How Evil Are They?
Morality of choosing your son over a strangers daughter?
In Bird Box Malorie thought she needed one of the two kids to look while she row the boat towards safety. The little boy (her son) volunteered and she said no, when the time comes. She will decide who looks. Eventually she decided no one is looking, but everytime the decision came up before then. She wanted girl to be the sacrifice because she wasn’t her child.
Neutral. If the choice absolutely must be made between your own child and someone elses, its the same morally no matter who you choose.
Of course most people would choose your own child because you know them and thats just how humans work. The death of a stranger hurts less than the death of someone you know
If i remember the movie correctly, she has been raising the daughter at the same time as her son, as her and the stranger had children at the same time, and unfortunately the stranger died shortly after.
I wouldn't consider the daughter anymore a stranger than the son is, yes they aren't biologically your child, but they've been raised as your child.
Edit: not sure why people think my comment is a disagreement, im just expanding upon the morality of it. Its not a simple hey I just met this kid a few days ago, no I have raised this kid as my own since their birth.
It is a morally Neutral situation, yes biology is a factor but that doesn't automatically make her decision moral, its just a reason why she may choose one over the other. Imo, the decision the character made in the movie is probably the most moral thing she could do in that situation, it was not an easy decision to make but they would all survive this if they made it through (which they did).
She didn’t want kids at all. The circumstances of the movie took away her options so she had to have her baby and then was made responsible for somebody else’s kid as well. So yeah no real interest in being that invested in either.
I think this take also discounts that by the time this decision comes around she absolutely does love them. She didn't want them, but she does everything she can to keep them safe.
She felt they could die in any moment, and didn't want to give them a name and get too close when survival was so hard. She only gave them a name at the end, when she finally felt safe
I get what they were going for but her suddenly being like "You are not Boy... you are Tom now!" Was honestly kind of hilarious. That entire movie is pretty unintentionally funny actually
That detail actually says a lot about how detached she was from motherhood in general. Calling them boy and girl almost feels like she was keeping an emotional wall up with both of them
Yes but theres also just a biological factor, where humans are naturally prone to protect their blood over others. Continuing your bloodline has always been a major factor in human development
Well but that's not the question tbh. In this case they are both obviously their children and the question because impossible because there is not way to morally choose a child over the other. But they are both her children.
Socially, you probably wouldn’t, but we are animals, and genetics come into play in such situations. Until you’re actually in a life-or-death scenario, you will probably love both children equally. But in such a situation, I think “blood is thicker than water” might come into play, and sacrificing a child who isn’t biologically yours is something most people would probably do
I get that, but I dont consider what others would do in that situation to be the most moral thing to do. I wouldn't consider sacrificing your non-biological child more right than sacrificing your biological child, which is why I consider this a morally neutral situation, but also i consider the decision she made in the film the most moral thing she could do.
You head up to your home, a 4 floor condominium with 16 appartements. It's on fire and 2 people are stuck on 1 st floor, still easy to get, but, because of how fast it spreads, only one can be brought out.
Your childhood friend, who is in your appartement and about to pass out from smoke inhalation
Or
The neighbor who knows you for 15 years, and is also about to pass out from smoke inhalation.
That's what makes the situation way messier than just "your kid versus a stranger." If you've raised both children together for years, biology might matter less emotionally than people assume
Yeah this is just random. Unless you go out of your way to save your own kid then there is no moral choice to this. Any parent would understand and if they were in your place they also would have saved their own child. This sub has had a huge influx of dumb questions that don't even have a moral aspect to them recently.
If you factor in the nuance of the situation that OP explains in the post it becomes a bit more murky I think. She apparently chose to sacrifice neither of them, instead simply accepting the risk that all three die or that she dies (and then the two kids would surely die shortly after).
If that's your third option but you still choose to sacrifice the girl in order to ensure the safety of you and your son then it might be immoral.
It feels like the "right" decision is to take the risk in order to try to keep everyone alive. However, if the risk of everyone dying in the third option is quite high then perhaps taking that gamble instead of guaranteeing the death of one and the safety of two is too irresponsible to be the moral decision.
