Comments on: Would I Save My Child or the President?

By: Live

Live — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:17:24 +0000

I completely agree with Jerome.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:04:00 +0000

A President is replaceable. One’s own child is not. It would in no way be immoral to save one’s own child instead of some “president”, as there is nothing magical about being president–it is merely an office held, one that transfers. You will never get someone exactly like the president, but you will get someone who can do the job of president. Whereas if your own child were to expire, that child could not be replaced (to you, and you are the one determining the morality of this circumstance, after all!)
Q1: This does not contradict itself, as value coincides with scarceness of commodities in a fairly standard manner across the board. Although that specific president as a human being is unique, his title is not–he is just another person, one whose office could be filled by another person. Your own child, to you, is absolutely not replaceable, and therefore more valuable than a stranger.
Q2: I don’t think anyone would condemn a parent for reasoning in this manner, as most (if not all) parents would choose this way. In fact, I would be horrified if I heard of someone sacrificing their own child to save a president or leader in some strange circumstance.

By: Live

Live — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:53:09 +0000

I would save my child. I don’t believe for a second that any amount of herioc recognition or praise could ease my pain or replace the love i would have for my child. Sorry strangers, there would be a reason for the bomb and a reason for the president and my child being in a life or death situation depending on my actions, and the chances of these situations being presented to anyone must be so low as to be almost pointless to even ask someone. Forget the moral ethics behind it, these sort of things just don’t happen, and if they do, the person who should have to make the hardest choices will be the person who caused the situation. If the situation is pure chance, then it’s surely who you know and love that matters the most?

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:18 +0000

I’m not quite convinced that the statement “the president is more important than a child” is correct. Similarly, saying that saving the president would be better for the world seems to be assuming a lot of things. Possibly a better question to ask, from a utilitarian viewpoint, would be: would the world be better if people cared more about their family than their government, or vice versa?