Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
Im going with spock and saying the baby has to die for the greater good
Although actually killing the baby would obviously be difficult, its better than what happens if you dont
Although actually killing the baby would obviously be difficult, its better than what happens if you dont
I'll just throw this out there, because most of the important points have been raised already (and, though I don't belive it as such, it seems at least somewhat defensible as a viewppint): Depends on the culture.
If, say, this was 2 thousand years ago, when unwanted babies were simply thrown aside, and infanticide was a common practice of "birth control", there's no issue. Much of our philosophy and what we think of as our morals are based on people from those times who would have thought that.
If, say, this was 2 thousand years ago, when unwanted babies were simply thrown aside, and infanticide was a common practice of "birth control", there's no issue. Much of our philosophy and what we think of as our morals are based on people from those times who would have thought that.
Deliberate inaction is just another form of action. To take your finger off a trigger is just as much of a choice, and carries just as much consequence and responsibility, as does pulling it. So yes, you are responsible in the same manner, and to the same degree. I do not view this as opinion. I view it as fact.Fagotto said:
You are speaking of deontological ethics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics], where morality is based on adherence to a set of rules, rather than the consequence of your actions. In your example, rules being that "no life is worth taking".
In such a system, the morally correct thing to do is follow your rules, no matter the cost, no matter the consequence. You would not kill a newborn to save a dozen people; you would not kill it to save a million people. I doubt this is what you truly adhere to.
I'm only 19, and I don't know everything, so I'm not going to try and definitively state whether deontological ethics is right or wrong, or better or worse than consequentialism; like I said, I'm going by the modern understanding of what makes a decent human being. That isn't necessarily the right, or the only answer.
If, however, you believe that 'no innocent life is worth taking', no matter what, you most certainly do not value human life in a moral sense. By refraining from killing the baby, you may do what is - to you - the morally correct thing; but nobody who would let millions die to avoid killing one values human life in a moral sense.
You've been watching M*A*S*H haven't you?
It took me so long to get over the finale!
WHY DID YOU MAKE ME REMEMBER?!
It took me so long to get over the finale!
WHY DID YOU MAKE ME REMEMBER?!
I wouldn't kill the baby. I won't get blood on my hands just so I can survive (and the other people). That is stooping to the same level as the guys who are trying to kill us and I cannot really see the point of going on under those circumstances and carry that guilt/traumatic experience with me the rest of my life. No thanks.
If the situation was really so drastic that I didn't have any other options, I think we would all be better off dead anyway. But still, I don't have any right/will to kill a baby, let the chips fall were they may.
If the situation was really so drastic that I didn't have any other options, I think we would all be better off dead anyway. But still, I don't have any right/will to kill a baby, let the chips fall were they may.
A doctor is treating a man. There is nothing wrong with the man chronically, he has a cold or something. While treating the man, he realizes that the man has a rare blood type. The doctor decides to kill the man so that many can live. This is basically the same thing.
You couldn't say, just cover it's mouth letting it breath through it's nose but stifling the cry? And if they bombed the village and are intending to kill every one in it, they're probably just going to burn down all the houses anyway.
Also I've always found these types of questions fairly stupid:
"OMGS guys! You have to make this totally hard and irrelevant decision with no right answer! What do you do? Also, taking a third option is cheating!"
The question provides a simplified and unlikely scenario, one that does not apply to my life, and in the long run you really don't learn anything about me or my sense of right and wrong. When you get down to it none of us really knows what we'd do in that situation until it happens to us, no one can say for sure what they'd do in the heat of the moment. A person can't reason their way through infanticide. Nothing useful will come from a pointless question like that, binary "morality" questions like it came up a lot when I was in elementary school and they are just as annoying as they ever were.
Also I've always found these types of questions fairly stupid:
"OMGS guys! You have to make this totally hard and irrelevant decision with no right answer! What do you do? Also, taking a third option is cheating!"
The question provides a simplified and unlikely scenario, one that does not apply to my life, and in the long run you really don't learn anything about me or my sense of right and wrong. When you get down to it none of us really knows what we'd do in that situation until it happens to us, no one can say for sure what they'd do in the heat of the moment. A person can't reason their way through infanticide. Nothing useful will come from a pointless question like that, binary "morality" questions like it came up a lot when I was in elementary school and they are just as annoying as they ever were.
In a perfect world, people probably wouldn't be getting their village burnt down.Fagotto said:
That's... not really the same thing at all. No one is in any immediate danger, the man has no life threatening conditions, any number of less drastic actions may be taken. The doctor in your hypothetical scenario just committed murder for no apparent reason.dfphetteplace said:
Done this one before. Its either baby dies and mum may go crazy, OR baby keeps crying and everybody dies by way of bullets. Ethically and logically, the best choice is that the baby passes on.
Morals are personal beliefs and ethics are societal values. Most societies would view killing a baby as unquestionably unethical, and quite probably immoral, despite the positive outcomes of the action. How about having the balls to fight and die for your country in some sort of rebellion? I'd rather die with dignity, gun in hand, fighting for my place in the world, then hidden in an attic while the house burns down around me. Children are the only exception.
