A Moral Dilemma--mother, child, and spouse

[Kuroyue]

This is a fairly traditional moral dilemma. Basically, it is:

Your mother, child, and spouse are dying. You can only save one.

Who would you save, and why?

(Apparently there is a "correct" answer to this, according to the Islamic religion. It has something to do with the mother being holy, and that you have only one birth mother, although you can have more than one spouse and child. I don't quite remember. Sociology class was a while ago.)

[Karamazov]

Objectively speaking (though it couldn't be anything but subjective when faced with such a situation) I would save my child. There will always be mates and depending on how old my mother is, it would only speed up the inevitable.

edit- Oops, didn't see child.

[notoppings]

It wouldn't be a hard decision for me, The child, any child. My thought would be that all the others are adults and have already had a chance to experience life to some degree, the child looks to adults for protection and I feel that I am obligated to offer that protection, so the child can have a chance at a life. For me a religious morality doesn't enter in to it, I'll use my own moral/life code. Everyone deserves a chance at a few years.

[Antisocialite]

This is a fairly traditional moral dilemma. Basically, it is:

Your mother, child, and spouse are dying. You can only save one.

Who would you save, and why?

(Apparently there is a "correct" answer to this, according to the Islamic religion. It has something to do with the mother being holy, and that you have only one birth mother, although you can have more than one spouse and child. I don't quite remember. Sociology class was a while ago.)

I'd save the child. Greater life expectancy.

[Kuroyue]

I value knowledge and memories more than 'what will happen in the future'. I'd choose the mother for this reason (and for the reason that you can only have one mother). I guess this means I value the past more than I value the present and future.

[Karamazov]

True. Nothing wrong with nostalgia. Memories fade though. Then you have to deal with the present, which inevitably becomes the future.

[JessicaHavenLea]

My mommy. Spouses and children can be replaced. I only have one mother and I want her around as long as possible.

[Tabemashoo]

Well, my mother already IS dead, so that cuts her out of the argument.

I would choose the child. For all the reasons above, and, of course, the spouse would rather have the child saved than himself anyway. I know I'd want my spouse to make the same decision.

[Nexus]

I believe that parents are genetically inclined to choose their child over the spouse in situations where one can be saved and the other must be sacrificed for the good of the other. This stems primarily from our inherent desire to pass on our genes to the next generation, or in other words to reproduce and ensure the survival of the species. Of course there will always be exceptions, and sometimes our capacity to make conscious choices can permit someone to choose a spouse over the child. The only reasons I can see for choosing the spouse over the child that aren't relative to the situation are if you 1. Didn't like the child or 2. thought "We can always make another one."

I have no plans of having children, but I am confident that my future spouse and I would agree that our child's life takes priority over ours. It's a responsibility that I feel each parent must take on when they make the choice to have a child. So if the situation ever came up, as unlikely as it is, I would easily choose the child. This is assuming that the child would survive whatever situation would pose this dilemma, though.

[blueback]

I think that is what love is; in the fullest sense of the word. It is when you truly value someone else's life over your own. Everyone acts on self-preservation, but if you fully love someone you will act to perserve their life over your own. You'll still save your own life if you can, but you won't hesitate to put the other person's life first.

Therefore I suppose it would depend on who you loved more. Personally I've never been in love and I've never had kids, so I can't say how they would change things.

It doesn't seem like a decision that you can make rationally. I'm sure you can think rationally about it right now, but if the situation ever arose you would end up acting based on your feelings, not whatever rational decision you made ahead of time.

[Jakalwarrior]

See how much modern society has changed?
Back in the day when people didn't even bother naming children until they had proved they were going to survive a bit... they would have instantly chosen the child (assuming it is a young child).

Honestly though, if I had to make that descision I would let my wife decide between her and the child then whatever she decided I would pretend that was what I was going to do anyway to remove any guilt or fear she might have.

Why is my mother out of it? my mother is a very kind person but she lives for other people. I feel sorry for her as long as she exists. People have a tendency to make her a door mat. My own sibling does. Me fighting the people that use her as a door mat bothers her as much as being the door mat. I honestly dont think she enjoys life very much since she has to take tons of anti-depressants just to get by. I'm depressing myself now but I think she would be happier resting eternally.

[stasis]

How is this a moral dilemma?

