Would you die for people you love?

[Unlucky]

----

[Vermilion]

I'd put my friends and family before my own life, I could die now and not care. I'm not scared of dieing

[Hideous]

I will die for them. I don't care about the fights/arguments we've had, I don't care if they don't understand all of my problems, I just love them so much. They shaped me into the person I am today, and I honestly can't love myself enough as much as I love my family. Family comes first.

[ImCoolBeans]

I think it's a lot easier to say "I would die for somebody" than it is to actually follow through with it in the moment -- and I think in the moment most people would not actually die for somebody else. I really can't say for sure what my reaction would be in the moment, but I think if it was somebody I really loved I would give my life for them.

[Kirina]

I only love my little brother, all of the eggs in one basket. :P I would try to save him, but I wouldn't die for him. Because I have to be alive to take revenge on the world.

[Microcosm]

I entirely agree with Mike.

If it was just a friend of mine and I knew that me trying to help wouldn't actually do anything or change anything, then I probably wouldn't jump in in the moment like that. However, if it was a family member, I'd at least try. If it was a really good friend, then it would be likely that I would help, but not certain(depending somewhat on the situation). If it was an acquaintance or someone I only sort of knew, then it would mostly if not entirely depend on the situation. If they were getting beat up, then yes I would step in. If someone had a gun to their head, then it would be quite difficult to actually make a difference in that situation unless the person didn't see me coming. It's mostly situational in that sense.

[Horatio Nelson]

There is no doubt in my mind that I would. I don't even need to love somebody to die for them. Human life is such a precious, priceless thing. I would never stand aside and let somebody die if I had the ability to help them.

[Primenumber]

I most certainly would. I cannot imagine living with the knowledge that I could have done something afterwards.

[Kacey]

I would put myself in a position to defend them, yes. But death, no.

Like Mike and Dan said, it's easy to say, but hard to carry out. It's entirely situational, so no promises can really be made.

[Emerald Dream]

As other people have already said, that's easier said than being put into action.

I'm sure that a lot of people (including myself) - when push comes to shove...they would be indecisive, or freeze, if it's a sudden decision.

[DriveAlive]

I most certainly would get involved if my friends or family was in trouble. I would not die for my friends, though.

[Abyssal Echo]

I think it's a lot easier to say "I would die for somebody" than it is to actually follow through with it in the moment -- and I think in the moment most people would not actually die for somebody else. I really can't say for sure what my reaction would be in the moment, but I think if it was somebody I really loved I would give my life for them.

I have to agree with Mike.
It would really depend on the person and the situation

[Beth]

Yes I would without a doubt give my life to save my little brothers or my mothers. The reasons are,my little brother is only 6 years old so his life just began and has his whole life to live. My mother because she gave birth to me and gave me life. For that I would give my life for them so they can live.

[Mil1dreded]

I don't know I can't say unless a situation arose where I'd have that choice either my instincts would kick in or not

[Kirina]

my little brother is only 6 years old so his life just began and has his whole life to live.
You are 13 years old? Your mother should have about 7 years more memories with you. You would say there is value in memories right? I think the memories you make with a person is a big part of why you come to love them.

If you ask any mother they would say "I love my children equally", but that is not true, something they don't want to admit. It is very likely that your mother loves you more than she loves your little brother, so for her sake. Don't die.

[Beth]

You are 13 years old? Your mother should have about 7 years more memories with you. You would say there is value in memories right? I think the memories you make with a person is a big part of why you come to love them.

If you ask any mother they would say "I love my children equally", but that is not true, something they don't want to admit. It is very likely that your mother loves you more than she loves your little brother, so for her sake. Don't die.
What I was merely trying to say is I value my little brother and my mothers life more than I value mine. When push come to shove and when one of my loved ones must die I will sacrifice my life so they can live.

[Uranus]

I think it's a lot easier to say "I would die for somebody" than it is to actually follow through with it in the moment -- and I think in the moment most people would not actually die for somebody else. I really can't say for sure what my reaction would be in the moment, but I think if it was somebody I really loved I would give my life for them.

These are really good words, Mike.

I agree, it is easier said than done. But I think the more appropriate question would be, "Would you give up everything for someone you love?"
And yes. I would. There's only a handful of people who I really love. And family always comes before me.

