Guys, if you had to choose between saving the life of your mother, sister, wife/girlfriend and daughter/son, who would you pick?

[emmily2396]

Suppose they are all going to fall of a cliff like in the image I showed. Their grip strength may not be good enough for you to have time to save more than 1 or 2 of them. For reference, they are pretty close to each other.

Mom first

Sister first

Wife/girlfriend first

Daughter/son first

None of them, let them die

Other

Updates

+1 y

Actually, the kid may be able to hold for the longest because of body size. When I was little i could stay like that for much longer than I do now. Your mother would probably be the one to fall due to being the oldest.

[Zealashton]

My sister. Of course
my mom would want her to live
and I don't want to be a sigal parant that can't fiend a new wife, to love
and I don't want to save the girl firend, cus she will ethire, A cheat on me, or be dump me.
If its a wife, how long have I been with her. 13 years. Childs 13 then that means my sister would have a kid, meaning I save my kid do to respect of her loyalty
but if she's only 1 year old wife, and only been together 1 year, yaaa I drup her ass save my sister
but is she was litterly my soul mate even if its just a girlfriend or wife,
soul mate
sister
mom
that bee a hard choice,
if save mom, that means my dad won't be lonely and depressed. But could end up seprated thus mother would die 100%
now sister vs soul mate
well I don't trust my sister, if she had a boy, and cercum it, aka mgm, I would never be her bother again, she can die, all I care,
but cus I'm alive. I'm incontrol, I can reproduce, she can't really.. Thus I pick my soul mate.
But if she's not my soul mate, its always my sister. 100% sorry son, but dady can allways remake a famly. But my sister in eraplaceable

[Zealashton]

@Exorcist_Rampage I pitty your tomfoolery. You a pittiful man

[Exorcist_Rampage]

I said sister first like you. Didn't you read my answer?

[LesterJester]

Pretty close does not mean the exact same location and position.

Technically I would go for the closest person possible due to the greater chance of rescue before falling.

Though the other logical side of me may go for the lightest people first as I could be able to pull them up quicker, thus perhaps giving more time to grab hold of someone else.

Either way, my primary thought would be why the hell they were all being so stupid standing near the edge of a cliff all at the same time in the first place. Our family doesn't raise idiots.

The idiots are cast out.

[SpacedCharr]

As a bisexual only daughter with a partner? My partner.

Let my non-existent sister and child fall to their death alongside my manipulative, narcissistic mother.

Bwa ha ha hahahaha!

[jarrea01]

I think I would panic and try to save who ever is closest and pull them up as quickly as possible. And if some fall and die I'd be sad about it. But if you wanna get more deep into it. I'd saved any kids first in my family. I can't imagine my mom wanting me to save her life before her kids. And if I had kids of my own, well of course I want them to live. Between my wife/gf and my mom, 🤔 I don't know, I would think my wife/gf should be my choice because my mom would probably know how heartbroken I would be if she died and she'd want me to be happy. But at the same time, that's my mom 😢.

[NYCstreetPhotog]

Son or daughter first, they have the longest life ahead of them. Then Wife/girlfriend, since it's best to have a mother for the developement of children. Now if I still have time, my sister (if I had one), and finally my mother.

Now moralistically the younger the age, the more potential they have to benefit the world, so they should be saved first. Physically the younger the age the less weight, so it would be easier to pull them up, thus could be left last. Ultimately, both must be taken into consideration, along with the emotional implications of the situation too.

[Anonymous]

The percentages make a lot of sense. You're kind of forcing people to do a cold calculation. I think children are favored by most people because they have the longest life ahead of them, so it's mathematically the biggest save. I kind of wonder how the results would change if the wife/girlfriend were pregnant. Would an unborn child get the same value in people's calculations as an already born one?

[determination]

most dumb people would go for the kid but i value bonds more then how long someone will live i would rather save an elderly person that i know well then some dumb replaceable child

[crmoore]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the person who provided an emotional explanation is calling the person who provided a logical, deeper, and more thorough explanation dumb?

[Opinion Owner]

@determination To give a little more background, I sometimes think about these "calculations" from the perspective of self-driving cars and high-powered robotics. There are a variety of real scenarios similar to this that come up in these fields. For instance, if a car's rear radar detects that it's about to be hit hard from behind, should it turn its wheels to avoid hitting someone in the crosswalk in front of it? The answer is easy if there's only one person. But what if the choice is strike a child by turning right, strike a grown adult by turning left, or strike both by doing nothing? That's when these "what would most of society do?" questions really matter.

[Opinion Owner]

FYI, here's a wikipedia article that gives a little more detail, including the autonomous vehicle considerations (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Trolley_problem ) of these types of "trolley problems" as they're known.

