Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd see this as a super grey area. I wouldn't condemn someone for having done that to save the lives of the people they were with, wouldn't condone either. Survival is the basic driving force of all living things, it predates ethics/morality by a billion+ years.
Still though, it's a fucking baby.
This topic reminded me of this scene, recommend watching if you have 5 mins to spare.
Still though, it's a fucking baby.
This topic reminded me of this scene, recommend watching if you have 5 mins to spare.
Morality, for me, is based on practicality.
Situation 1: baby cries, guards alerted, baby AND all others die, presumably painful-ish deaths.
Situation 2: baby is smothered, guards not alerted, all others survive.
The morally correct choice is #2. The baby was going to be killed either way (at least according to the OP's scenario), and at least in option #2 it's a "mercy kill," comparatively painless compared to what being shot could feel like (depending on how many bullets and where).
Alternate situation, for thought: I am faced with a decision. Either my entire group including myself is killed, or only I am killed. Obviously, here, the moral choice would be to sacrifice myself for the group. Back on topic, as the parent of this baby, I must do my duty as a parent in showing my child what the moral choice is. By murdering it.
Situation 1: baby cries, guards alerted, baby AND all others die, presumably painful-ish deaths.
Situation 2: baby is smothered, guards not alerted, all others survive.
The morally correct choice is #2. The baby was going to be killed either way (at least according to the OP's scenario), and at least in option #2 it's a "mercy kill," comparatively painless compared to what being shot could feel like (depending on how many bullets and where).
Alternate situation, for thought: I am faced with a decision. Either my entire group including myself is killed, or only I am killed. Obviously, here, the moral choice would be to sacrifice myself for the group. Back on topic, as the parent of this baby, I must do my duty as a parent in showing my child what the moral choice is. By murdering it.
Instead of putting this to a poll, where everyone answering is even-minded and thinking clearly, I think it'd be far more accurate to place them in that exact situation. Not that I don't empathize with the whole morality discussion going on, but everyone here knows that, for all their high speech on either side of the argument, throw them into that situation for real and they wouldn't be able to remember a word of it for the hundreds of sensations and clashing compulsions fighting for control over their body.
...not that I speak from experience, of course... Also, was this not a major aspect of many a video game? Let's name all the ones we remember. And yes, I am trying to divert the conversation becauseI can't stop thinking about little Timmy and the towel I still keep to this day I'm kidding, you know that.
...not that I speak from experience, of course... Also, was this not a major aspect of many a video game? Let's name all the ones we remember. And yes, I am trying to divert the conversation because
Going off of the first post only in my mind this is my decision. My baby is crying, I am in this attic, my mind would spin hard on this literally racking itself and personally I find my body winding up like I am readying myself to kick the living shit out of the intruders the minute they discover us, that, ladies and gents, is my decision.
Short version - theres no guarentee that we won't be found if the baby was silenced anyway, so if I am going to kill anything it's going to be the people who put me in this situation - the intruders.
Short version - theres no guarentee that we won't be found if the baby was silenced anyway, so if I am going to kill anything it's going to be the people who put me in this situation - the intruders.
i think this is a false diachotomy but to answer in a less irritatingly vague way, yes i would. Technically speaking you are talking about suffocating the baby by covering it mouth with a pillow, peice of cloth, etc. but you are not saying you have to kill the baby just stuff something in it's mouth that will suffocate it but is actually to nullify the noise it is making. Based on the idea that i don't have to kill the baby yes i would do it. I would take a think peice of cloth like a towel or even the sleeve of my shirt if it was thick enough and cover the babies mouth but not it's nose. This would keep the baby from making noise.
Would i kill the child? (which i think is what you're really asking) No. not intentionally.
harder question, Would sacrifice a group of adults,let say 8, ages 25-50 (including yourself), to save a child/baby/toddler?
Would i kill the child? (which i think is what you're really asking) No. not intentionally.
harder question, Would sacrifice a group of adults,let say 8, ages 25-50 (including yourself), to save a child/baby/toddler?
I vote no. The question states that if the baby continues to cry, the invaders will find you and kill you. At first I would have said yes, but I was assuming the baby would continue to cry. If I kill the baby, the baby is guaranteed to die, but if the baby lives there's a chance he/she will stop crying. I would hope that I or some one with us will know how to calm the baby down. This may go against the groups safety, but it will work towards the groups sanity. If every one survives, they will remember what they had to do to survive. They maybe able to rationalize it logically, but emotionally may be a different matter. The baby could also serve as a symbol of hope. The beauty in the heart of darkness, if you will.
Last of all, wars greatly impact the culture of a civilization for many generations. If cold-hearted logic wins out over empathy and peace of mind, that may not be a world I want to live to see.
Last of all, wars greatly impact the culture of a civilization for many generations. If cold-hearted logic wins out over empathy and peace of mind, that may not be a world I want to live to see.
I'd kill the baby and end up leading a life of alcoholism to drown out the nightmares and end up dieing at a young age of liver failure.
And for the people bitching that there are realistically other options: No shit. But this is a hypothetical philosophical question. You only get these two options. Deal with it.
