Philosophical Question:
Replies
-
Can't believe there is any answer but YES on this one.0
-
No. i would gladly die for the kids in my life (my nieces, nephew, cousins) but not someone elses. Right or wrong, i want to be around for my family.0
-
I would like to think I would. However, in those "think quick" highly charged moments I tend to freeze. So I am not sure. :frown:0
-
Yes for sure, even though I would leave my own family behind :brokenheart: , I would save the child.0
-
Whatever your opinion in the cold light of day, most people cannot easily control their response in an extreme adrenalin-fueled situation. I don't think most people would consider it as giving up their life, since they would automatically try to help without thinking. I personally wouldn't do the classic "oh my god here comes a runaway bus, I'm going to push that child out of the way and then stand here transfixed while the bus bears down on me", I would almost certainly try to save myself as well. I may not succeed, but I would try.
I think most people would help a child. The surety increased in me after I became a father, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I'd never had a child.
This0 -
Is this before or after the final A Song of Fire and Ice books come out?0
-
No. And I'll back up my reason with science (woo for science!)
Animals are incredibly hard-wired to protect their own genes. It means we are more likely to save ourselves over our own child (which only has half our genes), more likely to save our own child over a niece or nephew, and quite unlikely to save an unrelated child over ourselves.
Even if a lot of us would think we would sacrifice ourselves for genetically unrelated child, instinct argues with your higher brain very strongly. For everyone saying 'not since I had kids, they need me!' - that's a biological imperative that is very, very hard to overcome with rational thought.
Someone who has not yet had children (that would be me) should be the most invested in self-preservation since there are no next-generation recepticles of their genes (i.e., children) yet in existence - so all of the answers of 'before kinds, yes; after I had my own kids, no way' are going against their better instincts.0 -
Can't believe there is any answer but YES on this one.
You cant believe that Id want to be around for my OWN child??0 -
I recall an interesting story about something kind of related to this. It involved a study where people were asked if they felt comfortable pushing someone off a cliff. Unsurprising the answer was No for the most part. However, other people were then given a slightly different scenario about whether or not they would pull a lever to the same effect. The answers were mixed.
Now if we apply something similar to this question, I wonder what the answers would be. You can either A) push a kid away from an uncoming bus that will kill you or
donate a vital organ to a child that needs, but of course you'll die in the process. Do our answers vary?
I'd like to think I would push a kid away from a bus. If I'm being honest, I'm not so sure about giving up my organs, and maybe that's because I might feel like there could possibly be some other organ donor out there. Whereas if I'm the only one close enough to the kid and the bus, then my options are limited. Who knows? The result is the same. Either the kid lives or dies by my hand.0 -
Is this before or after the final A Song of Fire and Ice books come out?
Quoted for truth
I don't believe in 'no win' situations, so I'd probably chance it anyway.0 -
No. And I'll back up my reason with science (woo for science!)
Animals are incredibly hard-wired to protect their own genes. It means we are more likely to save ourselves over our own child (which only has half our genes), more likely to save our own child over a niece or nephew, and quite unlikely to save an unrelated child over ourselves.
Even if a lot of us would think we would sacrifice ourselves for genetically unrelated child, instinct argues with your higher brain very strongly. For everyone saying 'not since I had kids, they need me!' - that's a biological imperative that is very, very hard to overcome with rational thought.
Someone who has not yet had children (that would be me) should be the most invested in self-preservation since there are no next-generation recepticles of their genes (i.e., children) yet in existence - so all of the answers of 'before kinds, yes; after I had my own kids, no way' are going against their better instincts.
That's not science honey - that's mysticism. Humans are NOT mere animals.
People of conviction ACT because they are called upon to act. When danger is afoot and lives are on the line grown-up and powerful men and women run TOWARDS the sound of breaking ice, gunfire, or screams of help. We do so not from mere biology - but we do so from a maybe divine? Jolt of purpose and desire to be the difference for somebody. We run towards danger sometimes because SOMEBODY has to. Somebody has to toe the line. Somebody must make a stand. Somebody must deny self.0 -
You question is stupidly worded...
ya!
If I gave up my life to SAVE the child, the child would be alive.
Would I ATTEMPT to save the life of a child who was not my own? Not knowing that it would result in our death? Yes. Would I do it if it was certain we would both die? Yes because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do SOMETHING. Good old Catholic guilt has it's hold on me real good. ;P
Anyway, survival of the fittest only works for animals. For humans we do our best to protect the weak. Herd mentality and all. So any child I meet, stranger or not, is automatically under my protective wing so long as they're in my line of sight or hearing. That's just how it works.0 -
No. And I'll back up my reason with science (woo for science!)
Animals are incredibly hard-wired to protect their own genes. It means we are more likely to save ourselves over our own child (which only has half our genes), more likely to save our own child over a niece or nephew, and quite unlikely to save an unrelated child over ourselves.