[Éire1995]

If you save your mam, she will never forgive you for letting others die. A mother would die 100 times for their child/grandchild. Save your sister she would always blame you for the mothers death. Save the wife, you will be the man that let her child die. I think you have to save the son/daughter. More of their life left to live aswell.

[emmily2396]

Wouldn't the child think like the sister though?

[jwsstein]

Yeah I would save the wife/girlfriend cause that my future the one I promise to love till death do us part unless we didn't have a good marriage then I would hope I had good life insurance on her

[EleanorRigby]

Lmfao. 😂😂😂

[crmoore]

I hate questions like these. I think I'd save my daughter/son. Not only do they have the most life to live, but at least there people would by at least happy to some extent about the outcome. The daughter/son would be grateful, I would be grateful that I still have my daughter/son, and my wife, while still likely sad about losing her life, would be happy her child gets to live on.

[crmoore]

Three people*

[Ripper_E]

My wife. Once you marry, your spouse should be the most important person in the world considering you have committed your life to them and them to you.
Would it be easy? Fuck no.

[Ripper_E]

I did not see son or daughter. I would save them.

[EleanorRigby]

Good answer.

[andreasderjuengere]

I can only approach this question 'philosophically':
I'd jump first myself. From below I try to catch who ever falls first.
(inspired by: Diogenes of Sinope)

[EverythingTheySay]

Emotional answer would be all, reasonable on the other hand the strongest as it's going to be needed after so many family members dies...

[RSan90]

Obviously my daughter and son... saving them would make the mother and the grandmother happy, at least in a perfect world.

[jgokgotit]

Daughter/son first. I don't have siblings. Mom would chew my head off for not protecting a child and wife would probably do the same

[Chris_93]

The wife. I am allowed selfishness. The biggest part of my life would be the part I'd hold onto the tightest. And as my wife, she would understand that.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

I've save my sister first. Daughter second. Wife third. Mother fourth.

A good way to remember the order is suck dick with mouth. The s, d, w, m combo with sister, daughter, wife, mother is equal to that.

[billyboy37]

1- daughter/daughters
2-my sons
3-girl.. who may also ve first

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Why daughter before son? What makes female life good and male life evil?

[billyboy37]

if that moment ever comes, im ready for it, u aparemtly are not and may lose both, woman and children get behind the men u dam fool. we die first. idc what any of them say.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Oh, so you'd save your 16 year old daughter before you'd save your 3 year old son. I get it. You're sexist.

I am not a fool just because I'm not sexist. Women are not more important than men are. We are equally important.

By the way, the Yankees are terrible. They ain't won a ring in 10 years. The Red Sox have won 2 since they last won one.

[billyboy37]

16yr old daughter and 3 yr old son?3 yr old son would be saved first and i did not have to think about it

[billyboy37]

and i hate baseball by the way. i have never played or watched a boringball i mean baseball game in my life.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Then why are you wearing a New York Yankees cap?

[Exorcist_Rampage]

You don't like the sport, yet wear its clothes or gear.

[soleil2666]

THAT is what all women want to know and ACTUALLY think about.
In real life, wife or a child would be equally hard as choices (so both). The rest don't count one bit.

[Liam_Hayden]

My mom, but I have neither a wife nor girlfriend currently and I can't have kids, so this is easy. My mom, though, would let herself fall so that I would save a random stranger instead.

[LaVillaStrangiato]

All of the others would be happy that I save my daughter.

[LegLovingCD]

I’m a dad. Once I became a dad the lives of my children are the most valuable thing on earth. All die including myself, before my kids

[Black_Dynamite77]

daughter/son. Because you love your child more than anyone and everyone else has lived their life and the kids deserve theu chance more.

[MysteriousDarkness]

Your life is until you die. They all lived a part of their life. How much of it would depend on their age and when they would die which for the most part is unknown.

[Black_Dynamite77]

@MysteriousDarkness you missed the point

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Sorry but my wife is the only one who can make a new generation with me. Saving the kid would make them feel awkward if i get a new wife and i've been with my mom and my sister for quite a long time.

[CuriousMufuxka]

So they are about to fall off a cliff, with a bullseye target above? Count my sister out, she's too smart. Dammit mom this is last time I save you from off of a cliff!

[Malik00]

1. Mother
2. Sister
3. Child
4. Wife/Girlfriend
Why in this specific order? Because knowing my luck the girlfriend is the reason they are in this mess in the first place.

[leonidas69]

That's easy. I don't have a lot of those so I save mum.

[TallAnon]

I don't have children, but logically, I would save the kids first. The next generation is our future.

[MysteriousDarkness]

No matter who I saved if any died I would feel like I failed.

[jasco]

i dont have a girlfriend or kids so mom wins by default

[ParkTan]

Mother first. Then my mother would pull up the child while I pull up my wife/girlfriend.

