Poll: Morally Correct?

[Asuka Soryu]

No, I just can't do it. I couldn't live with myself if I chooked someone to death, I know there's other people who are in danger, but I can't live with myself if I have to know I killed someone because they couldn't help but cry. I don't have the right to sacrafice the other lives, but no, I won't bear such a burden or do something so vile. They will have to take the child from me and kill it while holding me back. I can't just take a life, I have no right to do so.

 

[Filiecs]

No because it is not the only option. There is ALWAYS another option and ALWAYS a chance for both parties to survive. As long as that chance exists it is still morally wrong for you to kill the baby.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

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.

This is always the kind of response i think of for this situation.
Why does killing the baby have to be the only option when all you need is make it quite?

 

[Sam Cohen]

It happened during the Holocaust. When Nazis began raiding villages and cities in search for Jewish people, there were many cases of people having to suffocate their children so they wouldn't be discovered.

 

[Diplodocus462]

No matter how much your intuitions scream in protest, the right thing to do is to suffocate the baby. The baby has seconds to live no matter which option you choose, and if you suffocate it quickly, you could save the lives of other people who do not have to die.

In my view what this thought experiment actually shows is how our intuitions are not a reliable guide to morality. I feel the same intuition as everyone does telling me how deeply immoral it is to kill the baby. But this intuition *must* be incorrect: the baby has seconds to live *no matter what you do*. Keeping the baby's blood off of your hands is not a luxury you can afford when there are others' lives at stake.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

No because it is not the only option. There is ALWAYS another option and ALWAYS a chance for both parties to survive. As long as that chance exists it is still morally wrong for you to kill the baby.

There's always the option that the world returns to peace and everyone lives, but seriously, can you count on that? In an emergency, keep it simple, quick, logical. If you don't, you won't live to regret your decisions. That is unless you're one of those that don't value the well being of the people around you. You'd be "dead right".

 

[bennyboy05]

Or I could simply cover the baby's mouth to stop the noise but allow the baby to breath through his/her nose. Alternatively, restrict the baby's air flow long enough for him/her to pass out but not long enough to kill.

 

[bakan]

It is ok to save all others with the death of one baby, though you will have to cope with the loss and that you are responsible for its death.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

The problem with the situation is the baby will die either way, to many that makes the baby a necessary sacrifice. While I can understand that train of reasoning, I could never bring myself to physically kill a baby, nor would I sit by when someone else attempted to.

The situation is dire, and while I have no wish to die, my morals simply wouldn't allow me to take the route that leads to the groups' survival and the baby's' demise..

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.

You have my utmost respect.

Edit: Which specific episode of M*A*S*H is everyone referring to? Or is it a general topic of 'kill the few to save the many' that's covered?

 

[duck-man]

Or I could simply cover the baby's mouth to stop the noise but allow the baby to breath through his/her nose. Alternatively, restrict the baby's air flow long enough for him/her to pass out but not long enough to kill.

That's a copout answer! They were unfairly limiting the situaton, sure, but the moral dilemma was 'kill baby;,correctpunctuation;.;'.;'.; or don't kill baby and then Everyone is killed by soldiers' (you can take it as being baby for the sake of the situation being believeable, or does that affect the moral choice too?)
It's meant to be a question of responsibility... do you say 'It's the soldier's fault that the baby died, my hands were tied and I take no responsibility' or do you say 'It's the soldiers choice that everyone died, it was my choice that no one died, it was misfortune that the soldiers had the means and I did not'..... or something to that effect!

(I tend to prefer less outcome-based arguments and more Who Did What arguments)... so I voted no, given that I say it's Wrong, however I can vaguely imagine doing it anyway Provided that I consider myself to have done the wrong thing (Because I'm not necesarily ideal).

 

[Sewer Rat]

Thinking now, clearly, yes it is LOGICAL to suffocate the baby. But last I checked logic =/= moral. I would like to say I would put the needs of the group at large above the needs of myself or my young child... but until I am put in such a situation, and I sincerely hope I never am, I have no idea what the hell I would do.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Eh. If we're going down the "moral" road here even if this situation is in the middle of a war, then I voted "no". In my view it's not morally correct, however it probably is still the best solution to the problem, and I wouldn't let my morals get in the way, nor would I condemn someone for making the choice to do so.

Even if it's not morally correct, if you want to save as many people as possible then the objective "best" line of action to take is to try and make the child quiet, by any means necessary...

EDIT: Though I was also thinking about this, too:

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.

People only die from suffocation (generally, at least), if you keep suffocating them after they pass out.
It's one of the reasons I get annoyed at most action movies - there's usually someone who chokes someone else, then the person being choked passes out and dies. But in real life, if the culprit is choking someone, but stops only a few seconds after the victim passes out, then the victim will (again, in general) wake up later. Probably dazed and hurt, but not dead.