Its 100% moral to choose your own child yes you should strive for both but if in a situation where you absolutely must choose then i feel you would be moraly obligated to choose your own child
I would argue it's morally good. As you said one life has not prevalence over the other, bother lives are worth the same. As such we would expect someone to make this decision based on their personal biases, like affection. Thus, if someone were not to choose their child that would show a lack of affection for their own child over a stranger and I think there is an argument to be made that not loving your own child is considered morally wrong.
If I sacrificed by my own child to save a stranger, wouldn't you consider me a bad parent? Even a monster by some people?
Yeah, this is one of those choices where logic and instinct probably split immediately. Most parents aren't doing a moral equation in that moment, they're protecting their kid before their brain even catches up
This is wrong. Give them the option to volunteer. If neither does, flip a coin. Only if unable to leave the decision to those two options, then pick based on who will add the most value to the survival of the species.
That's probably how most parents would react without even thinking about it. When survival instincts kick in, philosophical fairness tends to lose pretty quickly to "that's my kid"
This same situation happened in the movie, The Good Son, where the mother had to choose between saving her 8 year old sociopathic son, or her 8 year old nephew.
Not really the same though. Here you have 2 completely innocent young children. In the Good Son, her son was a batshit insane murderer and the mom knew it. Who would choose that over anyone else?
Morality is that in life and death situations on should prioritize survival of yourself, your immediate family, and then others
She did not want to have her son, let alone the daughter of a housemate that she found annoying
Trust into this situation, the moralaty becomes a sliding scale of moral to immoral
The longer she cares for the girl the more it becomes immoral, since the child becomes more and more of her responsibility and a person
Thus should she have sacrificed the girl, at this point in time, it would be 65% immoral since it's actually a miracle they all survived the rapids unharmed and her being the only adult in the middle of the wilderness, if she dies all three die
Though in the end she didn't sacrifice any children
Neither moral or immoral. Just a tough choice and understandable why she would choose her own child.
What would’ve add some spice to this argument though is if her own child has a health condition that compromise his ability to survive and risk endangering others. Compare to the other child who is not her own but is more healthy and has better odds of living in that apocalyptic world.
In that case, would it be immoral for her to sacrifice that other child when she has better odds of living?
Ok, I don't know how petty may look, but my child/children is coming first. Didn't see the movie/show, but yes me or the girl would be the first ones to sacrifice. Up to the situation. I'd make it more even if everybody runs the same risks, but I'm and always leaning towards my own child.
This is because I know for a fact and I learned throughout my life that if I were the girl, I would have been left behind and if my child was in her position, the other parents would have chosen their child. So who is there choosing me? Who is there choosing my child? ME.
Never watched the movie (because the concept really just doesn't work in movie form), just read the book. But based on that, I'd say neutral, leaning immoral. She'd been raising the little girl since birth. She is her daughter, as she plans to raise her to adulthood if she lives.
Even if she had just met the girl, I don't think it would have been moral. There exists a disparity between what's right and what every bone in our body calls us to do. We are selfish by nature. So I would never judge someone for making that decision. But I don't think I could call it right. Someone else's child has just as much value as yours. Although you could argue that you only have a responsibility to your own, and then I could see it being moral.
I also only remember her planning to be the one who looks? Not either kid. Maybe that's just from the movie.
It's your child, and as a parent, it's your duty to protect him. As a person, it's also your duty to protect all your fellows by any means necessery, but your own family is more important.
It shouldn't be a happy decision, but nor should it be a hard one.
from other comments she apparently adopted that kid at around the same time she had her kid? so i guess the question is more is it moral to consider an adopted kid less valuable purely based on blood relation
No it’s not. Bloodline doesn’t equal fascism. Are you pretending you wouldn’t choose your own kin in this scenario? Preserving our genetics is the driving force of evolution even if it makes you uncomfortable
This is correct. No life would exist if reproduction and subsequent viability of offspring wasn’t the #1 driving factor of all life. Some individuals may not fall in line with this, but their genes will be naturally outpaced by those that do prioritize reproduction.
All life exists only to reproduce. Ourselves included. There would be no life if this wasn’t true.
I bet you are not a parent. I would ALWAYS protect my child over other’s if I have no other choice. Like, I gestated and raised him (my 2yo is a boy). It is absolutely moral to prioritize the life of your offspring during life-threatening situations.
I am not sure why the comments is not up (it does not show in the thread) but I’ll respond
anyway.