[Edanurus]

My brother. I don't have kids but he does and I couldn't have them growing up without a father

[pjf0708]

My mother of course. Since I don't have a wife, sister, daughter, or son.

[skywalket]

Baby s first we as adults know this that s y we have them to keep the family goin no matter what happens to is

[AkshiJanjua]

daughter/son because they have much more of a life left and can contribute more to the world than others here considering they are older

[AkshiJanjua]

then i will probably commit suicide after that

[AkshiJanjua]

if it's the cliff scenario than i think i will save all of them

[KrakenAttackin]

Anyone who picked someone other than their child doesn't have children.

[GreenGold1992]

Ugh I hate this scenario, reminds me of that movie the Good Son

[Lolian94alex]

My mom first because u can marry again and get more kids but u will never have ur mother again

[DanOh2018]

Children I guess. More likely to pass my str check.

[Greensboro]

Obviously you have to save the kids first, they're the easiest and faster one's to save then you move on to the next closest person

[Anonymous]

Since I don't have kids, and my parents are dead, I'd save my girlfriend :)

[moo12]

Very bad question, but for me the first one I can help I will save.

[Somethingwittty]

My children all the way.

[lillyLilith]

Kids should be a first thought

[arefin]

there is no right ans. it is not a choice

[jeemm]

So you just drop them all to death because you can't decide? Nice one.

[arefin]

@jeemm when did i say that? don't imagine things.

[jeemm]

No right answer? It's not a choice? So that means there must be an event or a result of your actions. You cannot hold that many people for an indefinite period of time. So not making a choice leads to them all dying.

[arefin]

@jeemm it would not be a choice because i would save whom ever i can then i will save the next person. it would not be like i will save one first then other. get it?

[jeemm]

So in a hypothetical where you can only save 2 people out of 4 close family members you just save people at random without a thought process, purely basing your actions on impulses? You sound like an autopilot.

[jeemm]

in a hypothetical situation*

[arefin]

@jeemm yeah defiantly because whom ever you leave you you will regret that. there is no logical conclusion that can justice letting someone you love assuming you love all of them

[arefin]

@jeemm you can not chose one loved one over other in a clear conscience

[jeemm]

I wouldn't choose based on love. I'd choose the people with their lives ahead of them.

[arefin]

yeah defiantly because whom ever you leave. you will regret that. there is no logical conclusion that can justice letting someone you love die.. assuming you love all of them

[arefin]

@jeemm wow great then i guess. if i have to choose between you and 25 years old person then you would not mind if i choose him over you. because his worth is better than you. he is already grown up and asset to society and you are just growing up

[jeemm]

Having a life ahead of you means that you haven't experienced all a normal person would be expected to experience. The younger a person is the more that person has time to experience things. So with that in mind I'd be the one getting saved. Being a part of a society or making money has nothing to do with happiness or future experiences.

[arefin]

@jeemm how many people have great experience in life? if you think about statistical problems in life then dying young would be better.

[arefin]

being young does not mean life would be better. you can not put value to human life. but if you really wanna make that case than 20 - 30 people would be better candidate because society already put great deal of effort building them. they just started giving back to the society. so letting them die would be only loss for society. this is logical. did you like that?

[jeemm]

If you think that then why not just murder the 4 people? To make them happy am I right? I'd be happy to live long as I don't see things in negative light. Everything I do I enjoy because I don't do things I dislike.

[arefin]

but peole don't think logically about human life. people will save a kid first. because thats a human thing. it is not logical but it is a human thing. same with this qus. you can not ans this with logic

[arefin]

@jeemm i am not talking about logic here. you are talking that. you are saying being all about thinking

[jeemm]

Lets for arguments sake say the number of years a person is able to work is 50 years starting from age 18 so from 18 to 68. If you save a 25 years old he has 43 years of time to be of use to the society. However a 17 years old person like me has 50 years.

[jeemm]

Average Finnish working adult provides about 20 000 € in tax revenue within a year. So just one year would more than cover the cost of "building" that citizen.

[arefin]

@jeemm did you even read my reply? you can not put human value. society is still investing in you. what ever the future that will be.

[arefin]

life is not just one thing or another. it is more complex than this. you will understand when you grow up

[jeemm]

I cannot but you can? You just earlier told that 25 year old people (in average) would be more valuable for a society because the society had already put a great deal of effort into building them. I'm simply replying to what you said and disproving it.

[arefin]

@jeemm do you know what the problem with teenager is? they read something then they think figured all of it out. that can be said from a economic prospective. but human is not just a economic machine. there is so much more to it. again there is no quantitative value to a human life.

[jeemm]

That's cool. But can you explain why you shared those thoughts and then claimed it was wrong to do?

