look at my other questions I asked because people would say they would save the child first then the parent so I wonder because as an athiest I don't have any reason to prioritize one over the other, who would greive more for the other ? Its easy to say well the child would have a longer life to live than the mother but as an athiest how can that mean anything because life and its lenth can't have any bearing in terms of death if you no longer exist so isn't it about the quality of life? I'm not actually an atheist I'm agnostic so I guess if it was me based on that assuming I could stop time to make the decision that the child theoretically could possibly take the experiences of his/hers life with him to an after life and looking at it scientifically you might say that its possible that as time is relative that the lives we lead will always exist in time witch is confusing as we are only ever aware of our present conciousness. LOL I have no more space for this.
2006-12-19 10:36:42 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
id save both, easiest first!
2006-12-19 10:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Norma,
This is an interesting subject and you have analyzed it from all aspects. The bottom line is that if I came upon a burning car, building, etc. with a mother and a child and could only possibly save one of them it would be the child. Not for any great philosophical or lofty reason. I am a mother, if I were in the burning car, building, etc, I would want my child saved first then if someone could get to me fine, but in ALL things my child comes first. He is 24 and I would lay down my life for his in a second without even a thought about it. I think that any loving parent would feel the same way.
2006-12-19 10:52:06 · answer #2 · answered by Only hell mama ever raised 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, who is easier to remove from the vehicle? If you can remove one quickly it would make sense to do so and then go back for the other one. It would not make sense for example to go after saving the mother first if she where trapped in the vehicle and was difficult to dislodge and the child could be easily removed.
If you're asking a more philosophical question of which life has more value, I would save the mother. She may grieve over her child but she can always have more children. She has already built a life filled with loved ones who may be deeply affected by losing her, she may have other children that need her to raise them, she may be making a very valuable contribution to the world that would just be snuffed out with her life ending. She would also learn some valuable lessons about life by surviving the accident that may change the way she lives the rest of her life in a profound way.
True, the child may have been the next Einstein and I'm sure there are many who could argue a case for saving the child first but I would save the mother.
2006-12-20 04:40:14 · answer #3 · answered by Chris T 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Whether there is a God or "afterlife" or not, and I believe there is, I would have to save the child first for a couple of reasons. First, the child, depending on its age, could possibly not care for itself if left motherless (I know it could be adopted...but) Second, if you ask any mother, they would lay down their life for their child and would ask that you try to save the child first. Anytime there is a disaster, you have all these parents frantically asking where their child(ren) are. Thirdly, I think children are innocent and deserve out protection, as adults. If I was faced with this, I'd choose the child also because the guilt the parent would feel would probably be hard to live with too.
2006-12-19 10:43:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Um, I think it would make most practical sense to first pay attention to whoever appeared in the most dire condition - whoever was worse injured, in the worse danger, on the firiest side of the car, etc. It's likely that the other could spare a few seconds' wait for the ambulance. Ideally, one should make sure there are other people (paramedics) present rather than trying to save the victims him or herself so that each victim can get equal attention at once.
If you're s.hit out of luck and there's no way to get the kid out, then get the mother out, and vice versa. If they both appear dead, then it doesn't matter who comes first. If one appears dead and the other is very much alive ... well, that's the tough question. Would it be "wasting time" to take the dying one out first? I guess I would say no. There's never really a way to tell what kind of amazing recovery a person can make, even when he or she appeared dead at one time.
2006-12-19 13:21:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The child, assuming both people are alive. The mother would have a much better chance of escaping, I could get the child out quicker, then I could get to the mother.
2006-12-19 14:32:42 · answer #6 · answered by weapons_babe 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So are you an atheist or agnostic? Did you switch mid stream? I would save the baby. The chances are the mother has done a number of bad things in the world that the baby hasn't had a chance to get to yet...
2006-12-19 10:47:11 · answer #7 · answered by Gregg Jones 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you delusional? Why is your decision based on being an atheist/agnostic? Who said length of life is equal to quality? What difference could it possible make to the people you are trying to save? Look from the mothers viewpoint. She would want you to save her child, most likely and for good, evolved reasons. Your whole argument is moot, as the perspective is improperly skewed in YOUR direction.
2006-12-19 12:25:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
First off as a citizen you dont really want to try and rescue either because you'll most likely just become another victim. You want to call 911 and get rescue on the way, if the car is not completely involved try and rescue the most accessable then go from there. If you try and rescue the mother first and she is trapt, then you wasted time rescuing the baby and if you try and rescue the baby and you have complications, you just wasted time rescuing the mother.
2006-12-19 10:49:11 · answer #9 · answered by Aggie Guy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The child. Because if it was the mother you saved she would most likely live in greif over her childing dieing, but if you save the child. then he won't remeber it....while the mother will have that image ecthed in her mind forever. Also the mother 9/10 will want her child saved before her, b/c even if you get her out, she will go back in for her child..
It is anamal nature to go and protect your offspring
2006-12-19 10:41:33 · answer #10 · answered by Milo Camalanee 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You're not an atheist. You sound more like someone mocking atheism.
Being an atheist does not affect one's appreciation or desire for a long life.
Nor, as an atheist, does the question of an afterlife even enter the decision process of this question.
Atheism does not cripple the ability to make this decision.
No, you're not an atheist/agnostic.
Save the baby first.
2006-12-19 12:34:28 · answer #11 · answered by freebird 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