[ScurvyRose]

I would save my child. I would think that my spouse and mother would be more capable of saving themselves. My child would depend on my help.

[Undead Bonzi]

In my book having a child is like signing a contract. When you have that child you agree to put them ahead of yourself in such matters. Your dying spouse would want to save the child and its very probable that the grandmother would rather save the child as well.

Saving your mother because you will only ever have one is the oddest brand of reasoning that I've ever seen. If that is your reasoning then what happens if you become sterile after your first child and can have no more...then you only have one child and one mother, who do you save then using the 'only ever have one' reasoning?

[Caramel]

Save the partner.

If you save the mother, 150% of your own genetic material survives (you + mom). 0% of your partner's survives because your partner and child both die.

If you save the child, 100% of your own genetic material survives and 50% of your partner's survives.

If you save your partner, 100% of your genetic material survives and 100% of the partner's survives. This option also allows for new children.

---

Ofcourse, when presented with the situation, I doubt the above would even come into one's mind, so the decision would be based on feelings. (No, not morals.) So it all comes down to who you love the most and what the 'best' outcome would be for everyone?

[Jakalwarrior]

Ofcourse, when presented with the situation, I doubt the above would even come into one's mind, so the decision would be based on feelings. (No, not morals.) So it all comes down to who you love the most and what the 'best' outcome would be for everyone?

I wont lie, I thought it too.
"Mother cant breed anymore, that part of my family line is done... Children are pretty easy and fun to make..."
From a biological standpoint with the goal of furthering your own genes, the spouse is the best choice to save... unless you really dislike them and wouldnt want to produce any more offspring with them. Heck, most animals will eat their babies to reclaim the resources if you make them stressed enough.

Sure as hell isn't a choice I would want to make though.

[NephilimAzrael]

It would depend on what was the cause of their imminent death. For example, a disease, old-age, injury.. If the likelihood of their death surpassed my probability of saving them, I would favour an alternative..
Oh I am rather disturbed by the promptness of my response, and particularly how utilitarian it is.
I see myself in agreement with saving my child, yet if they would suffer through life (by condition or inclination) they would be lesser considered. My spouse, may be evaluated in terms of her significance - both by affiliation and likelihood to reproduce again.
But mainly, it would depend on their perspective also.

[SShack]

My mother and anybody I would likely consider a spouse would probably insist I save the child anyway.

[Gwargh]

Only one wouldn't be good enough. I'd end up hating myself no matter whom I saved. But I'd go for the child. Not because it still has a life to live, or is more innocent or anything. I simply think the spouse and mother would have more chances of saving themselves (no matter how small they are) than the child. Save the weak first.

[Homini Lupus]

Spouse. I can produce a new child and the mother is more a remnant of the past than geared towards future. Besides, the spouse is the only person I really choose while the others were imposed by genetics. Obviously, it all depends also on the age of the people involved and their personalities, but I kept generic enough (no child, no mate until now for me).

[athenian200]

I think it would depend on who I related to the most. I'd probably make the decision on my own sense of who I would miss the most, regardless of what was "right." There's a good chance it would be the spouse, since I likely would have related to and valued them a lot, and felt like I "chose" them. But if I felt closer to my mother or the child compared to the spouse, then it would likely be one of them.

I would probably make it the same way I make every decision... I would look at what was most important to me from among the options, and go with it.

[zibber]

I would bypass the entire dilemma by killing them all

[JessicaHavenLea]

In my book having a child is like signing a contract. When you have that child you agree to put them ahead of yourself in such matters. Your dying spouse would want to save the child and its very probable that the grandmother would rather save the child as well.

Saving your mother because you will only ever have one is the oddest brand of reasoning that I've ever seen. If that is your reasoning then what happens if you become sterile after your first child and can have no more...then you only have one child and one mother, who do you save then using the 'only ever have one' reasoning?

Adoption is an option.

And the question was hypothetical. I have no plans to ever marry or have kids so I neither of those options really matter to me. And still...If I had one child and one mother, I'd save my mother. More people would be hurt by her death (her husband, other kids, her parents, siblings etc.) The loss of that child would have the biggest impact on me. But that is a burden I'd be more than willing to carry than have my youngest sister (presently TEN YEARS OLD) not have mother. Good enough for you?

[Undead Bonzi]

Adoption is an option.