And for the people bitching that there are realistically other options: No shit. But this is a hypothetical philosophical question. You only get these two options. Deal with it.
I'll be honest, and i'm not saying this to sound like a "hard man" but I wouldn't be hiding.
I'd have found a way to get my wife and kids somewhere safe and then took to fighting.
I'll be fucked if anyone is going to threaten my family while I cower in a bloody attic, thats just not me.
If the choices were die cowering in an attic while my family were killed (you're in an attic, they will find you) or make sure my family get somewhere to at least have a chance then i'd go for that.
Be like being back in the Army ..... except without decent equipment, or tank support, or any support of any kind ..... actually, it wouldn't be anything like being back in the Army but you get the general idea.
I'd have found a way to get my wife and kids somewhere safe and then took to fighting.
I'll be fucked if anyone is going to threaten my family while I cower in a bloody attic, thats just not me.
If the choices were die cowering in an attic while my family were killed (you're in an attic, they will find you) or make sure my family get somewhere to at least have a chance then i'd go for that.
Be like being back in the Army ..... except without decent equipment, or tank support, or any support of any kind ..... actually, it wouldn't be anything like being back in the Army but you get the general idea.
Morality has nothing to do with this situation.
Once someone brings force into the equation all morality goes out the window. The person who initiated the force is immoral but you cannot hold the people who force is being used against up to moral scrutiny.
E.g.:
Lying is immoral. A guy comes to your house and asks where your wife is so that he can find her and kill her. Is it immoral to not tell him the truth?
Same situation but with less stigma of killing babies. Once someone does something immoral to another person you can no longer hold that person to moral standards which the first person has already broken.
Once someone brings force into the equation all morality goes out the window. The person who initiated the force is immoral but you cannot hold the people who force is being used against up to moral scrutiny.
E.g.:
Lying is immoral. A guy comes to your house and asks where your wife is so that he can find her and kill her. Is it immoral to not tell him the truth?
Same situation but with less stigma of killing babies. Once someone does something immoral to another person you can no longer hold that person to moral standards which the first person has already broken.
This question has already popped up multiple times in different and the same formats but I'll answer the same as I did before.
OT: Well there is no real right or wrong answer since both options are wrong. I suppose the major difference is that in one case you are causing the deaths of quite a lot of people whereas in the other case you are actually the one killing someone. Basically if it was someone else in the situation I would probably be all for killing the baby but not matter what, if it was my child I would never. I don't care how selfish it is, I would do one of two things, I'd either leave with my baby and try to hide somewhere else in the hopes to not attract attention to the others, and if that wasn't an option I would stay and fight for my baby until we and everywhere else in there died. Sorry guys but you wouldn't want to be stuck with me
OT: Well there is no real right or wrong answer since both options are wrong. I suppose the major difference is that in one case you are causing the deaths of quite a lot of people whereas in the other case you are actually the one killing someone. Basically if it was someone else in the situation I would probably be all for killing the baby but not matter what, if it was my child I would never. I don't care how selfish it is, I would do one of two things, I'd either leave with my baby and try to hide somewhere else in the hopes to not attract attention to the others, and if that wasn't an option I would stay and fight for my baby until we and everywhere else in there died. Sorry guys but you wouldn't want to be stuck with me
If I may quote everyone's favorite Vulcan, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."
thats not your only option. Medically if you suffocate the child they'll pass out before tehy die.
So it doesnt matter, cause you're not killing the child. its just like gagging one. If it keeps them quiet so you can watch House in peace, and no one is hurt in the end, then theres no moral question.
So it doesnt matter, cause you're not killing the child. its just like gagging one. If it keeps them quiet so you can watch House in peace, and no one is hurt in the end, then theres no moral question.
I would suffocate the baby. That's just what I would do, because I see it as the more logical choice to ensure the well-being of me and others. The baby would've died either way, speaking in terms of end result it doesn't matter whether it's by my hand or by the hand of the soldiers.
Now, here's the thing, I'm not sure this is the "morally correct" thing to do. If I wouldn't suffocate the baby, everyone would die but I woulnd't have done anything wrong: I am not directly responsible of the deaths, even if I had an opportunity to stop them. If however I do suffocate the baby, I would be directly responsible of a death of a completely innocent being: by no stretch of the imagination is that a "morally right" thing to do on any situation, but it may be necessary evil to ensure the best end result.
Also: People who try to think third options or nitpick the scenario: You obviously are not familiar with philosophical hypotheticals. The point is not whether the scenario is beliavable.
Now, here's the thing, I'm not sure this is the "morally correct" thing to do. If I wouldn't suffocate the baby, everyone would die but I woulnd't have done anything wrong: I am not directly responsible of the deaths, even if I had an opportunity to stop them. If however I do suffocate the baby, I would be directly responsible of a death of a completely innocent being: by no stretch of the imagination is that a "morally right" thing to do on any situation, but it may be necessary evil to ensure the best end result.
Also: People who try to think third options or nitpick the scenario: You obviously are not familiar with philosophical hypotheticals. The point is not whether the scenario is beliavable.