If you had to kill one of your children or they all died, what would you do and which would you choose?

Question

Assume some scenario where you're held hostage and some evil kidnapper says he will shoot all your kids unless you shoot one. Assume also there's absolutely no way this won't happen, no possibility of getting the gun, no feasible way around this. Either you shoot one or they all die, they're the only two outcomes. What's your play?

To be clear, I'm not asking this question to be some kind of sadist. It's an unimaginable situation for someone to actually be in (I believe this was a thing that happened in Nazi germany). I'm actually trying to figure out a particular ethical question here - is why I'm asking. I'm just thinking of this the other way around, for instance you can only save 2 of your 3 children from a fire you save the 2 instead of choosing zero. So why is it different the other way around?

Thankyou Eve, that's a good answer.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone here. It wasn't my intention to do so.

Picking at problems with the example isn't really the point here. I'm stipulating that there's no other option and asking what to do from there - it's a thought experiment.

I feel a need to explain myself here since a bunch of you seem to think I'm some kind of psycho/sadist. The purpose of this question, and a couple more I've asked and am about to ask, is to try and figure out why game theory does not seem to apply to this situation. Game theory says that in a lose/lose situation like this we minimise our losses, but that doesn't seem to be the ethical reality - I want to know why it isn't.

As far as Sophie's choice goes I'm not familiar, or I wasn't until I just googled it - but I did run into a number of similar examples reading up on WW2 history the other day and it's what made me think of this thought experiment.

Answer 1

It's not at all a clever question. See Sophie's Choice and then look in a mirror.


Later:

I've read your subsequent clumsy explanations and I'll add that you're a jerk.

Answer 2

Well I don't have any kids so I can't really reply. If my parent had to choose I would like to think I would volunteer myself because I love my brother and sister too much to live on in that situation without them. Also I know many would not think this healthy but I have considered suicide before so the idea of death is not too scary. Any way Just for the record I do not believe you are sick. Sometimes you just have morbid questions. The others just can't admit to having these types of questions.

Answer 3

I would not kill any of my children because I would not trust the kidnapper to let the others go. If I really thought that there was no possibility of help coming, I would turn the gun on my child, and shoot the kidnapper instead.

Answer 4

My children would die for one another , and I for them . We as a family are one like ants in a nest . I could never kill one to save the rest .
This is a scenario that one cannot really know what they would choose unless put on the Field . You cannot take into account the psyche , state of mind one would be in . in a life death situation .
Is there an instinct that takes over somewhere , that puts survival before any other option . After all its survival of the species .Does one choose to cut their own blood line .
As a father I can reply to this question treating it with contempt from a distance . possibly my answer would not be the same on the day .
a poem for you .

I watched my brother die today ,
his life was mine what can I say .
To join him now would be so wrong ,
for he was week , and I am strong .

I watched the life , drain from his face .
I stroked his hair , for one last embrace .
I pinched his skin , just in case.
But he was gone , with out a trace .

Then I stared , across the floor,
my brothers image , stood at the door .
With her head down ,she heavily wept,
For his daughter stood
as her father slept .

Answer 5

Yes, to parents such questions are rather objectionable, especially since the scenario is not especially probable.

But, liberals from time to time come up with such scenarios, thinking they are somehow making the world a better place by making us think.

Let me change the scenario for my own entertainment.

Let us suppose we are at the State Republican Convention in Iowa. And terrorists take over the hall. They note that everyone there is a Republican except one journalist who is a Democrat.

They say the Republicans have to kill the liberal or all the Republicans will be slaughtered.

What do they do?

Suddenly this is more fun.... :)

Answer 6

I think that you were trying to set up a lose/lose situation and spark discussion about it. In your scenario, however, it’s not logical. If I have to shoot one of my children, then I will have (ostensibly) autonomous control of the gun, and the interloper is going to get shot.

But, to take up the gauntlet that you have thrown down, I also was going to refer to Sophie’s Choice. Sophie is confronted by the Nazis and forced to choose between her (both Aryan looking) daughter or her son, or both will die. The choice that she makes will haunt and drive the remainder of her life.

There is no right answer in this situation. The will to survive is great. Would I condemn ALL of my children to save one? When push comes to shove, probably not. Like Sophie, forever more, I will question myself about what I might have done differently. Forever more, the surviving child or children will condemn themselves for living, and me for the choice that I made.

Answer 7

I would pick the child with the best survival rate. Like what she did in Sophies choice. She picked the boy, because he was male and blonde so had a better chance to survive around nazi's. This wud probually be the eldest or healthiest. Im not cold and heartless before u start off. No point in having all your children die thats pointless.

Answer 8

Only an idiot would compare children to pets, even if they don't have children of their own. I assume you don't have children when you have to ask this question, you clearly require some kind of response.
As a parent I could not differentiate the value of any of my children and therefor my answer would have to be, they would either have to live or both die together.

Answer 9

I have one son - his name is Lucas.

If something so horribly happened like this to us - and is no other choice... I would shoot myself. How can I be so horrible to deny such a great life to my little boy? Though he would suffer undeniably, he still has such a great family to cling onto - and let me tell you - he has a great father and pathetically close Italian family to raise him.. wow.. great question.

Even if I had 10 Lucas' - I would still let them live a BIG life - for to what I believe, just having them to me, is life itself. They will carry my life forward.

Not sure if I answered correctly, but being a single mom with only one child... I would take my life first.

Answer 10

As a mother to three children i could never ever imagine choosing one over the other two. NEVER!!! I could just not do it, if the kidnapper gave me a gun to kill one of my kids i would either shot him or if that wasn't an option i would kill myself to save them, at least if one of us had to die it would be me, and should the evil b@stard wanted to harm my kids i would not be there to see that, because it is something i would physically not be ever to do. If someone CHOSE to kill my child that is their choice and i would do everything in my power to stop it but if it did happen then it would be something out of my control. BUT i could never ever chose one over the others. NEVER!!!!! A mothers instinct is too strong and if it's not there's something wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 11

Read Sophie's Choice or see the movie. .. In your scenario, I'd agree to shoot a child, then kill the kidnapper when he handed me the gun.