emotionally impaired. That is what Ayn Rand advocates in her philosophy of Objectivism.

I've highlight and pointed out an evil aspect of Objectivist philosophy. You on the other hand would suggest I never even mention such philosophy?

I never said a question is just a question.

I thought I already said a question can be more than simply asking for the proper way to live one's life. A question can also be the impetus for debate....in this case the debate would be the validity of AR's Objectivism.

Would tell my daughter I love Her and would let her go. Wouldn't hesitate for a heartbeat.

I've said again and again that a mentally sound person will make the same choice and only a person with severe mental deficiencies such as psychopathy can choose otherwise. I fail to see where there is "debate". If the question is asked "can you run a world record mile time" the obvious answer is "no.... Unless you've been training and are capable of doing it". A debate doesn't change potential outcomes.

Sure, but it's not reasonable to suggest that something cannot be inferred from the question or the person asking it, particularly when the answer is universally obvious and self evident to any mentally sound person.

I've read this in an Osho book. True :pimp

Yes we already know what you said.

The Objectivist debater on the other side will say a mentally sound person values his oen life above all others. And thus, the Objectivist would claim that the mentally sound choice would be to preserve one's life above all others.


Just because I know what the other side will argue does not mean I approve of the other side. If you know your enemy, you know yourself - Sun Tzu

That's about all that needs to be said.