How many people can you think of that you would, without hesitation, give up your life to save?

I infer that the initial question is really about the depth of feeling one has for people close to them, and not necessarily focused on a self-indulgent prediction.

My depth of feeling is deep for my wife, my daughters, my nieces (I am an identical twin so they close in a sense to being half of me), and an additional person from my childhood who remains so kind to me it is hard to describe. The list isn't long, and that enough is a self-authenticating comment.

anyone. how could you answer this any differently?

Rtype wrote:

What does “give up your life” mean to you? To simply die would be oh so simple and easy; a weakling’s way out. Children may imagine these things. Are you a child? I have 3 granddaughters and have already given up my life for them. And will do it as needed, forever. “Giving up your life” may include testing blood glucose levels at 3am for 20 years (with the concomitant maximum of 3 hours sleep for those years), or simply giving all the money you made on the stock market to them, or, occasionally, having someone clean their house for them. Or buying them a house. So, just what is your “life” worth, to give?

Okay, I think OP meant doing something that will kill you to prevent another person's imminent death. Think jumping in front of a bullet for someone, like Clint Eastwood in "In the Line of Fire" (I know he didn't die, but he was ready to)? Just because you're SO noble for taking care of your kids doesn't mean you can't answer this hypothetical. And don't say it's academic, because it happens in real life fairly frequently.

I'd give up my life only to save a city BUT it has to be an American city. Other cities probably not and some cities definitely NOT. Cities populated by people against the US definitely not!

xenonscreams wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Common easy answer. Now lets make it more difficult. Would you give up your life to save a stranger. No, OK how about a dozen strangers? 100 strangers? A city?

No, no, no, and probably.

I will be interested to read through this thread.

For me: zero. I'm 25, single, no kids, not in love, so-so relationships with family.

For me it wouldn't just be cites from the United States but all English speaking cities, otherwise I wouldn't give up my life.

I can't related to foreign people I don't understand.

I would risk my life to save almost anyone. Say someone is in a lake drowning. No matter who it is I would go in after them no matter what. Why would anyone not do this in most situations?

Moman wrote:

I would risk my life to save almost anyone. Say someone is in a lake drowning. No matter who it is I would go in after them no matter what. Why would anyone not do this in most situations?

One person. ever. And by that I mean consciously sacrifice my life. I risked my life recently for someone and almost was killed in the process. If my injuries had been worse than they were I would not have been happy about that choice.

afeads3345 wrote:

I honestly would give my life in most circumstances. The way I read the question was in an emergency setting. I would say countless, I'd save your life. I love my family tremendously but helping a person in a time of need, even if it means my life, is the right thing to do IMO.

If you are truly the way you say you are, you must be wearing blinders most of the time or you'd be dead.

The scenario is false, as there is rarely if ever a situation where this trade-off (me or them dies) is assured. This makes it difficult to get at the essences of the issue. A better method might be to present a series of increasing dangerous scenarios. For example, which of the following scenarios would you put yourself in to save: 1) your child, 2) your spouse, 3) other close friends and family members, 4) associates and acquaintances, 5) strangers, 6) adversaries.

A. Intervene as they are being attacked by a large dog

B. Jump into a fast-moving river to save them from drowning

C. Attempt to rescue them from a polar bear cage

Etc.

Unreservedly sacrificing your life for your wife and children can be a foolish reproductive strategy. If they die, you can always get another wife and make more. If you only have one kid, it might be wiser to let them die and start over than to stake your genetic survival on one individual.

Cruel as that may sound, that's how it usually works in the wild. Critters whose young are eaten by predators don't normally get themselves killed trying to prevent it, they save themselves and try again next breeding season. Lionesses whose cubs are killed when new males take over a pride don't make a big fuss about it, they just go into heat and make more cubs.

Conundrum wrote:

Basically the same for me.

Four. My wife and three kids.

Another Lack of Date Point wrote:

Common easy answer. Now lets make it more difficult. Would you give up your life to save a stranger. No, OK how about a dozen strangers? 100 strangers? A city?

This reminds me of an introductory ethics class I took in first year of nursing. We were given a sort of survey that apparently would divide us into the four basic types of people based on our answers (I have long forgot the descriptions of these four classes). The questions were quite provoking and tough to answer.

Here's two I remember:

1. You are a doctor and drive by an accident on a highway. Four people are involved, each with varying injury. Upon initial assessment, you feel that one person is near critical and needs your full attention immediately, and may still not make it even if you give it to them and ignore the rest - but they will surely die if you delay responding to them even for a minute. The other three are not so serious, but still quite critical, and delaying assistance to them may further compromise at least one (and importantly, maybe more than one) of the three's chances of survival, although to a lesser chance compared to person #1. Who do you attend to first?

... and the most difficult question I remember from the survey:

2. You know (somehow, just go with the question's premise) that you can eradicate all cancer completely, overnight and forever, by doing tests on 100 infants and children that will torture them with terrible pain, and eventually kill them all. Knowing that cancer kills many more people than this every day (probably even every hour, worldwide) and certainly causes terrible pain to them as well (many of them also infants and children), would you be able to make the decision to go ahead with the tests and rationalize this terrible deed for the 'greater good' and the knowledge that no one will ever suffer from cancer again?

Moman wrote:

I would risk my life to save almost anyone. Say someone is in a lake drowning. No matter who it is I would go in after them no matter what. Why would anyone not do this in most situations?

That wasn't the question. It's who would you GIVE UP your life for. Meaning you will 100% die. That's a huge difference.

PRE

Oh! Wait a minute. It's too late.

This doesn't necessarily mean those people are cowards. In a situation like you describe chaos and confusion reign. People simply do not know what to do. The right training can teach people to keep calm and react in chaotic situations. That is what military, police, firemen etc... train for.

I do agree with your first paragraph. Regardless of what you think you would do in an emergency situation, you don't know until it happens.

my 2 kids wife her sister and one of her sisters kids the girl

I would save the entire planet by staying back to detonate a bomb manually even if it guaranteed my death.

None, but for my DOG? yes