Even if a lot of us would think we would sacrifice ourselves for genetically unrelated child, instinct argues with your higher brain very strongly. For everyone saying 'not since I had kids, they need me!' - that's a biological imperative that is very, very hard to overcome with rational thought.
Someone who has not yet had children (that would be me) should be the most invested in self-preservation since there are no next-generation recepticles of their genes (i.e., children) yet in existence - so all of the answers of 'before kinds, yes; after I had my own kids, no way' are going against their better instincts.
I don't have, want or even particularly like children. And I'm pretty sure that in the heat of the moment, I'd risk my own life to save a defenseless child. Sitting here being rational, I'm saying no I wouldn't but in the heat of the moment, instinct to protect a defenseless small human would take over for most adults. There are countless stories of people running into burning buildings to save kids, even kids they don't know.0 -
No. And I'll back up my reason with science (woo for science!)
Animals are incredibly hard-wired to protect their own genes. It means we are more likely to save ourselves over our own child (which only has half our genes), more likely to save our own child over a niece or nephew, and quite unlikely to save an unrelated child over ourselves.
Even if a lot of us would think we would sacrifice ourselves for genetically unrelated child, instinct argues with your higher brain very strongly. For everyone saying 'not since I had kids, they need me!' - that's a biological imperative that is very, very hard to overcome with rational thought.
Someone who has not yet had children (that would be me) should be the most invested in self-preservation since there are no next-generation recepticles of their genes (i.e., children) yet in existence - so all of the answers of 'before kinds, yes; after I had my own kids, no way' are going against their better instincts.
That's not science honey - that's mysticism. Humans are NOT mere animals.
People of conviction ACT because they are called upon to act. When danger is afoot and lives are on the line grown-up and powerful men and women run TOWARDS the sound of breaking ice, gunfire, or screams of help. We do so not from mere biology - but we do so from a maybe divine? Jolt of purpose and desire to be the difference for somebody. We run towards danger sometimes because SOMEBODY has to. Somebody has to toe the line. Somebody must make a stand. Somebody must deny self.
No need to try to patronise me (honey) - It's still science even if you don't like it. Humans have ~200 000 years of a reasoning, empathetic neocortex pasted on 5 billion years of self-interest, self-preservation and win-at-all-costs.
You might like think we're better than all the 'mere' animals, but we're 95% the same. That's why we glorify the sort of self-sacrifice you describe - it's a triumph over all our instinct and biology. But all that base animalistic nature is still in us all. And for most of us, it pushes us to not sacrifice ourselves to save an unrelated child.0 -
I don't have, want or even particularly like children. And I'm pretty sure that in the heat of the moment, I'd risk my own life to save a defenseless child. Sitting here being rational, I'm saying no I wouldn't but in the heat of the moment, instinct to protect a defenseless small human would take over for most adults. There are countless stories of people running into burning buildings to save kids, even kids they don't know.
Sure, but you would 'risk' your life - the OP is asking a question of absolutes - would you do it if it meant absolute, certain death? Obviously it's a thought experiment, because in most cases like the scenario you describe, there's no way you know in advance of that certainty.
If you think you would - great! I'm pretty darned sure I wouldn't. It has nothing to do with liking kids or not, I just like my own life better.0 -
No. And I'll back up my reason with science (woo for science!)
Animals are incredibly hard-wired to protect their own genes. It means we are more likely to save ourselves over our own child (which only has half our genes), more likely to save our own child over a niece or nephew, and quite unlikely to save an unrelated child over ourselves.
Even if a lot of us would think we would sacrifice ourselves for genetically unrelated child, instinct argues with your higher brain very strongly. For everyone saying 'not since I had kids, they need me!' - that's a biological imperative that is very, very hard to overcome with rational thought.
Someone who has not yet had children (that would be me) should be the most invested in self-preservation since there are no next-generation recepticles of their genes (i.e., children) yet in existence - so all of the answers of 'before kinds, yes; after I had my own kids, no way' are going against their better instincts.
That's not science honey - that's mysticism. Humans are NOT mere animals.
People of conviction ACT because they are called upon to act. When danger is afoot and lives are on the line grown-up and powerful men and women run TOWARDS the sound of breaking ice, gunfire, or screams of help. We do so not from mere biology - but we do so from a maybe divine? Jolt of purpose and desire to be the difference for somebody. We run towards danger sometimes because SOMEBODY has to. Somebody has to toe the line. Somebody must make a stand. Somebody must deny self.
No need to try to patronise me (honey) - It's still science even if you don't like it. Humans have ~200 000 years of a reasoning, empathetic neocortex pasted on 5 billion years of self-interest, self-preservation and win-at-all-costs.
You might like think we're better than all the 'mere' animals, but we're 95% the same. That's why we glorify the sort of self-sacrifice you describe - it's a triumph over all our instinct and biology. But all that base animalistic nature is still in us all. And for most of us, it pushes us to not sacrifice ourselves to save an unrelated child.
Maybe i'm not patronizing, maybe I just call women "honey" because my culture grew that into me? Thank you for judging me w/o knowing me.