And the question was hypothetical. I have no plans to ever marry or have kids so I neither of those options really matter to me. And still...If I had one child and one mother, I'd save my mother. More people would be hurt by her death (her husband, other kids, her parents, siblings etc.) The loss of that child would have the biggest impact on me. But that is a burden I'd be more than willing to carry than have my youngest sister (presently TEN YEARS OLD) not have mother. Good enough for you?

Now to play the devils advocate and probably really get on your nerves:

Sure adoption is an option...but by that same reasoning I could just find a new surrogate 'mother' to replace the one I lost when I chose to save my child....just as your sister could find a new 'surrogate' mother to replace the loss of her real mother.



BTW it doesn't seem that you would save the mother 'because she is the only one you have' but rather because your sister still needs a mother (just like I introduced an outside variable to the hypothetical that changes the equation you have as well). Everyone has outside variables that they would consider when answering this question. My outside influence is my belief that any child I had would be my responsibility above all else, yours is to your little sister...a variable I don't have because both my brother an I are older and have moved away from home. I believe the crude answer to this is whole question is: 'different strokes for different folks'.

[JustMel]

I would have to say the child. My spouse and I have actually had this conversation and we both say the child because both of us have lived and experienced more than the child has.

Never the mother--especially if the mother is my birth mother.

[Darkmist]

Hands down my child. However in reality I have two children. Choosing between them would be the ultimate hell.

[JessicaHavenLea]

Now to play the devils advocate and probably really get on your nerves:

Sure adoption is an option...but by that same reasoning I could just find a new surrogate 'mother' to replace the one I lost when I chose to save my child....just as your sister could find a new 'surrogate' mother to replace the loss of her real mother.



BTW it doesn't seem that you would save the mother 'because she is the only one you have' but rather because your sister still needs a mother (just like I introduced an outside variable to the hypothetical that changes the equation you have as well). Everyone has outside variables that they would consider when answering this question. My outside influence is my belief that any child I had would be my responsibility above all else, yours is to your little sister...a variable I don't have because both my brother an I are older and have moved away from home. I believe the crude answer to this is whole question is: 'different strokes for different folks'.

Find a new surrogate mother? So you suggest that if my mother (or anybody's mother for that matter) dies you can go pick out a new one like shopping for a new car if your's is wrecked? And you called my reasoning odd. I suppose the closest person to a surrogate mother would be my grandmother and that is still NOT the same.

[enWTFp]

In the three stages of life (teens, adulthood, elderhood) I would choose to save: mother, spouse, child, in this order. The choice is easier for a teen or an old man. For an adult in a healthy marriage, I'd choose my SO, because I believe the attachment will be the deepest (most amount of years together) and I will lose too much of myself otherwise. Of course, in practice it can ruin our relationship, because it will be hard to forgive my choice (I left our child to die). Hence, it probably makes the most sense to keep the child, but I'd be more driven to keep the spouse.

[Undead Bonzi]

Find a new surrogate mother? So you suggest that if my mother (or anybody's mother for that matter) dies you can go pick out a new one like shopping for a new car if your's is wrecked? And you called my reasoning odd. I suppose the closest person to a surrogate mother would be my grandmother and that is still NOT the same.

To continue playing the devils advocate:

Is not 'finding a surrogate mother/father' what an adopted child is doing? You suggest adoption is an option for replacing a child...yet don't agree that the converse is true for the one who is being adopted? You claim you can replace a dead child with an adopted one...yet by your line of thinking one cannot possibly be a mother/father to an adopted child because you are not the same thing as that childs parents.

You can have only ONE biological mother, but I know several people who have disowned their parents and found 'surrogate' parents who provided them with the same emotional and physical support that their biological parents were supposed to provide. Why would a surrogate parent not be as good? Is similar DNA that fantastic? Is it impossible to love and care for someone else or be loved and cared for by someone else if they are not related by blood?

[bricklayer]

That's easy for me. I would save the kid.

[mkay]

I would save my spouse. My mom, I would expect to die before me. My child, I figure I could have more with my spouse. ... But I don't have children. Maybe I'd feel differently if I did.

[xtremegeek]

This is a fairly traditional moral dilemma. Basically, it is:

Your mother, child, and spouse are dying. You can only save one.

Who would you save, and why?