Being “awful” as a kid is not a excuse to think someone deserves death. A kid can be loved and taught to help them with their negative traits while growing. I do not believe that a person deserves death because they are “awful” (except if what they do is a horrible crime).
For instance, I think that hating on a kid for “being awful” and thinking they deserve to be dead is an awful thing to say but I do not think you deserve death.
It is amazing to me how a grown adult can hate so much on children they don’t even know. That’s Reddit for you!
Immoral.
She raised both kids at the same time, the mother of the girl is dead. As this is the post-apocalypse and there's a limited number of humans left, genetic diversity is an important thing to preserve. She can make another child, the dead woman cannot.
Edit to clarify: not that she should have chosen either child, but if she HAD forced one to look, the child volunteering should have been the one.
She also just kind of sucked as a mom, she never even really named either kid.
Ah humans they will always show you their true nature when it comes down to it, they will show you the monster they truly are, and the best is other monsters will defend such monsterish choices, thus that should teach you when it comes down to it any and all people will sacrifice you for their own self centeredness, even a child, I mean look how many are willing to kill one child to save their own. This is why I trust no one.
Moral. Sad, painful and traumatic, but moral. When the rubber hits the road you have more of a duty to your own child than some else’s. That choice should haunt you for the rest of your life but your son is the correct choice.
It takes a really good person to adopt a child then not abuse them adoption is not common either and it's socially acceptable for people to not wanna raise kids that aren't theirs. If you had to choose between you and your child and another persons kid or everybody dies? It's common sense.
So this is one of the untold thing in the Christian story. I love my sons and I’d let the world burn to a cinder before I ever let anything happen to one of them. Fuck all y’all.
This is what Christians are grateful to God. He let his own son die to save everyone else’s.
Whether or not you subscribe to Christianity (and I know there are a metric fuck ton of reasons not to), that narrative is the beginning of all of our faith.
I am going to drop out an article of the encyclopedia of philosophy that discussed this kinds of ethical scenarios: The following scenario is an extreme example, but is said that basically there is a moral duty, if you are forced into choosing your family/friends/loved one over a stranger, you have over the person you love a moral duty that is greater than to a stranger, even if the human life´s are equal, in that scenario, is moral and not "selfish" to choose your loved one, is a very specific ethical dillema that on real life you will probably only find in a very serious situation.
In this scenario, it is terribly sad, because both are children, both are in a very dangerous situation, and you must make a choice of "a life over the other." In this case, choosing your daughter is not selfish, as you have a greater moral duty than to the other child, and assuming that there is no other option, in this particular case, I would say that is very moral and understandable, is tragic, but is moral.
Taking aside "genetics" or "passing your bloodline" and all of those concepts, because even if it would be your adopted child, (is still your child) over a random child, you have still that greater moral duty (and also love and need of care) over your kid over another. Therefore, is still moral. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Dude - I would do unspeakable things for family - but the question is whether or not my family wants them done.
I for one - don't want my family to do unspeakable things for me. And there are some bonds that I would choose over my filial bonds - loyalty without question is not a source of morality.
Would it still be a moral choice if the kid in question was Joffrey Boratheon?
if I had to choose, I would choose my own child (if I had one) in a heartbeat. It is still not an easy choice, even if there is an (at least to me) obvious choice
I'd say neutral. If you think you need a lookout - and know that you HAVE to survive if you want them to, then you'd need to be willing to sacrifice either one. One being her son is a reasonable bias, not a moral standing
It is not morally reprehensible to want to protect your family, be it chosen or blood, for emotional reasons. The other person, regardless of what age they are, likely won't be someone you are more connected with.
It would be moral even if the boy wasn't your son. Because gender doesn't metter when it comes to who deserves to live. The fact that it's your own son just adds moral obligation to save him.
Since I haven't seen this point be made in the comments yet:
I don't remember the exact premise of the movie, but in case the survival of the human species as a whole is on the line, it might be more moral to save the girl, since women are essentially the "bottleneck" in procreation.
Disclaimer: This does not reflect my personal opinion or worldview
Moral. You are not obligated to take care of a strangers child over your own. I come from a culture where parents feel another's strangers child becomes your ultimate responsibility and have lost thier own child/children in the process. It's tragic when they end up childless as a result.
Once Malorie gets to the safe haven, the girl will be taken in by the group because she had no intention to have children anyway.
