hypothetical choice situation

cliona8969

Ok please bear with me if I come across as a horrible person. This is a hypothetical situation that would never happen but I was speaking about it with my boyfriend last night and was a bit shocked by his answer.

The question is for those of you that love your other half (boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife)
If either your other half had to die or 1 million random people in the world (all strangers to you) had to die, would you choose to save your other half or the 1 million people or would you leave it to chance?

I know this would never happen but my boyfriend chose to save the 1 million people so I was a bit upset by this and was wondering if there's something wrong with me that I would save my boyfriend or is there something wrong with him?

Thanks so much for listening

cyrusdvirus

cliona8969 wrote: »

Ok please bear with me if I come across as a horrible person. This is a hypothetical situation that would never happen but I was speaking about it with my boyfriend last night and was a bit shocked by his answer.

The question is for those of you that love your other half (boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife)
If either your other half had to die or 1 million random people in the world (all strangers to you) had to die, would you choose to save your other half or the 1 million people or would you leave it to chance?

I know this would never happen but my boyfriend chose to save the 1 million people so I was a bit upset by this and was wondering if there's something wrong with me that I would save my boyfriend or is there something wrong with him?

Thanks so much for listening

Nothing wrong with him, he is just following the dictates of Logic

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

That Mr Spock lad was quite ruthless in fairness

donfers

the selfish choice would be to save your other half


the selfless choice would be to save the million randomers


fair play to him for his honesty and integrity in answering the question


i'd say if most guys were put on the spot like that they'd answer that they'd save their other half to save themselves upset/grief but the reality is saving the million people doesn't he somehow loves you less, it means that he sees the bigger picture and that maybe there in that million people there are 350,000 couples just like you and he doesn't want to destroy all their special connections/bonds/soulmatery just to save one

Sonics2k

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few".

Granted it was uttered by a fictional character on Star Trek, it's still something that rings true in typical society.

Given an actual forced choice, most people would choose to save the lives of one million people over the life of one person.

There's nothing wrong with your answer, after all it was purely hypothetical and it shows your love for your boyfriend. He just seems to have answered more logically and possibly honestly than you have.

Malari

Of course I'd save my partner. Or any other friend, family member or even acquaintance known to me over a million random people. It's completely normal to want to do that - I'd expect most people would?

MrStuffins

cliona8969 wrote: »

I know this would never happen but my boyfriend chose to save the 1 million people so I was a bit upset by this and was wondering if there's something wrong with me that I would save my boyfriend or is there something wrong with him?

Thanks so much for listening

Really?

May I ask how old you are?

cliona8969

Malari wrote: »

Of course I'd save my partner. Or any other friend, family member or even acquaintance known to me over a million random people. It's completely normal to want to do that - I'd expect most people would?

yes i completely agree and can't understand how somebody would let their most loved die to save people they don't know and will never meet..
i love my boyfriend but this did upset me that he didn't love me enough to save me. i'm glad at least one person understands me

amen

The other million every time. I'm not saying it would be easy but you have to weigh the consequences of your actions and if you would just save your partner then you have effectively murdered 1 million people.

stargazer 68

cliona8969 wrote: »

yes i completely agree and can't understand how somebody would let their most loved die to save people they don't know and will never meet..

But its not people they dont know and would never meet - it could be their mother, father, sister, brother etc. in that million!
Oops didnt read the all strangers to you bit

cliona8969

amen wrote: »

The other million every time. I'm not saying it would be easy but you have to weigh the consequences of your actions and if you would just save your partner then you have effectively murdered 1 million people.

so you don't care about murdering your partner?? i think the people who vote to save the randomers don't love as much as those who could not bear to face the pain of losing their special person

cliona8969

Dovies wrote: »

But its not people they dont know and would never meet - it could be their mother, father, sister, brother etc. in that million!
Oops didnt read the all strangers to you bit

i did say "ALL STRANGERS"

MrStuffins

cliona8969 wrote: »

so you don't care about murdering your partner?? i think the people who vote to save the randomers don't love as much as those who could not bear to face the pain of losing their special person

Who said anything about murder?

Again, can I ask how old you are?

cliona8969

MrStuffins wrote: »

Who said anything about murder?

Again, can I ask how old you are?

24 if that makes any difference to you

stargazer 68

cliona8969 wrote: »

i did say "ALL STRANGERS"

Which is why I went back and edited my post! Sheesh!

MrStuffins

cliona8969 wrote: »

24 if that makes any difference to you

well it makes a difference because I wonder why an adult is asking such a silly question. To me, this is a question a 14/15/16 year old would ask her first boyfriend. The boyfriend would say "Of course i'd save you" because if he didn't he knows it would upset the girl. Most of the time this question would be a trap! At 24 though, i'd imagine the guy is a grown adult with life experience so would feel comfortable telling the truth, feeling confident his other half wouldnt take it to heart and be so upset as to do something like, you know, start a thread on Boards about it.