(Apparently there is a "correct" answer to this, according to the Islamic religion. It has something to do with the mother being holy, and that you have only one birth mother, although you can have more than one spouse and child. I don't quite remember. Sociology class was a while ago.)

I would save the child. The mother and spouse have lived their lives and past part of themselves on to the next generation. The child deserves that same opportunity. Plus, if I was the mother, I would not want to see my child die... I would rather die than lose my child.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think that is what love is; in the fullest sense of the word. It is when you truly value someone else's life over your own. Everyone acts on self-preservation, but if you fully love someone you will act to perserve their life over your own. You'll still save your own life if you can, but you won't hesitate to put the other person's life first.

Therefore I suppose it would depend on who you loved more. Personally I've never been in love and I've never had kids, so I can't say how they would change things.

It doesn't seem like a decision that you can make rationally. I'm sure you can think rationally about it right now, but if the situation ever arose you would end up acting based on your feelings, not whatever rational decision you made ahead of time.
I totally agree with your statement about this being a decision based on feelings.

I would, without a doubt, save my child above all others no matter who they were or what they meant to me. Why? I don't know for sure, but I think it has alot to do with responsibility and obligation, as well as love. The way I view my children is that they are my responsibility. Their care, happiness, existence on this planet is my responsibility and obligation until the day I die. Not that I don't expect them to go out in the world and fend for themselves, but my feeling is that I am the one they can always rely on to be there if ever they are in need. No matter what.

[JessicaHavenLea]

To continue playing the devils advocate:

Is not 'finding a surrogate mother/father' what an adopted child is doing? You suggest adoption is an option for replacing a child...yet don't agree that the converse is true for the one who is being adopted? You claim you can replace a dead child with an adopted one...yet by your line of thinking one cannot possibly be a mother/father to an adopted child because you are not the same thing as that childs parents.

You can have only ONE biological mother, but I know several people who have disowned their parents and found 'surrogate' parents who provided them with the same emotional and physical support that their biological parents were supposed to provide. Why would a surrogate parent not be as good? Is similar DNA that fantastic? Is it impossible to love and care for someone else or be loved and cared for by someone else if they are not related by blood?

People who adopt either 1. Want to be parents/want a child or 2. Want to play hero. The child being adopted HAS no choice in the matter. Because they are after all-children. Okay. And I'm not a child. I'm 23 years old. That's more than two decades of bonding/love/memories (take your pick). There is a reason people adopt children who are as young as possible. To create what I have with my mother now. The people/person you know who abandoned their own parents have nothing to do with me. A surrogate would not be good enough for me because it's not what I want (obviously).

The blood relation is irrelevant. It's the strength of the bond between parent and child that matter. I'm not adopted so I can't speak for those who are.

Feel free to keep playing devil's advocate/blockhead. You call my reasoning odd then challenge it with goofy questions that won't change the answer I gave to the original post.

I care about my mother more than any person on this planet. That's how it is whether you think it should be or not.

[Undead Bonzi]

Find a new surrogate mother? So you suggest that if my mother (or anybody's mother for that matter) dies you can go pick out a new one like shopping for a new car if your's is wrecked? And you called my reasoning odd. I suppose the closest person to a surrogate mother would be my grandmother and that is still NOT the same.

People who adopt either 1. Want to be parents/want a child or 2. Want to play hero. The child being adopted HAS no choice in the matter. Because they are after all-children. Okay. And I'm not a child. I'm 23 years old. That's more than two decades of bonding/love/memories (take your pick). There is a reason people adopt children who are as young as possible. To create what I have with my mother now. The people/person you know who abandoned their own parents have nothing to do with me. A surrogate would not be good enough for me because it's not what I want (obviously).

The blood relation is irrelevant. It's the strength of the bond between parent and child that matter. I'm not adopted so I can't speak for those who are.

Feel free to keep playing devil's advocate/blockhead. You call my reasoning odd then challenge it with goofy questions that won't change the answer I gave to the original post.

I care about my mother more than any person on this planet. That's how it is whether you think it should be or not.

#1. YOU made the blanket statement that implied nobody can replace their parents. This is what I was disproving, not that YOUR specific mother was replaceable for YOU. As I have stated TWICE before, each person will answer this in their own way, there is no correct or incorrect answer to this question.

