Poll: Morally Correct?

[XT inc]

Morally Probably not, logically totally yes. If the sole determining factor was the life of your child v the life of everyone in that room, including the child. Not some dicey they might find you if the kid stops crying anyway.

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, especially in a situation where both outcomes are the same for the unlucky few.

I.e the world will explode and everyone will die if you don't kill yourself. Either way you die so you only have one option.

It was like the end of the movie Unthinkable
They decide not to torture the terrorists children in front of him, to get information about a fourth bomb. They were morally opposed to hurting two kids in the face of becoming morally wrong thus taking a morally correct high road while the nuke went off killing thousands. Including throngs more innocent children

 

[wilsontheterrible]

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.

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.

My answer stands. The OP's scenario leaves little room for fantacising about fighting back or anything like that. I will not kill a child, ever, and I wouldn't allow one to come to harm by anothers hand either. I can't account for the survival requirements of thinking adults, they've made their decisions and I'll stand by mine. They can leave, run, fight, beg, or whatever else they deem necessary for survival but if they try to save themselves through the death of an innocent I'll kill them myself.

This scenario presents a situation in which I can only control one thing. Whether a child dies by my hand or not, it will not. It never will. Ever.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

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.

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.

My answer stands. The OP's scenario leaves little room for fantacising about fighting back or anything like that. I will not kill a child, ever, and I wouldn't allow one to come to harm by anothers hand either. I can't account for the survival requirements of thinking adults, they've made their decisions and I'll stand by mine. They can leave, run, fight, beg, or whatever else they deem necessary for survival but if they try to save themselves through the death of an innocent I'll kill them myself.

This scenario presents a situation in which I can only control one thing. Whether a child dies by my hand or not, it will not. It never will. Ever.

I guess we should just hope never to be in this situation together, then.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Getting rid of the situation to stop me from looking for other options, if my choice is between a) Not killing a baby myself, indirectly killing the baby and everyone else later or b) killing the baby myself and saving everyone, then I choose b.

 

[Mr Thin]

So you're delusional. Because that is 100% opinion. Responsibility is not a fact, it is pure opinion.

And is that a fact, or is that your opinion? Because you're stating it pretty definitively.

No duh, it's deontological ethics.

And I doubt you'd have the guts to kill a person.

First, no need to be rude. Second, I doubt I would too; I'm something of a coward. I never said I would, though, just that it was the right thing to do.

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're spewing BS. I can form an argument just like yours:

If, however, you believe that 'no innocent life is worth taking', no matter what, you most certainly do value human life in a moral sense. By killing the baby, you may do what is - to you - the morally correct thing; but nobody who would kill an innocent to save millions values human life in a moral sense.

Left that bit out, friend. Now what you say doesn't really make sense.

If you value human life - if you believe that a human life has value - logic follows that more human lives have more value; thus, multiple human lives are more valuable than one.

So if you let millions die so you could refrain from killing one, you have placed your own ethics and emotional comfort over the physical, actual well-being of every one of those people. Again, you may be doing the correct thing by what you believe in, but it simply makes no sense to argue that you value human life if you do so.

PS: I just realised I've been arguing under the mistaken assumption that if you don't suffocate the baby, it lives, but everyone else dies. I don't know why I formed this assumption. But the baby will die no matter what you do.

I believe everything I've said still applies though, as does everything you've said. I just thought I should mention that.

 

[Averant]

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.

There are different ethical systems that would say otherwise.

Ok, so the basic answer to this whole thing is probably "On your head, be it"

If you can handle the deaths of everyone in the room on your conscience, soul, whatever the hell is postmortem-ly important to you, don't kill the baby. If the baby's death doesn't bother you, kill the baby. If you can't handle the responsibility for all those deaths, go run out into the street screaming or something.

Isn't it funny I'm seeing a No Right Answer ad on the bottom of my screen...

[sub][sub]I don't know why I come onto topics like these. they just give me headaches...[/sub][/sub]

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Well first of all I'd be wondering how the hell I have a baby when I haven't even had sex yet . In all seriousness, I'm assuming, if I kill the kid, the rest of us are sure to survive? If so, I would kill the kid only after I've made sure I've tried EVERYTHING, getting suggestions from everyone there, to shut the kid up.

It reminds me of the question I heard a while back: If there is a burning building, do you save one relative or five strangers?

 

[digipinky75910]

You are asking Yes/No is this Moral.

First you must define what is moral, oh Mr Spock. Principles vary from person to person and society to society.

The great debate over Utilitarian v Kantian ethics, the needs of the many over the needs of the few. A question that often gets faced, whenever there is a new drug put out, they now there is a possibility people who take this drug will develop serious health ramifiations or die, but it is a risk they are willing to take if it will save many more lives.

Next, there is the black and white issue of your poll. Assuming you want an answer as though it were real life and not some kind of "Press x to not die" video game, yes, there are always mitigating issues, there are always other things to try, but some are more probable than others.