What were you looking to achieve by asking this question? Were you just looking for reassurance or what is an actual question?

I'll answer your question though if you'd like. Frankly, if my other half told me that she'd allow 1 million innocent people to die to allow me to live i'd have to seriously consider her mental state. Why the hell would I feel better that she would rather see 1 million men women and children slaughtered than have me die? Imagine all the pain and suffering she's inflicting with that decision! I don't think I could love a person who would be so seflish!

Also though, i'd be equally as scared if she asked me such a question as an adult! She's actually 23 but she's way to mature to ask such a question, sorry if you feel i'm having a dig but it's just an observation!

Imhof Tank

How about if the choice was your child or 1 million strangers?

I challenge any parent to come on here and claim they would chose to save the strangers.

MrStuffins

Imhof Tank wrote: »

How about if the choice was your child or 1 million strangers?

I challenge any parent to come on here and claim they would chose to save the strangers.

Well the question is your other half or 1 million strangers and to be honest, you'd wanna be the most selfish, self-centred person in the world. i mean, just the qualifier "they're strangers, you don't know them" shows how selfish this person would be.

It would be terrible for people I know to die, but since it doesn't effect me i'd allow the families of 1 million people to lose their loved ones and feel that pain.

The question shows immaturity and the answer even more so!

cliona8969

Imhof Tank wrote: »

How about if the choice was your child or 1 million strangers?

I challenge any parent to come on here and claim they would chose to save the strangers.

yes exactly my point.. would be worrying if they chose to save strangers

cliona8969

and going by the poll... i'm obviously not crazy or "mentally deranged" considering half of people agree with me!

MrStuffins

cliona8969 wrote: »

and going by the poll... i'm obviously not crazy or "mentally deranged" considering half of people agree with me!

Did someone call you mentally deranged? Who are you quoting here?

Tell me this, if tomorrow you woke up to find all of your family dead, you other half, your parents, your siblings, all of your friends....... and you found out that they had been killed because some girl decided that she wanted to keep her boyfriend alive so killed your entire family and all of your friends because she had never met you before........ would you be ok with that? Would you understand? "well they love each other, so it's ok to kill my family since she'd never met me before"?

Malari

MrStuffins wrote: »

Did someone call you mentally deranged? Who are you quoting here?

Tell me this, if tomorrow you woke up to find all of your family dead, you other half, your parents, your siblings, all of your friends....... and you found out that they had been killed because some girl decided that she wanted to keep her boyfriend alive so killed your entire family and all of your friends because she had never met you before........ would you be ok with that? Would you understand? "well they love each other, so it's ok to kill my family since she'd never met me before"?

Well, in defense of the OP, it is a fairly well known and interesting thought experiment, so maybe there's no need to take it so literally. I've heard it before (in terms of only about 10 people though!) and with variations on whether you have to kill someone in order to save others, or just not intervene to save a person in order to save others. People's responses often differ in a predictable way and it can be difficult for someone to even explain why they would make a certain choice.

I suppose you could get upset if your partners views differ significantly to yours, even on a hypothetical level. My own boyfriend told me recently he absolutely knew he could never turn off my life-support if I was ever in such a critical situation. I don't know if I could say the same, however, in this thought experiment I would choose to save his life over randomers. I can't say exactly why my instinct goes that way.

MrStuffins

Malari wrote: »

Well, in defense of the OP, it is a fairly well known and interesting thought experiment, so maybe there's no need to take it so literally. I've heard it before (in terms of only about 10 people though!) and with variations on whether you have to kill someone in order to save others, or just not intervene to save a person in order to save others. People's responses often differ in a predictable way and it can be difficult for someone to even explain why they would make a certain choice.

I suppose you could get upset if your partners views differ significantly to yours, even on a hypothetical level. My own boyfriend told me recently he absolutely I knew he could never turn of my life-support if I was ever in such a critical situation. I don't know if I could say the same, however, in this thought experiment I would choose to save his life over randomers. I can't say exactly why my instinct goes that way.

Well we were asked the question so I answered it. It's ok for you to say you'd let 1m people die but when any thought goes into the answer it's "well let's not take it so literally".

What's the point of that?

The OP didn't ask her other half as part of some thought experiement. She asked because she's so insecure that she wants her boyfriend to tell her that her for some reason that her life is worth that of 1 million strangers! And when she didn't get the answer she wanted she was so upset by it she needed other people on here to tell her what's up.