[Kirina]

What I was merely trying to say is I value my little brother and my mothers life more than I value mine. When push come to shove and when one of my loved ones must die I will sacrifice my life so they can live.

When push comes to shove, your survival instincts kick in (good thing it does) and you will find yourself unable to save your little brother, because you are too scared. You will end up hating and blaming yourself for that and live a depressing life, until you realize that you didn't do anything wrong in saving your own life.

[Beth]

When push comes to shove, your survival instincts kick in (good thing it does) and you will find yourself unable to save your little brother, because you are too scared. You will end up hating and blaming yourself for that and live a depressing life, until you realize that you didn't do anything wrong in saving your own life.
Yea I see your view to a certain point but I would live in quilt ,hate , blame and in depression knowing that I could have saved there lives but was selfish and save my own life.


I would also add for a baby or child that has a lifetime of memories to live.

[fairmaiden]

If it's someone who I love and they love me too, then yes. Regardless of whether it's family or not.

However, if I see someone in distress, even if they're a stranger, I will try to help. But I don't think I'd ever risk my life for a stranger (unless I feel like I really have to).

[sweettayla]

Probably not.

[Magus]

If I think they are going to be a contributing member of the human species, then yes. Otherwise, I better live.

[Jaffe]

Yeah I would, definitely. But I certainly couldnt analyze it like you have. And I really couldnt answer the "why" part.

[Jason The Great]

Of course I will. I'll do whatever for them. You can only love a few people throughout out life and it's not an option.

[Remora]

I've been making sacrifices constantly for a certain young man I have a crush on, and while saying I'd make the ultimate sacrifice is a lot easier than actually carrying it out, I've probably brought myself to the point where my life isn't that big of a matter anymore, and someone with potential would be much better off alive than I would.

I don't know what words to use here. It feels like I've already died from the inside, like I've passed the point of "no return", like i can't reverse the stupid stuff i'd already done for my crush' good and my own bad.

[Babs]

I wany to say that I would, but that scenario is difficult to imagine. I don't know that I'm as heroic as I'd like to think I am, but I've never been in a compromising situation like that.

[Uniquemind]

Depends on who they are.

If it's my parents then no because they told me that they'd rather have me live and them die than the other way around.


If I had children then yes.

If it's a friend, it depends on the friend and how good a person they are to me and in general.


This sounds so cold.

[Kirina]

If it's a friend, it depends on the friend and how good a person they are to me and in general.


This sounds so cold.

If a rich man were captured and a family (parents, children), and I could only choose to save either the rich man or the family. I would save the rich man because a higher reward is more likely.

[Microcosm]

If a rich man were captured and a family (parents, children). I could only choose to save either the rich man or the family. I would save the rich man because a higher reward is more likely.

I hope you're joking.

[Kirina]

I hope you're joking.

Most would save the family, I think that's unfair to the rich man. Why most would save the family is because of the children and life to death ratio. If it's a family of 4, you save 4 and 1 die, while saving the rich man leaves 4 to die.

However, his rich. He could be a philanthropist, he could be donating heavily to charities. I could be in need for money myself, to support my family.

Option A saves 4 lives, option B saves 1 life. Either option is better than none and since it's me who is given the position to choose (voluntarily/ or involuntarily) and none else. It's me who has to determine which option is the most valuable. Their all strangers to me, I don't know how they are as persons. Don't expect me to sympathize with any of them.

Because of this, I take the option that I think is likely to favor myself and the people that is of importance to me. At the end of the day, I did at least save 1 life. While not the best "score", still a job well done.

[Miserabilia]

People die regardless of they did it on purpose or not. A question like this can't be answered simply because every situation is different.

[thatcountrykid]

I have no issues with the idea of dying for those i love and strangers. My priority of life is family, innocents, me, bad guys. I have no hesitation to step up in defense of others. I plan to join the mitary to fight.

Don't get me wrong I don't want to kill or die but for others to live I will

[Uniquemind]

Most would save the family, I think that's unfair to the rich man. Why most would save the family is because of the children and life to death ratio. If it's a family of 4, you save 4 and 1 die, while saving the rich man leaves 4 to die.