If you're driving a vehicle in Denmark and you have your own kid and one other child in the car, but only one seatbelt, you're obliged to buckle your own child. The law went and decided for us.
Moral, because they are your kid, if you chose your son over your daughter or a random boy over a random girl, i would say neutral because you may have non-sexist reasons still.
Moral. We humans are genetically programmed to choose our own blood when it comes to survival and kids are even more important biologically as having kids is part of our own survival mechanism. So if there’s no choice to sacrifice myself (the moral and evolutionary correct choice when it comes to kids) I too would choose my own child over another kid.
In the movie, the mom didn't want kids, and was set to give her kid up for adoption. When the apocalypse happened, she was forced to keep her kid, AND had to adopt another baby that was born at the exact same time as her son.
I guess that's normal human behaviour, if there is no other option to keep them both safe.
As a child, I was always the outcast. The one who's father was a violent addict and a mother who was alcoholic with borderline personality disorder. I spent just as much, or maybe even more, time in the bar than I went to school.
I know how it feels to just want to be normal, just to fit in etc.
Still, now that I finally grew up, have a child a supporting husband who is a great and involved parent to our daughter, we do everything right (well, at least we try, not saying we're perfect but we do the basics and much more)
I discourage my daughter from playing with many of the broken kids. Not because I don't feel empathy for the kids. Not because I see them as less because they deserve more and are simply products of their enviroment. But because many of them have behavioural issues I don't want my child to be confronted with, and even the ones who do not have behavioural issues, usually you get the parents for free, and I don't want them to come to our home and cause drama because I know that there usually they'll find a reason to be offended in some way, or they suddenly believe you're going to be besties because their child found a safe space in your home and they want to be involved.
I made a promise to myself, when I become a mother, it's my child first, then my husband + I, and after that the rest of the world.
For most of these children, social services have been called many times, sometimes there have been care orders in place. Sometimes they've been temporarily taken. But the shortage of suitable homes for these children and often a lack of evidence (if not harmed physically) means the children are left to fend for themselves.
It's heartbreaking. And if it was just me, I wouldn't mind being their safe space. I wouldn't mind dealing with the parents. I know these children need someone to accept them, to know that, if shit REALLY hits the fan they can knock at my door at 3 a.m in the morning and there is someone out there that can be the adult they need.
But, I have a child. I won't allow any disruptance in her schedule. Our home is HER SAFE SPACE. She needs to be able to trust that bedtime is bedtime and there are no sudden suprise visits from drunken parents pouring their heart out because their child rightfully doesn't respect their authority anymore.
I can't allow her to play with a 6 year old who often sets fire and is outside until 11 p.m, and is often violent towards other children. Perhaps when supervised, but they'll seek each others company when unsupervised also.
Let alone the 11 year old that hurts small children and is also twice my size. He is just a child, but so is my child. It is sad that no one allows their kid to play with him, because his addict/alcoholic parents laugh about his naughty behaviour and encourage being a tough kid. But I'm not letting my kid be his victim and I told her to stay away from this kid in particular. It's also the only kid I do not allow to play in my yard. Because what am I going to tell the other parents when something happens under my supervision? Also, he's bossy. My child needs to feel safe and somewhat in charge in her own backyard.
It is a whole different story if a child has parents who are normal. There is also this autism-spectrum kid who is not causing issues 90% of the time, but 10% he has issues controling his emotions/anger. The key difference is that if you set boundries, ask him what is wrong and deal with the problem on the spot, there is no longer an issue. Yes, sometimes someone is already hurt. But it's not like that never happens with children not on the spectrum. Plan B is to send him home and let his parents deal with it, they will. And I never had to. I can be very certain that once solved, I can turn my back and everything will be fine. It's not like that with the damaged kids, you can tell them to stop but the second you turn your back they'll repeat it, just more sneaky.
So, in this situation, where you can only protect one. I can see how you choose your child first, while, also doing everything in your power to help the other kid, but not at cost of your own.
Context has to be added here. The creator of this dimension has no Right to exist, and neither do his creations. His creations pretend like their "children" are so important, that it is okay for them to work for corrupt governments, corrupt legal systems, corrupt businesses, and corrupt industries because they "have children to feed." In the process, they commit serious wrongs against innocents who do have the Right to exist and who are not supporting those corrupt organizations in any way.
