Why unfortunately? Also, why "under the impression"? If you were to tell me some of your terminal values, I'd give you the courtesy of assuming you are telling the truth as you subjectively perceive it (you have privileged access to your values, and at least concerning your conscious values, subjective is objective).

• If your values conflict with those of greater humanity (in aggregate,) then you are roughly equivalent to Clippy - not dangerous unless you actually end up being decisive regarding existential risk, but nevertheless only co-operating based on self-interest and bargaining, not because we have a common cause.
• Humans are usually operating based on cached thoughts, heuristics whih may conflict with their actual terminal values. Picture a Nazi measuring utility in Jews eliminated. He doesn't actually, terminally value killing people - but he was persuaded that Jews are undermining civilization, and his brain cached the thought that Jews=Bad. But he isn't a Paperclipper - if he reexamines this cached thought in light of the truth that Jews are, generally speaking, neurotypical human beings then he will stop killing them.

I get it that you hold nothing on Earth more sacred than a hypothetical sufficiently high number of sparrows, we differ on that.

Well, sacred value is a technical term.

If you genuinely attached infinite utility to your family's lives, then we could remove the finite terms in your utility function without affecting it's output. You are not valuing their lives above all else, you are refusing to trade them to gain anything else. There is a difference. Rejecting certain deals because the cost is emotionally charged is suboptimal. Human, but stupid. I (probably) wouldn't kill to save the sparrows, or for that matter to steal money for children dying in Africa, but that's not the right choice. That's just bias/akrasia/the sort of this this site is supposed to fight. If I could press a button and turn into an FAI, then I would. Without question. The fact that I'm not perfectly Friendly is a bad thing.

</rant>

Anyway.

Considering you're not typing from a bunker, and indeed probably drive a car, I'm guessing you're willing to accept small risks to your family. So my question for you is this: how small?

Incidentally, considering the quote this particular branch of this discussion sprouted from, you do realize that killing your son might be the only way to save the rest of your family? Now, if He was claiming that you terminally value killing your son, that would be another thing ...