#2. Often the child does have some matter of say in who adopts them if they are old enough to speak. They don't have an implicit choice, but the system is set up in such a way that if the child strongly rejects the parents the adoption can be ended. As to adopting young...people do it because babies are cute and unformed, it is easier to make a baby 'your child' if you get to form every experience and opinion it has. Older children in the adoption system often come from broken homes and similar issues...babies=cute, emotional scarring=not cute.

#3. Why do you assume that I am trying to change your answer? Trying to change people’s answers to questions dealing with morality is the business of religion and I don't have any. I'm just arguing because there is someone yelling back, you should not assume any motives beyond that.


To continue to offer grave personal insult to you by being a 'blockhead' (because that is how you seem to be taking this):

You talk of the strong bond between mother and child, yet you mention that as a mother you would rather kill your child than your own mother. Everyone is some mother’s child, you are your mother’s child. Would your mother let you or your sister die to save your grandmother (assuming she is still alive)?After all, her relationship with her mother would be far longer than the couple of decades she has shared with you.

Why does it personally offend you so that someone does not agree with your reasoning? It is a 'moral' question, not a math answer, you don't need to get offended and call me a blockhead because YOU took offense to a general comment I made that was not aimed at you in particular. I commented that I found the 'you will only ever have one mother' line of reasoning as odd. To date all your arguments that have defended your position have actually proved that you would not save your mother because 'she is the only one you will ever have'. You would save her to save your little sister suffering or you would save her because you have had a longer and richer relationship with her than you would have had with a child. These are valid and acceptable reasons and I don't refute them, but I also point out that these reasons are also not the same as the 'only one mother' reasoning which I called odd. NOTE THE DIFFERENCE. I DID NOT CALL SAVING THE MOTHER THE WRONG ANSWER, I CALLED THE REASONING OFFERED IN THE OP TO BE ODD. Please stop acting like I am personally attacking you or your decisions.

Of course my statement still remains...choosing to save ones mother 'because she is the only one you will ever have' is an odd line of reasoning.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

This is all based on our own personal life experiences. I think that people who do not have a spouse or children would choose to save their mother. Also, people who have a mother and spouse but no children will most likely choose to save the spouse (although there will be exceptions in the cases of not-so-great marriages). People who have children will most likely choose the child.

I know this has been said before and will probably be met with some disagreement, but you really don't know how strong a bond for a child can be until you have your own. It's as different a relationship as one with your parent is than one with your spouse, but I believe it is potentially one of the strongest bonds/instincts/drives a person can have.

[bricklayer]

I know this has been said before and will probably be met with some disagreement, but you really don't know how strong a bond for a child can be until you have your own. It's as different a relationship as one with your parent is than one with your spouse, but I believe it is potentially one of the strongest bonds/instincts/drives a person can have.

I've heard people use this cliché a lot but I don't have any children and I still feel as though I can have a strong bond with them. As a matter of fact I find that they make better friends than adults. I guess that's why I would save the child.





bricklayer added to this post, 5 minutes and 21 seconds later...

I think that is what love is; in the fullest sense of the word. It is when you truly value someone else's life over your own. Everyone acts on self-preservation, but if you fully love someone you will act to perserve their life over your own. You'll still save your own life if you can, but you won't hesitate to put the other person's life first.

I think more than that comes into play though. If you care about your loved one's desires you will try to fulfill them. Your spouse would probably want you to save their children. And your mother will have probably known she has lived quite long enough on earth and would prefer it if you saved her grandchildren. If you consider this as you make your decision then chances are you will pick the kid.

[wnewport]

Your mother and spouse would hate you for saving them, kids are selfish and would still think you're the bomb for saving their lives, go with the child.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I've heard people use this cliché a lot but I don't have any children and I still feel as though I can have a strong bond with them. As a matter of fact I find that they make better friends than adults. I guess that's why I would save the child.





bricklayer added to this post, 5 minutes and 21 seconds later...



I think more than that comes into play though. If you care about your loved one's desires you will try to fulfill them. Your spouse would probably want you to save their children. And your mother will have probably known she has lived quite long enough on earth and would prefer it if you saved her grandchildren. If you consider this as you make your decision then chances are you will pick the kid.
You are probably an exception to the rule.

I totally agree that many adults would prefer that you save the child rather than saving them.