Q? for parents about a common plot device - how you'd react in real life (non-parent options too)

[Silent3]

Please don't take this question as being glib, or as minimizing what would surely be a heart-wrenching dilemma in real life.

It's a very common plot device that the bad guys make good people do bad things by threatening their loved ones, particularly their children. (Last night's episode of Agents of SHIELD got me thinking about this.) In fiction, it's pretty much taken for granted that once you've threatened someone's kid, you've pretty much got them dancing on puppet strings for you.

Would you do anything to save your children? Only almost anything? Passively let bad things happen? Actively cause harm, even death? Do you consider putting your own children above others a weakness or a virtue? A virtue up to some point, but a weakness taken too far?

For what it's worth, I ask this as someone who has no children of my own.

Since it's difficult to come up with poll options to cover all the possible complications here, consider that whatever harm is threatened is at least of a roughly equal level -- I'm not talking about disparities of harm so extreme as, say, a parent running a busload of children off a cliff so their own precious snowflake won't be late for the prom.

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I consider all people to be of equal value, my own children included, or would only put them first when all other factors are equal.
	0 (0%)
	I'd save my own over maybe a few others, but only passively allowing harm, not actively hurting innocents to save my kids.
	0 (0%)
	I'd hurt/kill a few others to save my own kids. I consider this a weakness.
	0 (0%)
	I'd hurt/kill a few others to save my own kids. I consider this a virtue.
	0 (0%)
	I'd hurt/kill many others to save my own kids. I consider this a weakness.
	2 (67%)
	I'd hurt/kill many others to save my own kids. I consider this a virtue.
	0 (0%)
	I'm not a parent, and it bothers me when parents put their kids ahead of others.
	0 (0%)
	I'm not a parent, and it bothers me when parents put their kids way ahead of others, but a little is understandable.
	0 (0%)
	I'm not a parent, but I fully understand the idea of there being practically no limits to parental protectiveness.
	1 (33%)
	Other (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[SamKnause]

1. If you enjoy this jandra

you would love Crisis. (Sunday nights 10:00 pm NBC) You can catch all the episodes online at NBC for free. This is season 1. It is a very good show.

That is the premise of the show.

Children of the president, senators, CEO's, military brass etc. have been kidnapped.

The parents are instructed what acts they are to perform to earn their child's freedom.

Torture, killing, stealing etc. have been carried out so far this season.

[surrealAmerican]

2. I don't know.

Thankfully, although this is the sort of problem that makes for a good movie plot, it is very rare in real life.

I have found that, in situations where real physical harm is likely, I rely more on instinct than actual planning, especially when children are involved.

[hobbit709]

3. the last person that threatened me and mine is no longer among the living.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.

[redqueen]

4. .

[Earth_First]

6. lol

[Sheldon Cooper]

8. Hahaha!!

[laundry_queen]

19. omg

[Sheldon Cooper]

9. You know there's no statute of limitations on murder.

Might want to delete this.

[hobbit709]

16. I said he was no longer among the living. I didn't say why.

To be more exact, he had a losing argument with Sir Isaac.

[Silent3]

10. That's an understandable response, but it also sidesteps this particular dilemma.

This is more about harming others besides the one who is creating the threat and the dilemma. Naturally, if you've got the option of going after the person who's threatening the harm, so only that particular very non-innocent person gets hurt, that's the best option.

Of course, there are different ways to go after a person who poses such a threat, legal or illegal, minimal necessary response or vengeful...

My better angels would recommend legal and minimal, but I've certainly got a side me that can easily understand emotionally and viscerally, especially if it's in the heat of the moment, responding a bit more harshly.

[Logical]

17. Why say it then? nt

[notadmblnd]

5. I wouldn't live my life in such a way that could threaten my kids

nt

[Silent3]

12. I don't think there is such a way that's completely safe. And there are also noble pursuits...

...that could nevertheless increase the risk to one's own children, such as fighting corruption and oppression.

Fortunately the real life equivalent to these frequent fictional dilemma's is very rare, no matter how you live your life.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I suspect it's very hard to answer until you've been there. N.T.

[Xithras]

11. I posted before about a study I was in that covered this very topic.

I worked at a college at the time, and occasionally got to volunteer for these kinds of things.

35 parents were given the following scenario: You are standing in front of a button and a countdown timer with 15 seconds on it. The timer is connected to two bombs. One is taped to a chair with your kid handcuffed to it. The other is under a school bus full of children. Hitting the button stops the timer and blows up the bus, saving your kid. If you let the timer hit zero, your kid blows up but the bus survives.

We were told that this was an anonymous survey, and we were given sheets of paper where we were asked to check a box if we'd hit the button. After the answer sheets were collected, we were given a second sheet with our names printed on it. We were told that the first sheet would not be used, and that we needed to answer the question again and be identified. The answers would be made public. The purpose of the survey, it turned out, had nothing to do with bombs and kids, and everything to do with our ability to admit our ability to do the unthinkable.

The result? When asked anonymously, two thirds of the room said they would hit the button. When we had to identify ourselves, only five people said they would hit it.

When push comes to shove and they're looking at their own child's death, most people would push the button. They just won't admit it.

[Silent3]

13. And even though it's really the same moral dilemma, I'd bet that if the passive option...

...is the one that saves your kid, not hitting the button but just sitting back and letting the clock tick down, more parents would both choose to passively let the bus explode, and admit they'd let the bus explode to save their own kid.

Oh, and I forgot to say: I really wish DU gave you the option when you create a poll like this to let the voting be completely anonymous, because I was thinking that since it's not that will change the results.

[Xithras]

14. They addressed that afterward.

They were trying to gauge how honest we could be about our own actions, so the survey required an actual action on the part of the person taking it. They didn't want people to be able to "justify" the action by letting people say things like "I wouldn't kill those kids, but I wouldn't be able to make the choice". For the survey to work, the choice between your childs life and death had to be entirely in the hands of the parent.

I do agree with you though. If passivity was an option, I think nearly all parents would go that route.

[Silent3]

15. My point is that the proposed dilemma is "entirely in the hands of the parent"...

...whether it's set up to require deliberate action or passive inaction. I realize that isn't what this particular study was after, but to me it's a side issue that's perhaps more interesting than the intended one.

As a physical action, pushing a button is a trivial expenditure of effort. It really shouldn't make any moral difference whatsoever if pushing or not pushing the button is what leads to a particular outcome. The real moral question is choosing the outcome, not the trivial difference between which physical motions lead to which outcomes.

Nevertheless, it ends up making a huge psychological difference to people in how they'd evaluate such a situation, and what feels like "making it happen" vs. "letting it happen", and how much blame or guilt we attach to "making" vs. "letting".

[winter is coming]

18. I'm a parent. I've obviously got no idea what I would do if I were truly in that position,

but the first thing that crosses my mind is that someone who would threaten my kid

1) isn't likely to spare my kid even if I do what they want
2) shouldn't get what they want if that's the sort of lever they're using

As much as I love my kid, I think I'd try to spare as many people as possible. I don't think either response (save my kid/spare my kid) should be characterized as either virtuous or weak: it's a terrible dilemma, and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, nor is there any answer that would be easy to live with.

[struggle4progress]

20. I don't think I can answer the question abstractly