I was the one saying young people should be spared because they have a lot of good experiences ahead of them and you responded with a response similar to "no 25 years old people make more money so I should save them"

[arefin]

@jeemm i was making a point not a suggestion. the point was the ridiculousness of your idea that one should think and weigh option about saving a life. will i save a young person over a old person. yes. why? because thats a human thing. but the qus is about loved ones not just any people. when it comes to loved ones people do not weigh option.

[arefin]

if you still lost then read the whole reply again. after that if you are still lost then read again and again until you understand.

[jeemm]

No idea who qus is 🤷‍♀️

What am I lost about?

You still haven't answered my question. Point or suggestion it doesn't make any difference. You stated a certain age makes more money than a younger age so the older person should be saved. To which I said it was false. To which you said it was wrong to think about human life from an "economic prospective"... But you were the one who started the conversation about economical value of human life. I only talked about value of youth and the future. So let me ask again: I cannot but you can?

AND love doesn't make any difference because I wouldn't save lives based on who I love and who I don't. My love doesn't make any difference, it's the people in distress that should be thought about and all that they have yet to experience. Such as love for example. I cannot decide who they will love or who they will not, I can only give them the opportunity by saving them. That's why future means more than my own love.

[arefin]

@jeemm i answered all of it. if you don't get it then thats not my problem.

[determination]

@jeemm very edgy and dumb but not a logical take in my opinion you say that you don't decide on love but on how much life they have left but what does someones life matter to you if you don't love them. what is the point of somethings existence if you can't be bothered to care about it. bonds are worth more then for how long you will live

[determination]

@jeemm i only take bonds into account when it comes to saving family i can't be bothered about what is most optimal for society when it comes to these things. living a life purely on what is most optimal for societal benefit is not a life worth living. i would assume that you never take time off and work at a health foundation and donate all of your money to people that need it while your at it you might aswell donate your heart to a younger person with a bad one even tho that would kill you it is in fact where your logic takes you

[jeemm]

If you dislike how I think that's fine but calling it "dumb" would need some further explanation.

Also I never once talked about life from an economical perspective, @arefin did. I'm really confused why you and him are saying I was the one doing that. It's almost like you two are the same person. I just replied to his message disproving what he said. What I said was that if I was saving people I'd prioritize saving the children and other young people over the old people who have almost lived entirely. That's the only statement I made, other messages were simply replies to what he said.

[jeemm]

almost lived their lives entirely*

[Danny_dan92]

No fuck no..

I can’t with this question

[pigoat]

The kids

You always choose your kids 1st

[pigoat]

Update:

You always go for your kids 1st

Always

Also can you please come up with a hard question next time

This is so easy it's boring

[determination]

mother first you can always make new kids and aren't fully developed yet you can't establish an actual bond with them until they have reached maturety and parents are the reason why you are here

[pigoat]

My own mother would tell me to save my kids before her

Fuck outta here guy

[EleanorRigby]

First kids, then father of my kids.

[ask4any]

What the hell kinda fuk'd up question is that?

[emmily2396]

it is good for introspection

[ask4any]

It's good for throwing guilt trips later. You women must think are fuk'n stupid!!!

[emmily2396]

Nobody knows you here

[ask4any]

That's because I don't live in the fuk'd up, inmature question category. No one will ever know me there.

[jessy00]

Can't choose. Mother, sister and father

[Guardian45]

Ikr!

[Lance1965]

Son first, girlfriend second.

[Nic1330]

i'd save my brother since i'm not married

[Guardian45]

Really? This is some kinda WdaF Q!

[Pipeliner87]

They are not worthy of my savior.

[DonCachondo]

Kids > family >>> significant others

[EleanorRigby]

Is significant other not family?

[DonCachondo]

@EleanorRigby they're not your blood and can leave you whenever they feel like it

[EleanorRigby]

They are your chosen family, at least they should be... if you think like that maybe they better leave you.

[DonCachondo]

@EleanorRigby "chosen family" okey dokey then lulz

[MysteriousDarkness]

Kids should be considered a part of your family and so should your significant other. Pers are not blood family but many people incmyself consider them family so why can't your significant other and kids be family?

[DonCachondo]

@MysteriousDarkness "family" might not have been the best word choice in my original comment. Substitute it with "(one's own) parents and siblings" I guess...

[Snickermarstwix]

I can still jumb with them

[MoscowMitch]

Daughter or son, it's an instinctive reaction.

[MarybethL]

My kids always come first

[Nachowedgie]

Children first always

[JesseJayNeak]

My children, though I'd try to save my mother too

[soniaaaaaaa]

Mother

[Drumlin2001]

Son.

[BeardMagic]

Harambe

[Julio20Ab]

What is life Anyway