Malari

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well we were asked the question so I answered it. It's ok for you to say you'd let 1m people die but when any thought goes into the answer it's "well let's not take it so literally".

What's the point of that?

The OP didn't ask her other half as part of some thought experiement. She asked because she's so insecure that she wants her boyfriend to tell her that her for some reason that her life is worth that of 1 million strangers! And when she didn't get the answer she wanted she was so upset by it she needed other people on here to tell her what's up.

Well, firstly, I said "maybe we shouldn't take it so literally" as a suggestion to move the discussion on in another direction from attacking the OP.

And also, we don't know how the OP's question came up in conversation and whether it's an insecurity thing.

MrStuffins

Malari wrote: »

Well, firstly, I said "maybe we shouldn't take it so literally" as a suggestion to move the discussion on in another direction from attacking the OP.

And also, we don't know how the OP's question came up in conversation and whether it's an insecurity thing.

I didn't attack the OP.

It's quite obviously an insecurity thing

cliona8969 wrote: »

I know this would never happen but my boyfriend chose to save the 1 million people so I was a bit upset by this and was wondering if there's something wrong with me that I would save my boyfriend or is there something wrong with him?

Captain Havoc

Malari wrote: »

Of course I'd save my partner. Or any other friend, family member or even acquaintance known to me over a million random people. It's completely normal to want to do that - I'd expect most people would?

Only one way to sort that out: a poll

(I choose the stragers btw)

Malari

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Only one way to sort that out: a poll

(I choose the stragers btw)

Yes, it's interesting that the "stranger" option is already in the lead! I would expect that people are more evolutionarily inclined to save loved ones, but humans are amazingly capable of rising above the old genes

tallaghtmick

I would save my other half if I was in a long term thing because you never know one of those 1 million could be the next hitler :pac:

MrStuffins

tallaghtmick wrote: »

I would save my other half if I was in a long term thing because you never know one of those 1 million could be the next hitler :pac:

You're killing 1m people and you're wondering who is the next Hitler? :pac:

foxyboxer

It's an interesting one alright. Reminds me of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arguably humanity's darkest hour.

Kill 250,000 civilians rather than risk a million of your own troops in a ground war following an invasion.

The moral implications are very interesting and debatable.

tallaghtmick

MrStuffins wrote: »

You're killing 1m people and you're wondering who is the next Hitler? :pac:

How many did Hitler kill,I just saved millions more:pac:

Now ill have my noble peace prize please:D

foxyboxer

I voted to save the Million people. Am I a psychopath yet?

Maguined

I completely agree with MrStuffins on this. I would definitely see it as a cause of insecurity for someone to get upset over their partners answer to such a hypothetical question. I would also have a greater appreciation if my hypothetical partner told me they would let me die to save 1 million people as I would view them as a more moral and altruistic person which is more appealing to me than a selfish person.

Raze_them_all

cliona8969 wrote: »

Ok please bear with me if I come across as a horrible person. This is a hypothetical situation that would never happen but I was speaking about it with my boyfriend last night and was a bit shocked by his answer.

The question is for those of you that love your other half (boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife)
If either your other half had to die or 1 million random people in the world (all strangers to you) had to die, would you choose to save your other half or the 1 million people or would you leave it to chance?

I know this would never happen but my boyfriend chose to save the 1 million people so I was a bit upset by this and was wondering if there's something wrong with me that I would save my boyfriend or is there something wrong with him?

Thanks so much for listening

Fable II causing relationship troubles for years!

foxyboxer

tallaghtmick wrote: »

I would save my other half if I was in a long term thing because you never know one of those 1 million could be the next hitler :pac:

But you might also kill the next Einstein, Gandhi, Shakespeare, time-travel machine-inventorer.

MrStuffins

foxyboxer wrote: »

But you might also kill the next Einstein, Gandhi, Shakespeare, time-travel machine-inventorer.

yeah but.................

tallaghtmick

foxyboxer wrote: »

But you might also kill the next Einstein, Gandhi, Shakespeare, time-travel machine-inventorer.

Einstein was proved wrong:pac:............

on one thing

Shakespeare wrecked my head in school

Gandhi....well ok you have me there

Time travel inventor......he would have just travelled back in time to kill me:D

MrStuffins

If you killed the guy who invented Time Travel then there would never be the movie The Terminator.

If you destroy The Terminator on me i'll have to travel to Tallaght and pretend your name is Sarah Connor!

Logical Fallacy

tallaghtmick wrote: »

Einstein was proved wrong:pac:............

on one thing

No he wasn't.

Rogue neutrino hype needs to stop tbh.

