I posed one of Dr. Weiner's questions to a friend of mine, a father of two boys and a daughter. The question I posed was the first: "You are on a boat that overturns. It contains your 5 year old and 1 year old children, both of the same sex. The boat sinks and you can save only one. Whom do you choose to save?" My friend pondered this question for several long moments. "I don't really know," he responded. "I guess the youngest, and hope that the older could somehow save himself." Later that evening, he called me at home. He had been thinking about the question ever since I asked it, and he had a new response. "I would try to save them both," he said. "I know that's not part of your question, but that is the way it would happen. We would probably all three drown in such an attempt, but the plain truth is, that is how I would do it. I wouldn't know at the moment of decision that I could only save one, and, as a father, I wouldn't allow myself to lose either."
This second answer, I believe, points out both a support for the evolutionary biology position and a flaw in its study. First, the flaw; My friend has pointed out what is a problem with the ecological validity of the Weiner experiment. Weiner's question forces a false choice on the person. In the real world, as my friend noted, he would not know the outcome of his choice and would choose to try to save both. In the aftermath, all three might drown, or the father might grow tired and lose his grip on one or the other of the children and save the other. That is not necessarily a choice, it is an accident. So, the thought experiment lacks validity. However, my friends answer of "both," although not in the scope of the experiment, actually verifies Richad Dawkins' concept of "the selfish gene." My friend's instinct is to save all of his genes. He does not know, he cannot know before the fact, that he will fail both children in such an attempt. If one ha...