Morally it is wrong to kill anyone who is innocent. If we are following a more logical approach, the child would die anyway, so the death would save the rest of the group. I would not be able to do it.
Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
No. I read the context as an afterthought and the answer remains no. Any grown man that would sacrifice another for himself is worth less than shit. If I need to be killed, so be it, but I'll drown in my own blood before letting anybody so much as touch a child, especially my own.
Some may feel morality is a subjective construct, maybe they are, but mine are inflexible and not subject to compromise. I've been beaten for morals, I've been fired for them, and I've lost friends for them but I live without regret and without shame. I'll not see women or children harmed in my presence, ever.
I can respect people who violate my moral standards, they aren't me and I don't hold other people up to my standards. But if you're willing to set aside that which makes you human for something as fleeting as life you're worth less than trash.
Some may feel morality is a subjective construct, maybe they are, but mine are inflexible and not subject to compromise. I've been beaten for morals, I've been fired for them, and I've lost friends for them but I live without regret and without shame. I'll not see women or children harmed in my presence, ever.
I can respect people who violate my moral standards, they aren't me and I don't hold other people up to my standards. But if you're willing to set aside that which makes you human for something as fleeting as life you're worth less than trash.
They don't speak your language. They are given almost a "would you kindly" order to kill anyone they find. I don't see why you have to make it trivial and attack every little bit of it, and I do take offence that you take your time to write that and not answer the damn question. Vote. Answer. Then tell me your cool story, bro.SidingWithTheEnemy said:
If you let the child live, it dies along with everyone else. If the real only option is to kill it or let them kill it, you may as well save everyone else's life.
By suffocating the baby, you are responsible for one death.Fagotto said:
By not suffocating the baby, you are responsible for several.
If you value human life in a moral sense, being responsible for the death of several is morally worse than being responsible for the death of one. Therefore killing the baby is the morally correct thing to do.
If you don't value life in a moral sense, then killing a baby is not, to you, a morally incorrect thing to do, nor is it correct. Morality doesn't even come into it.
So the answer to the question is either "yes" or "it makes no difference either way".
I voted no, though in that situation that child would likely be killed anyway. The scenario you are describing is such that morality has already been thrown out of the window. It would not be morally right to suffocate the child, but it would likely be done nonetheless.
However, I disagree with your scenario in that killing the child is the only choice (I understand your intent, though). There are always choices, but that's getting into a different topic altogether.
However, I disagree with your scenario in that killing the child is the only choice (I understand your intent, though). There are always choices, but that's getting into a different topic altogether.
Versuvius said:
Where does it end? I'd rather die knowing I did right then live wondering when it will be my turn to die for the many.Phlakes said:
What kind of question is that?
What's "morally" correct to do depends entirely of what set of subjective morals that the person in question abides by.
There are no objective set of morals that everyone abides by, thus it's pretty strange to ask what the "morally" correct thing to do would be when we aren't even presented with any kind of moral context to the situation.
What's "morally" correct to do depends entirely of what set of subjective morals that the person in question abides by.
There are no objective set of morals that everyone abides by, thus it's pretty strange to ask what the "morally" correct thing to do would be when we aren't even presented with any kind of moral context to the situation.
I'm very sorry.RedxDecember said:
I'm not trying make this trivial, I think.
But I'm not going to vote, as the problem is this:
And that's wrong. It is NOT the only option. Once you accept there is no alternative or no other way round you give up your humanity, you lose. You turn into a machine and all that moral system becomes irrelevant. I learned that along the way. In our country a couple of months ago we still had conscription and that kind of questions was asked by the military to draft you in. Well unless you didn't answer the only appropriate way in saying: There are other options.RedxDecember said:
So fight for another option or just chose the unethical path of highly immoral yes/no black/white thing if you really want to be immoral and unethical about it.
Of course it's not morally correct to suffocate a conscious baby, the most humane way would be to snap it's neck and give it a instant death.
Besides, even if killing the baby ultimately saves more lives, it doesn't alter the fact that killing a baby is wrong.
Arguably, dropping the 2 nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than an invasion of Japan, but that doesn't mean that nuking two cities and annihilating thousands of civilians was morally correct.
Bad actions can have good consequences just as good actions can have bad consequences, but no matter the outcome, it doesn't change the morality of the initial action.
Also, in this specific hypothetical situation, if you are going to suffocate a baby in order to stop it crying, you could also either only choke (or concuss) it into unconsciousness, or clamp your hand over it's mouth enough to stop it making a sound, but leave it's nose and airways unrestricted enough so as not to kill it.
Finally, if you're in a situation where even a barely conscious and subdued baby is loud enough to give away your hiding place, then you'd have to kill everyone else too in case one of them moved, breathed or farted... you'd certainly have to kill anyone who may react to your baby murdering first, as apparently even a gasp of shock or a barely contained whimper will give away your position.
Besides, even if killing the baby ultimately saves more lives, it doesn't alter the fact that killing a baby is wrong.
Arguably, dropping the 2 nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than an invasion of Japan, but that doesn't mean that nuking two cities and annihilating thousands of civilians was morally correct.
Bad actions can have good consequences just as good actions can have bad consequences, but no matter the outcome, it doesn't change the morality of the initial action.
Also, in this specific hypothetical situation, if you are going to suffocate a baby in order to stop it crying, you could also either only choke (or concuss) it into unconsciousness, or clamp your hand over it's mouth enough to stop it making a sound, but leave it's nose and airways unrestricted enough so as not to kill it.
Finally, if you're in a situation where even a barely conscious and subdued baby is loud enough to give away your hiding place, then you'd have to kill everyone else too in case one of them moved, breathed or farted... you'd certainly have to kill anyone who may react to your baby murdering first, as apparently even a gasp of shock or a barely contained whimper will give away your position.
What about something as fleeting as several lives? It's not you or the baby, it's the baby or a whole group of people. You and the baby could die together and you'd still be saving lives. A number of other innocent, defenseless people die if the baby lives, not just you.wilsontheterrible said:
To the OP, I voted yes. Sacrificing one for the good of many is disturbing (simply because you could always be the one), but you've made this situation pretty clear cut and actually avoided one vs. many, since the baby dies either way. There's only one real choice. Sorry, kid.
Ethically Correct, Morally incorrect.
Edit: Wait or maybe the other way around.
It is unethical to kill a child, is this circumstance however it would not be immoral to kilm the child.
Hmm not sure.
Edit: Wait or maybe the other way around.
It is unethical to kill a child, is this circumstance however it would not be immoral to kilm the child.
Hmm not sure.
It's not morally or ethically correct, but it is the right thing to do in that situation. Actually doing it, on the other hand is very difficult, probably next to impossible if it's your child.
But if you don't, the baby dies regardless, along with everyone else.
But if you don't, the baby dies regardless, along with everyone else.