However, his rich. He could be a philanthropist, he could be donating heavily to charities. I could be in need for money myself, to support my family.

Option A saves 4 lives, option B saves 1 life. Either option is better than none and since it's me who is given the position to choose (voluntarily/ or involuntarily) and none else. It's me who has to determine which option is the most valuable. Their all strangers to me, I don't know how they are as persons. Don't expect me to sympathize with any of them.

Because of this, I take the option that I think is likely to favor myself and the people that is of importance to me. At the end of the day, I did at least save 1 life. While not the best "score", still a job well done.

The entire scenario is flawed, even from your hungry prize-wanting perspective.

They might be the biggest selfish jerk (hence perhaps why they are rich in the first place with their aggressive business attitude) and not give you anything in the end. (Aka: not a philanthropist)

Also if you saved the children and the parents, via inheritance law, the money might be in their possession next.


Either way you take the cake for having the coldest comment thus far in the thread.


I have no issues with the idea of dying for those i love and strangers. My priority of life is family, innocents, me, bad guys. I have no hesitation to step up in defense of others. I plan to join the mitary to fight.

Don't get me wrong I don't want to kill or die but for others to live I will

Just be aware that in the military there exist scenarios where you will have to take the lives of innocent people if they pose a threat to your travel trajectory etc.


(Aka: a local toddler or kid is in your tanks travel trajectory, and you have to run them over because you can't stop or there's a fear the enemy is using that kid as a ploy against your unit).

Even if from the all-knowing perspective the kid innocently wanted to greet soldiers or was curious, when your ordered to press on despite that meaning you kill an innocent, do you hesitate and does it cause you grief?

If you say no, go ahead your mentally prepared for the military.

[Kirina]

Might be a family full of jerks as well. The rich person may have a spouse and child to come home to.

Don't generalize. Not all rich are bad people. None of us, can say which life or lives is the most right to save. Saving the family over the rich is just as cold. Either choice is a loss. Therefore it is just as right to save the rich man as it is to save the family.

To tell someone "You should have saved the family", that is playing God and you have no right to. The answer really is, "Yes I should have saved the family, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have saved the rich man". Yet when the family is saved, none says "You should have saved the rich man". Completely ignored and tossed aside as if they were garbage.

Both choices are equally right. Why save the rich man instead of the family? Why save the family instead of the rich man? So what one choose really doesn't matter, but almost every time this scenario is made. People saves the family. Don't call me cold, for finally giving the rich man a chance to live.

[Jaffe]

None of us, can say which life or lives is the most right to save.

That is so true. I might not have and probably would not have made the same choice as you. But there is no right or wrong choice, no bad or good choice, in this case. Just because I might have chosen differently does not make either one of us right or wrong, good or bad.

[Kirina]

That is so true. I might not have and probably would not have made the same choice as you. But there is no right or wrong choice, no bad or good choice, in this case. Just because I might have chosen differently does not make either one of us right or wrong, good or bad.

Exactly. You can save the family if that's what you want, I respect that choice. It's ridiculous that people got butthurt because I saved the rich man, instead of just accepting my choice.

[thatcountrykid]

The entire scenario is flawed, even from your hungry prize-wanting perspective.

They might be the biggest selfish jerk (hence perhaps why they are rich in the first place with their aggressive business attitude) and not give you anything in the end. (Aka: not a philanthropist)

Also if you saved the children and the parents, via inheritance law, the money might be in their possession next.


Either way you take the cake for having the coldest comment thus far in the thread.




Just be aware that in the military there exist scenarios where you will have to take the lives of innocent people if they pose a threat to your travel trajectory etc.


(Aka: a local toddler or kid is in your tanks travel trajectory, and you have to run them over because you can't stop or there's a fear the enemy is using that kid as a ploy against your unit).

Even if from the all-knowing perspective the kid innocently wanted to greet soldiers or was curious, when your ordered to press on despite that meaning you kill an innocent, do you hesitate and does it cause you grief?

If you say no, go ahead your mentally prepared for the military.

Lol I just love how you think everyone in the military is a heartless mindless killer. They don't just simply run over a child.

[Microcosm]

I would save the rich man because a higher reward is more likely.