You are speculating on our years of whatever - you realize that right? And you know you're speculating or even mis-reading data by saying we're 95% "animal" right? And if you aren't either of those it proves the point - within that 5% difference Humans have the unique ability to rise above themselves. We connect to our god and our conscious to make the hard-right choice over the easy wrong. But I'm not attacking you - People often claim to be victims of their biology because they feel better about being less-than others. They can deflect blame. I hear people say "That's great you were a Soldier but I never could! I just cannot stand being told what to do!"
That's an excuse for laziness and fear 95% of the time. Of the remaining 5% exists apathy and weakness.
The 'facts' you mention about self-preservation fly in the faces of the MILLIONS of men and women sacrificing their lives for people unable or unwilling to protect their own.
If we can 'rise above' biology that means rising above biology MUST be in our biology. This is evident throughout recorded history; chock-FULL of great men and women who are genetically programmed to ACT despite fear.0 -
Maybe i'm not patronizing, maybe I just call women "honey" because my culture grew that into me? Thank you for judging me w/o knowing me.
You are speculating on our years of whatever - you realize that right? And you know you're speculating or even mis-reading data by saying we're 95% "animal" right? And if you aren't either of those it proves the point - within that 5% difference Humans have the unique ability to rise above themselves. We connect to our god and our conscious to make the hard-right choice over the easy wrong. But I'm not attacking you - People often claim to be victims of their biology because they feel better about being less-than others. They can deflect blame. I hear people say "That's great you were a Soldier but I never could! I just cannot stand being told what to do!"
That's an excuse for laziness and fear 95% of the time. Of the remaining 5% exists apathy and weakness.
The 'facts' you mention about self-preservation fly in the faces of the MILLIONS of men and women sacrificing their lives for people unable or unwilling to protect their own.
If we can 'rise above' biology that means rising above biology MUST be in our biology. This is evident throughout recorded history; chock-FULL of great men and women who are genetically programmed to ACT despite fear.
Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?0 -
Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?
It's your best guess based on how you interpret data. I appreciate your perspective, honey.
And you're hot. So...yeah. Good day.0 -
Can't believe there is any answer but YES on this one.
You cant believe that Id want to be around for my OWN child??
I've got 2 of my own. 1 of whom will never be independent and will need me forever. Half of my motivation to take care of myself is so I can be there for him as long as possible.
Still, I could not look in a mirror the rest of my life without seeing the innocent I let die, if I didn't do what I could to save a child.0 -
It depends. I'm not good with absolutes.0
-
Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?
The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.0 -
Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?
The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.
Its not that self-sacrificial acts are not possible, there is nothing in the theory I explain here to imply that. The theory states simply that self-sacrifice is not optimal, and the degree to which they are not optimal depends mainly on the genetic relatedness of the individuals involved. The existence of self-sacrificial acts does not disprove the theory.
There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.0 -
Clearly we think very differently about the world - I work as an evolutionary biologist and neuroscientist; I think about human behaviour from a largely scientific perspective. So while I'm quite sure of my facts here, I respect your opinions as they differ from mine. So let's agree to disagree and let everyone else have their say too?
The main problem with your comments as I see it, is that there are too many examples of self-sacrificial acts. The exceptions to your claims undermine them. Further, I suspect your commitment to evolutionary biology and neuroscience (not that both don't have important things to say) might lead to a reductionist approach to human nature and therefore to incomplete explanations. In this case your theory would lead to the conclusion that self-sacrificial acts are not possible. There are self-sacrificial acts. Therefore the theory is false or incomplete.
Its not that self-sacrificial acts are not possible, there is nothing in the theory I explain here to imply that. The theory states simply that self-sacrifice is not optimal, and the degree to which they are not optimal depends mainly on the genetic relatedness of the individuals involved. The existence of self-sacrificial acts does not disprove the theory.
There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.
Perhaps 1 reason why they should? So they are humans and not animals.0 -
There is a well-accepted understanding among evolutionary biologists that 'animals are not optimal' - individuals do not always do what is best for them, but taking a a large sample, the average converges on optimality. And the theory that underlies that is what I have described above. I'm not denying that humans will self-sacrifice under some circumstances (obviously there are examples of this), I am providing an explanation of why in most cases, humans (like other animals) should not.
I don’t mean to be obstinate but it seems to me rather obvious that humans have a desire to live and therefore death is never perceived as “optimal” relative to that desire. We are capable of self-sacrificial acts, however, when we are driven by motives that we deem “higher” than individual survival. I don’t know that evolutionary biology is particularly important in this analysis. I’m not sure that evolutionary biology is very helpful in explaining why some are willing to forego their own survival or well-being for good of another or, better yet, why humans are characterized by a strong desire (at least most, it seems) to protect the weak and focus on things that don’t pertain to biological survival (e.g., high-level math, astronomy, black holes, hospitals, mental health institutions, churches). I’m simply suggesting that evolutionary biology is, at best, a partial explanation of human behavior and that there is more to the story.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions