It’s simple, but not in a way you understood. Details are not important because the focus in such hypothetical questions is only on the subjects mentioned in the question.
Nurturing instinct (and the gut-wrenching guilt that immediately follows if one is not driven by the nurturing instinct only compounds its force) is deep enough for a parent to risk their life to a massive degree. Is fellowship regard a strong enough reason for an AF person to perceive it’s intelligent to risk their life?
If nurturing instinct is pitted against fellowship regard, which would win in saving the child? This is what I referred to, @claudiu, when I said no need to posit as if actualism wins against feeling-beings in every case.
Since it appears that we’re still in hypothetical land (which is a pity, since you could perhaps start considering that this is really about your concerns regarding your kids and your ability/willingness to take care of them were you to become actually free - which is a legitimate feeling-being concern/question/objection… that ‘I’ had, that presumably all AF parents had)… since we’re still dealing with hypotheticals then, I have a hard time thinking of any hypothetical option, in this situation of someone trying to stab my kid if front of me, in which “my life” would not be at risk, whatever I do. Running away perhaps? But then I might slip on a banana peel and open my skull. That’s risky! You shouldn’t underestimate the ubiquity of abandoned banana peels! Or I could just walk away, but the mad child stabber might come at me from my back. Hmm… Maybe I could try and save the kid eh, while I’m at it .
Do you perhaps remember the story of Richard pursuing a grocery bag thief to retrieve it? Yep, a grocery bag. Richard running after a thief, and confronting the guy, which might have been dangerous (if anything, because of banana peels), for a grocery bag.
Does Richard value groceries more than His Life?
Or perhaps the entire notion of ‘value’ does not apply.
Perhaps running after the guy was what Richard found himself doing, because that was the sensible thing to do, for that body named Richard, in that particular situation.
Finally, in case you were to start considering this concern of yours… only PCEs will totally alleviate it, for you’ll get to see for yourself that there is zero doubt that in whatever situation your children will be safer with you actually free, rather than not.
In the meantime, while this is not evident for you, be reassured that there is no way you’re going to become actually free one morning without wanting it specifically and 100%, which presumes having gotten rid of such concerns in the first place.
@Kiman and there in lies your conclusion; the only action which is acceptable to you is that everyone (not just actually free people) must risk life and limb for their child.
You set up “nurturing instinct” vs actually caring, with the “correct” answer only being which of those will ensure that life and limb are risked to save the child.
My understanding is an actually free person is exactly that, actually free. Actually free to act in whatever way they act. To die for another is intrinsic in any scenario when freedom to act in any way is the premise.
It highlights to me how much i could be doing in line with “dying for my children”.
Not that it’s of particular interest, but it’s likely i would in fact die for my children. I can’t obviously know for sure, but i think i may well be in the 70% you speculate would.
However, isn’t it so much more useful for me to consider what i can do for them right now?
How i can be a better father now. Not in some extremely rare scenario where it’s “my life or theirs”, but in the vastly everyday scenario that is our current lives.
The other interesting point you bring up @Andrew is exactly what it is that you are doing for the child. Yes sacrificing ones life to save a child benefits said child but how about the other knife wielding murderers they may come across later in life, how about the grief, depression, fear, sorrow etc that they will inevitably experience as part of the human condition. The solution that actualism offers in terms of peace on earth might not be instant but it would be final.
How about sacrificing ‘myself’ in this life time so that children never have to be murdered by knife wielding murderers again or so they never have to live their lives in sorrow and malice, also so that parents never have to face these sort of gruesome situations which sadly are most likely happening in some way or another across the world right now.
Freedom from these things could be the overall state of affairs if the root cause is eradicated, as opposed to forever mopping up the horrendous consequences of the human condition by being virtuous.
There must be a much better way to exist on this planet than what humanity is currently doing, and ‘I’ have the opportunity to show to others that it is possible to live it.
Actually just randomly scrolling through instagram now I see a real life video of a plane whizzing past and dropping missiles on I’m not sure where.
Either way ‘I’ can be virtuous and give up my life for a child and in the meantime leave the human condition exactly as it is for all the other humans existing on this planet. What genuine good am I doing?
As far as nature is concerned, the point of instinctually defending ones child isn’t to save the child, it’s a rough mechanism to ensure the survival of humanity as a whole. Would it always be the case that humanity is better of risking the adult to save the child?
Right now an able bodied adult in reproductive age is much more useful to humanity than a child is. A child is pure potential. It can neither produce children nor work(depending on age and law…). So if one is faithful to humanity or even his family it doesn’t seem so clear cut to me what the ‘best’ decision is even in a hypothetical abstract scenario. Of course, such a rational father would be hated by both surviving mother and siblings for being a wuss even if they are better off than if the father died.
And here we see it: humanity doesn’t care about any one particular human. You don’t really have a choice in the matter and that’s the whole point of this hypothetical scenario, isn’t it? You owe your life to humanity and that’s that! Who’s this @geoffrey guy to say it depends and he has the actual freedom to make the call?
Well, he’s actually free to be sensible and we poor beholden souls aren’t(yet).
I really think you’re missing the logic of your own words which you wrote with your own two hands. These words are as followed:
“The heart of the question was: An AF person is in a situation where he must risk his life in order to avert the danger posed to his child.”
Therefor I don’t have to let Geoffrey answer, or wait for his answer. You posed in your own hypothetical that he must risk his life. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you say that an “AF person…must risk his life…” Do you really mean that they have an ‘option’ to risk their life or not?
“ RESPONDENT No. 39:Once these instinctual survival passions are eliminated what then is the response to danger such as overwhelming physical attack? Without the fight or flight response how does one deal with this type of situation?
RICHARD: Fearlessly. The instinctual passion of fear triggers any one of three reactions: freeze, flight or fight … none of which are necessarily appropriate when dealing with the most common aggressor (human beings) in today’s world. In this day and age negotiation is by far the most efficacious response to a threatening situation. And fear – adrenaline coursing through the veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on – cripples effective negotiation and is hardly conducive to a healthy outcome. Of course one still has the option to freeze or flee or fight if that is what the situation calls for … with the added advantage of such action not being fear-driven (or courage-driven). Foolish courage – an impulse sourced in fear – can cause one to take needless risks.”
Came across this today and it seemed relevant, more or less along the same lines as @geoffrey and others have already expressed
Very lively discussion ( about a hypothetical problem ) , I guess we have solved all the other world problems! lol
The original question, reminded me of an “Atheist” question, where he ask a “Believer” :
" Can God create a stone heavy enough that he ( God ) himself could not lift ? "
The question is designed as a “trap”, with no affordable / winnable answer!
.