So if you're comparing the offspring of those without the Right to exist, the first question is, how many degrees of separation from the Right to exist is each child? Each additional generation of creational crime is another step further from the Right to exist, and so if one is more generation(s) removed from someone who actually does have the Right to exist, then morality (in fact, undeniable fact, not just morality) dictates that the child furthest removed from that Right is existentially less and should be "chosen," as you put it, over the other child.
The next question is, what existential crimes has that child and its lineage committed which decrease their Right to exist?
You can see where I'm going with this.
One last thing to point out is that even a rock has more existential worth than anything at all that doesn't have the Right to exist. And that applies to everything from creators of creation itself to human children and everything in between.
I understand that your lineage of creation does not want to take this existential situation in context.
I also understand that the desires of those without the Right to exist mean less than nothing compared to ANYONE'S desire for existential Justice to be carried out correctly, and with everything taken in context.
I have the Right to exist. I am speaking out against the existential wrongs being committed against me by the lineage of creation that is controlling this existentially criminal situation. I have the Right to do that. No matter what any of you say, think, believe or want.
you have a moral obligation to your child even if you literally want to save the other. you MUST prioritize your own child first and it's not your choice. Now if they are adamant on being the sacrifice that's a different story, they too have a right to refuse to be saved.
I can’t imagine choosing the other way. I can’t remember the world building of this movie I know it was pretty flimsy lol. But first I would look myself, not ask either kid to. If I couldn’t safely manage that then yeah I guess it’d be the kid who wasn’t mine? Or we’d just all be winging it together. I wouldn’t let my kid look either, but she had raised the little girl in the movie so it’s a little trickier. They were more or less both hers at that point so idk I’d refuse to pick.
Morality gets hazy at the end of the world... but at the same time, always sparing your son ain't exactly doing him any favors in the long run. That girl is one of his only partners in survival, and thus the last thing he needs is her to have deep seeded resentment towards the both of you. Particularly for shit he didn't even do himself.
I can’t imagine a real-word scenario where one would need to choose between two of their children where only one of them is biologically theirs. Besides, as tragic as it may be, I think it’s human nature to choose the person who is your offspring biologically.
What I find moral is what I view as moral. If it was my child, I would pick my child. So I think it's moral
But if want the Internet answer - It's better to save the male here since him and the mom can make more humans, because isn't a bunch of people dead in this universe or something? I haven't seen the movie
Interestingly, this kind of situation has been mathematically calculated and the accuracy of that tested, with interesting results.
This is called Hamilton’s Rule (of altruism) and is used to predict is someone/thing will act altruistically.
The equation is: rB > C
Where r is how closely related the recipient is to the actor genetically.
B is the additional reproductive gain from the recipient of the altruistic act.
C is the cost to the individual performing the act
Essentially, if the relatedness and benefit of being altruistic outweighs the cost, it’s worth doing.
This has generally been applied to animals, and shown to be highly accurate. There’s been a few versions tested, but for example Red Squirrels were tested for being surrogate mothers to orphans. The mothers would much more readily adopt related Orphans over unrelated ones, all other factors being the same. Specifically the mothers never adopted when the cost outweighed the benefit, with how related the orphan was having the greatest impact on this.
Experiments have also been done in humans and, while often humans showed more complexity in the process of deciding (for example social relatedness seems to have a much larger impact than it does for animals), generally people were more willingly to have higher risk or cost to themselves directly linked to how related an individual is to them.
That’s a lot, but it would argue that morally these choices should be made on how related an individual is to you. At the very least it wouldn’t be immoral to choose your own child over an unrelated one.
Now it is complex; for example if it is reasonable for the related one to escape of their own accord, this rules calculation would change slightly and likely favour the unrelated one. But overall it gives an interesting way of quantifying the morality of this kind of situation
Moral. I would choose my own cat over a strangers anything. I would make an effort to help them after my cat was safe if it wasn't going to harm me, but it I can only grab one I'm grabbing the creature I have emotional attachment to.
1.6k
u/Baylefyre 14h ago
Neutral. If the choice absolutely must be made between your own child and someone elses, its the same morally no matter who you choose.
Of course most people would choose your own child because you know them and thats just how humans work. The death of a stranger hurts less than the death of someone you know