WHAT would YOU DO?

Question

You are travelling with one of your two children and got into an accident involving a minibus carrying ten children, aged more or less as yours. You are flung out of the car but sustain minor injuries. Both vehicles catch fire and there are these loud cries from children in the two vehicles. Given the rapidity of the fire, you can only rescue people in either of the two vehicles.

Who would you rescue and why?

*BULL*

Don't deceive yourself, chief. The fact that I had not been nasty to you despite your unending provocation is not because I can't. My mom taught me to respect people, even if I differ with them. And I'm doing exactly that! You were under no obligation to respond to this question like you had been doing to many of my other questions. You have the right to give whatever reply, but I detest being abused, verbally or otherwise.

Answer 1

i'll be selfish, zim are you bringing out the worst in us ?! geez

Answer 2

Zim, I take this is partly a challenge to me after my earlier response to one of the questions here. Instinct would dictate that I should help my child. And that’s what I’d do.

But my argument is that it would have been better to rescue the other children for several reasons. One, for Christians, it would be like doing what God did, “give your child to safe others”. The difference here is that God gave his only child. I’d still be having one child. That’s a blessing. Two, some of the children in the vehicle could be the only children of their parents. Worse, it could be that medically they would never have another child.

Three, and this has to do with my earlier answer to another question: Is it morally wrong to let one person die in order to save ten? I think it is. As I said, intuitively, I’d choose my blood, but rationally, it would have been better for me to save ten lives. I believe that’s greater happiness. My motive wouldn’t be that I wanted something in return as I’d be losing my lovable child, but in the long run my heart would be at peace as I’d have made ten families to be happy. Both qualitatively and quantitatively I’d have contributed to a good cause.

Hope I’ve made my point clear…^^))))

Answer 3

Hello Zim,
Tuff call but after hearing your own child's screams....
I would do what my first gut instincts told me to do.
-Which is run to save my child first then any others in harms way and not caring for myself, or what might follow next.
Just saving the children would be by prime goal.
WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT!!

Answer 4

Obviously I would rescue my own first and it would be irrelevant as to how many others I have. My child/children will always be my first priority, especially in life-threatening situations.

Answer 5

I would save my child first. But I also agree that Unathi raises good points.

Answer 6

Hayi mfowethu, mina I go for my child. I undersatnd Unathi's argument. It's very good but naye uthi she'll rescue her child first.

Answer 7

No two ways about it , Ill save the kids that were with me first,
Whether they were my kids or not , the fact that they were with me , makes them my responsibility

Answer 8

I will save the kids with me that i am responsible for, as any parent will save their own kids first

Answer 9

The natural thing for anyone to do is get their own kids and then go for the rest.

Answer 10

Bull VI, my angry angry man!

To answer the question, i honestly think i would sit there frozen and confused by all the crying.

Answer 11

It might sounds selfish but i would help my kids first and the rest.