Do you want people to press a button or have a debate? I would like to know what prompts you to ask such a question to know what your angle is in this.

One issue is how certain are you that the invaders will find you if the baby lives. How certain are you that the invaders will definitely kill all of you upon finding you. The answers to these questions and the certainty to their knowledge plays a large role in answering your primary question. Killing the child is not enough to ensure your safety. Even if you are discovered, what are the odds you could survive an attack? Overwhelm or escape your attackers?

If you were to change the scenario a bit, to instead of a crying child it was a wounded adult, would you abandon them to certain death or 'not leave a man behind' knowing that even if injured, they may be helpful to you later, and that all life is precious.

 

[Creator002]

Not for me. No.
The baby hasn't lived as long as the others in the house (I would assume they're all at least older than 2) and it's sacrificing one life to save 5 or 6 others. The baby would just slow you down while moving too, depending on the invaders being stupid enough to forget to check the attic. It would need to be changed and fed and, when those needs aren't met, it would start crying again.
Also, if you're caught, the baby (most likely) dies anyway along with everyone else. Doesn't matter what you do, the baby dies.

 

[chaosyoshimage]

Well, I couldn't do it. I'm not even sure if I could bring myself to kill someone that was intentionally trying to kill me. I seem to be a pacifist, whether that's a good or a bad thing, I'm not sure...

 

[spartan231490]

I would just put him to sleep, or at least try(meaning the sleeper hold), but if it doesn't work, yes.

No. The concept of moral correctness is meaningless, therefore nothing can be morally correct (or incorrect). The very idea is nonsensical.

Thank you for contributing, you're such a good sport.

OT: Needs of the many > needs of the few. In a perfect world (well, excluding the whole invasion thing), you would be obligated to kill the baby.

The needs of the many don't give them the right to take what they wish. In a perfect world people wouldn't be selfish enough to kill it.

wrong. The baby dies either way, but if you kill it, then everyone else dies(damn it when listening to anime in the background makes me type what I hear, not what I mean). It's not needs of the many vs needs of the few, it's save some vs save none. there is no choice, there is only one correct path.

 

[adorabelle]

Also how can you be sure that killing the baby will actually change anything (save people)? Maybe you all will just end up dead anyway, or maybe something else will happen that will distract them and they will leave you alone. So you might end up having a killed a baby for NOTHING. This is my main problem with doing extreme things to prevent some other supposedly worse things...The means do not justify the end, seeing that YOU cannot know what the END would be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.

 

[spartan231490]

Also how can you be sure that killing the baby will actually change anything (save people)? Maybe you all will just end up dead anyway, or maybe something else will happens that will distract them and they will leave you alone. So you might end up having a killed a baby for NOTHING. This is my main problem with doing extreme things to prevent some other supposedly worse things...The means do not justify the end, seeing that YOU cannot know what the END would be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.

I would say that the road is paved with good intentions to people who wouldn't act extremely in extreme circumstances. desperate times call for desperate measures. It is extremely likely that the baby crying would bring their attention. even if something else temporarily distracts them, they will come back. Killing the baby at least gives you the chance of saving everyone else, but not doing so means that everyone, including the baby, dies.

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

i could never. i'd muffle the cries, but never kill my own baby.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

This reminds me of that part in the new War of the Worlds movie where Tom Cruise overpowers and kills a guy who is panicking and will potentially alert the aliens while he and his daughter are hiding. First thought, why didn't Tom Cruise:

-Render him unconscious
-Tie up and gag him
-Restrain and hold his mouth closed
-Put tape over his mouth
-Virtually anything other than killing him

And that's how I feel with this question. You don't have to suffocate the baby. He can breathe fine through his nose.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Knowing me, I probably wouldn't be able to suffocate my own child. I physically would not be able to.

yeah this, the very thought of having to, with my bare hands, kill my own child...

i don't know how someone could do it without a second thought.

guess i'm going soft..

(see fox news? games don't make you violent, if anything i have become an extreme pacifist because of them.)

but yeah, logically one life for many others? it makes sense, but your own damn child...harsh.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

No, to kill a baby to save yourself makes you a piece of shit and to want a parent to kill their baby to save you also makes you a piece of shit. Just because you survived doesn't mean that you've won if you've lost your humanity along the way. The answer is no, anything else is selfish and cowardly.

 

[crop52]

LOL at the hard-asses here telling themselves that they could actually kill someone, let alone a child.

Well I'm sure my ass would become a little more hard if I was in a holocaust scenario.

Also, a note to everyone in this thread: OP said the enemy has been ordered to kill anyone and everyone they find.
If you don't kill the baby, they will.

 

[Rule Britannia]

If it's my child I would probably do it but if it was somebody else's I wouldn't since it isn't mine. Yes I would do it.