Who would you save?

[Prince_Imrahil]

You're at a beach when you notice there are people drowning.

One of them is your daughter, who had come to the beach earlier,

and then there are two other young kids who are drowning together,

the kids and your daughter is far apart, but you can either save both the kids of just your daughter. No matter what if you save your daughter both kids die, if you save the two kids, your daughter dies. There are no other choices to save all three people.

Who would you save and more importantly, why?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

My daughter. I value my family more than other people.

Anyway, its the two other guys fault they can't swim.

 

[Godwynn]

My daughter no doubt.

 

[Adamb0mb]

My first duty would be to my daughter. I made her and she deserves my protection and bias. I would lament the loss of the other two children but I think I would be crippled by the loss of my daughter.

 

[Sophie 378]

Emotionally and instinctively, I'd try to save my daughter, because she's my daughter.
Rationally, I'd try to save the two kids, because there are two of them to the one daughter. Or actually, maybe I couldn't save two at once - it's hard enough towing one person along in the water when they're cooperating, let alone two panicking people.
Realistically, I'll teach my kids to swim almost as soon as they can walk.

 

[IglooDame]

My daughter, no doubt about it.

Why? I blame whoever came up with homo sapiens.

 

[cegman]

Daughter without question. Although the whole premise that you are the only one that can save people on this beach is pretty stupid. I would still go for my daughter no matter what because those are my genes. I would be curious as to why my daughter is in a situation where she is drowning because I would have taught her to swim at a very young age.

 

[warpus]

My daughter, because I value her life more.

 

[Narz]

My daughter would know how to swim, then she could save the other two.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Emotionally and instinctively, I'd try to save my daughter, because she's my daughter.
Rationally, I'd try to save the two kids, because there are two of them to the one daughter. Or actually, maybe I couldn't save two at once - it's hard enough towing one person along in the water when they're cooperating, let alone two panicking people.
Realistically, I'll teach my kids to swim almost as soon as they can walk.

See, emotionally and instinctively and rationally we know the difference, you cant said with one side you'd do one, the other you'd do the other, because when the time comes to it, you have to pick which one you're going for. Yes sometimes you'll act emotional, others rational, but in this case which trumps which? And in this case, you CAN save two at once, and no matter how good swimmers they are they WILL drown...

to address this and cegman, the point in NOT the scenario and how PLAUSIBLE it is, but your choice....

 

[Perfection]

Definitely daughter. Rationally I might differ, but if I saw her drowning, I'd rush over and save her even pushing old people onto electrified train tracks if they were in the way.

 

[cegman]

That is why I answered the question first. Then stated my dislike of the situation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like with Job, the Lord would bless me with new daughters.

Kidding; of course I value the life of my family more than I can others. This is the same reason why I buy my daughter food at $4 a day instead of saving 4 kids in Africa for the same price.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

no but think about cegman, make it any situation and ask yourself who do you value more and would place priority on, your one daughter or familty or close friends or a greater amount of people you dont know?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Definitely daughter. Rationally I might differ, but if I saw her drowning, I'd rush over and save her even pushing old people onto electrified train tracks if they were in the way.

Ok we all know the RATIONAl thing to do is save the more, but the thing is, when it comes down to it, would you FOLLOW rationality? you said not, but rationally every rational person differs, the rationality of the situation says save the more, we all know that, but, you cant say rationally you'd differ because you're rational and emotional and all that, you cant become some sort of rational guy whod say screw it, i'll save the two, you either save your daughter or do the rational thing and save the two...

 

[Adamb0mb]

I value the life of my family more than I can others. This is the same reason why I buy my daughter food at $4 a day instead of saving 4 kids in Africa for the same price.

Good insite. People choose individual family members over bulk strangers everyday.

 

[Perfection]

Ok we all know the RATIONAl thing to do is save the more

Is it? Parents role should be to look and care for thier children, and they can't do as good a job of that if they place everyone on equal moral footing.

 

[cegman]

Prince_Imrahil

We are all answering that we would save our daughters. They are just saying right now while thinking about it the better move would be save more but they know themselves enough to know their daughter would win.

 

[ummmm........]

I'm with Perfection on this one. There's no rational reason to save the two strangers over your own daughter. Further evidence that all the world's problems would disappear if people would just stop having kids . . .

 

[Perfection]

I'm with Perfection on this one. There's no rational reason to save the two strangers over your own daughter.

Well, it's about as rational as mine, really. It just matters where you make the value cutoff.