LeeHoffmann

Some people think it's 'logical' to save the 1 million. Playing devil's advocate, how about from another POV...self interest. Humans are programmed to serve and protect their own interests. I know the OH. The OH means more to me than anything else. I have no connection to the strangers. Saving the OH is thus more 'logical'. People so often state that xyz is 'logical' - logic requires necessity. You don't have that in this situation. This thought experiment centres on deontology (morality based on principles) and utilitarianism (morality based on weighing up the happiness of conflicting groups). The situation present an ethical dilemma IMO. On the one hand, you have sheer numbers. On the other, you have a particular duty to care for the wellbeing of your OH. And in the middle you have inaction ("a weapon of mass destruction" - Faithless, very apt here ).
I find the level of hostility in this thread disappointing. Can't we just debate without labelling people?

MrStuffins

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Some people think it's 'logical' to save the 1 million. Playing devil's advocate, how about from another POV...self interest. Humans are programmed to serve and protect their own interests. I know the OH. The OH means more to me than anything else. I have no connection to the strangers. Saving the OH is thus more 'logical'. People so often state that xyz is 'logical' - logic requires necessity. You don't have that in this situation. This thought experiment centres on deontology (morality based on principles) and utilitarianism (morality based on weighing up the happiness of conflicting groups). The situation present an ethical dilemma IMO. On the one hand, you have sheer numbers. On the other, you have a particular duty to care for the wellbeing of your OH. And in the middle you have inaction ("a weapon of mass destruction" - Faithless, very apt here ).
I find the level of hostility in this thread disappointing. Can't we just debate without labelling people?

Lad, it's not hostility exactly. it would be grand if it was just a thought experiement.

But it's not, this girl was asking about her personal situation. Whether she was weird for wanting to save her OH and saying it upset her that her boyfriend would chose the people.

Variables which change the conversation.

Raze_them_all

take the money, reload, choose alt ending, rinse repeat and unlock all 3 achievements...no need for it to be only one!

amen

so you don't care about murdering your partner

I couldn't look at my partner the same way if I knew they were alive after I had let 1 million people die.

It would be interesting to know the view points on Social Welfare, on those who voted to save their partners.

After all we live in a social society and if you are prepared to save your partner over the good of society I would assume you don't support/believe (or at least never thought about them )in the social benefits of society.


Instead of a partner what are peoples views on soldiers dieing for society ?

Xios

Save your other half.


250,000 to 300,000 people die everyday in the world, you'd just spike the curve to quadruple capacity for a day.

Now, the tricky part comes in when you have to force both yourself and your other half to pay your dues to humanity, and both become Extreme Scientists, and discover the secrets to both infinite youth and intelligence. The world wins and i get laid every day. Huzzah!

MrStuffins

Xios wrote: »

Save your other half.


250,000 to 300,000 people die everyday in the world, you'd just spike the curve to quadruple capacity for a day.

That's not a good enough excuse. We're talking about causality here.

If I went and murdered someone right now, it doesn't make it right just because 300,000 people die every day. I have caused that.

And in the OP yo have the choice, CAUSE the death of your OH or CAUSE the deaths of 1m people!

Pembily

I'd chose my boyfriend or husband as no one else is going to look out for my best interests and I can't depend on those 1m people! Yes I'm selfish, I'm not insecure and they are not my problem!

beks101

And herein lies the difference between the sexes.

The OP asks her boyfriend a question to gauge an emotional response, he responds logically, she gets upset because he's not 'getting the point', he's most likely frustrated that she's being 'unreasonable'. A million people dead is a million people dead - who in their right mind would allow that when simply one life sacrifice would prevent it?

I read that question as a blatant 'how much do you love me?' and the expected response was 'I love you more than a million people'. He interpreted it literally and responded logically - the sensible but unromantic thing to do.

OP, just learn from this. Don't use hypotheticals that have no basis in reality to determine how much your OH loves you. If you're that concerned about his feelings for you, ask him straight out instead of trying to read him through cryptic questions.

Pembily

I look at it logically too, not from an emotional point as I'm single! Selfishly yes but logically...

Agent Smith

He Who Saves One Life Saves the World Entire

MrStuffins

Pembily wrote: »

I'd chose my boyfriend or husband as no one else is going to look out for my best interests and I can't depend on those 1m people! Yes I'm selfish, I'm not insecure and they are not my problem!

A good honest answer. and many would answer the exact same.

My opinion on this attitude though is that this is what has us, this country and most of the world in this sh*t we're in!

Mat the trasher

On the other hand there surely a more adult potential other half in that million population?

Pembily

MrStuffins wrote: »

A good honest answer. and many would answer the exact same.

My opinion on this attitude though is that this is what has us, this country and most of the world in this sh*t we're in!

Believe me, I don't normally have such a selfish attitude, it's the exact opposite but in this one instance I would have!