Here's why your response is cold: You based your response upon the "reward." If the reason you'd save the rich man is because of the reward, then doesn't your whole argument as to the equality of saving either party just completely fall apart?

You said that picking one over the other could provide a higher reward. Thus, saving the rich man is somehow better because you hope he's going to give you something in return, which is commonly considered cold as it negates the goodness of you saving them at all and demeans it down to nothing more than your own self-interest.

By that logic, if there was a poor man in need of help and I saw him, then I'd just say "Well, he won't give me any money or benefits for saving him so I'll just let him die."

However, his rich. He could be a philanthropist, he could be donating heavily to charities. I could be in need for money myself, to support my family.

contradicts


Both choices are equally right. Why save the rich man instead of the family? Why save the family instead of the rich man? So what one choose really doesn't matter, but almost every time this scenario is made. People saves the family. Don't call me cold, for finally giving the rich man a chance to live.

The reason your response was cold was not because of the choice itself, but rather it was because of the motive by which you attempted to justify your choice. That is what's cold.

It's ridiculous that people got butthurt because I saved the rich man, instead of just accepting my choice.

Apparently anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "butthurt."

[SethfromMI]

I think it's a lot easier to say "I would die for somebody" than it is to actually follow through with it in the moment -- and I think in the moment most people would not actually die for somebody else. I really can't say for sure what my reaction would be in the moment, but I think if it was somebody I really loved I would give my life for them.

you bring up a great point Mike. I want to say I would give up my life and I hope I would

[Kirina]

If the reason you'd save the rich man is because of the reward, then doesn't your whole argument as to the equality of saving either party just completely fall apart?
Well all of them deserves to be saved. It's those that is given the option to save them that has to choose unfairly, no matter what they choose. Everyone will have a reason behind their choice. "I want to give the children a chance to grow up", "I think the rich person can reward me", "That mom is hot!". Whatever the reason is, that's irrelevant.

Humans are ultimately selfish. If they choose to save the family because they want to give the children a chance to grow up, they don't do it genuinely for the children. They do it for the satisfaction, the good feeling it leaves them with and the recognition, "His such a good person". That's what they want to hear. In a sense, any motive behind who to save, would be kind of cold.

I understand how third parties would see the reason for saving the rich man as wrong, but this doesn't concern them. It concerns me and the person I saved and to him, I'm a hero. I wouldn't ask for a reward from him or even mention it, just hope for one and if he does nothing more than say "Thank you!", that's more than enough and I'd be happy with that.

[Uniquemind]

Lol I just love how you think everyone in the military is a heartless mindless killer. They don't just simply run over a child.

I didn't say that I just said there are scenarios in which this does happen and the person needs to be prepared for that.

You put words in my mouth with the "everybody" comment so I counter that assertion.

Might be a family full of jerks as well. The rich person may have a spouse and child to come home to.

Don't generalize. Not all rich are bad people. None of us, can say which life or lives is the most right to save. Saving the family over the rich is just as cold. Either choice is a loss. Therefore it is just as right to save the rich man as it is to save the family.

To tell someone "You should have saved the family", that is playing God and you have no right to. The answer really is, "Yes I should have saved the family, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have saved the rich man". Yet when the family is saved, none says "You should have saved the rich man". Completely ignored and tossed aside as if they were garbage.

Both choices are equally right. Why save the rich man instead of the family? Why save the family instead of the rich man? So what one choose really doesn't matter, but almost every time this scenario is made. People saves the family. Don't call me cold, for finally giving the rich man a chance to live.

Agreed. We were all just being facetious in this entire scenario.

Basically it's a save who you can safely scenario.

Double Post merged. Please use the "Edit" function next time.

[Dalton504]

I hope that I would give my life to protect someone I love. I guess it's just one of those things that are easier said than done. You never know how you're gonna react when you are in those types of situations.

[LoveDat]

My first reaction to this question was yes i would! And now that Ive been thinking about it I am not sure anymore..
Would I really want someone to sacrifice themselves for me? No, I wouldnt.
So would someone else want me to sacrifice myself for them?
I couldnt live with myself if knew someone died for me.. i would wish I had died instead of them and I would feel like it is my fault they died..
on the other hand i could never live with myself if i let my loved ones die!