 

[Aerius]

Yes, it's absolutely the morally correct decision. The child would die anyway, plus the other people are going to survive instead.

 

[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.

Just imagine me sarcastically moving my arms in a scaling motion, kay?

Cowardly... Dead... Cowardly... Dead....

Hmmm.

You're focusing on the negative consequence of the action. To me, I'm not killing a baby, I'm saving a group of adults. The fact that you're putting blame on the person put in the situation rather than those who put him there, that's a shitty thing to do. You're also assuming those who do it won't feel bad, you're assuming that if we choose that option we've got no humanity, no remorse, I doubt anybody who said they would kill the baby, myself included, could do so so apathetically.

Frankly you're a POS for suggesting anybody who would rather live is a POS.

Awaiting the insults to come.

Edit: You're also forgetting that it may be out of mercy. Considering how much they are hated, I doubt the child would be murdered mercifully if given the option, I would much rather be murdered by a remorseful friend than a disrespectful foe. Then again, babies are sacks of potential, I'd have far more trouble killing a toddler.

Okay, lets do this Imagine me sarcastically moving my arms in a scaling motion. On one hand we have death; an inevitability, whether or not you die here fighting or choose to end the life of a BABY and live a few more years your going to die, and no amount of infanticide is going to save your POS life indefinitely. Because of the inevitability of death it stands to reason that how ones life ends is inconsequential, instead the importance lies in the way one lives and the chooses ones makes while living. On the other hand you have cowardice; if you participate in the monstrous act of killing an infant to save yourself or the other cowardly selfish adults and you DO happen to have a conscience what well your quality of life be like afterwords anyways? Will you still respect yourself, will you question whether or not your worthy of the life you've stolen, if your honest to people about what you did will anyone ever really be able to love you? You would never be able to undo what you had done, and if you have any decency that single act would always be in the back of your mind sullying any happiness that came your way until the day death finally relieved you of your burden. Isn't an honorable death preferable to that kind of life? Death isn't to be feared when a life without self-respect or peace of mind is already forfeit. Personally I would rather my story end with me fighting tooth and nail rather than I turning into a character I would hate half way through the book.

 

[Panzer_God]

I am a massively overprotective bastard. If it involves protecting people close to me, I will break any laws of man or God. My personal motto is a bastardized quote from the (epic!) Harrison Ford movie Air Force One.

The original quote was "I would turn my back on God Himself...for Mother Russia. My doubts, my fears, my own private morality...it dissolves in this moment...for this love."

Mine is "If I'm put in a situation where my family's lives depend on me, I will turn my back on my own safety, my own morals. I would turn my back on God himself to keep them safe."

So really, it depends. If I care about the other people, I would kill the baby to save them. If I don't, I'll let them die to save my baby.

 

[AndyRock]

it isn't moally correct... but it's necessary, therefore i said no, but probably would do it anyway

 

[Biosophilogical]

One life to save many. Sounds good to me. God forbid i end up in a similar situation lest i bottle it and fuck everybody over.

Incidentally this really should be "Ethically". Im under the impression Moral is opinion and ethics are something greater. Could be wrong.

As far as I understand it, ethics are a socially imposed code of conduct deriving from some institutionalised moral basis. I mean, it isn't necessary part of work ethics to always smile at a customer (it may be considered ethical to work your hardest, and to be the best employee you can, which may in turn, mean you should smile), but things like washing your hands, or being polite (morally sourced actions) are considered work ethics.

On the other hand, morality is a personal view of right and wrong.

So while both are 'subjective' to an extent, ethics are socially bound, while morals are a matter of personal opinion/perspective.

OT: I don't know if I could, but I know I should.

EDIT:

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.

Just imagine me sarcastically moving my arms in a scaling motion, kay?

Cowardly... Dead... Cowardly... Dead....

Hmmm.

You're focusing on the negative consequence of the action. To me, I'm not killing a baby, I'm saving a group of adults. The fact that you're putting blame on the person put in the situation rather than those who put him there, that's a shitty thing to do. You're also assuming those who do it won't feel bad, you're assuming that if we choose that option we've got no humanity, no remorse, I doubt anybody who said they would kill the baby, myself included, could do so so apathetically.

Frankly you're a POS for suggesting anybody who would rather live is a POS.

Awaiting the insults to come.

Edit: You're also forgetting that it may be out of mercy. Considering how much they are hated, I doubt the child would be murdered mercifully if given the option, I would much rather be murdered by a remorseful friend than a disrespectful foe. Then again, babies are sacks of potential, I'd have far more trouble killing a toddler.

Okay, lets do this Imagine me sarcastically moving my arms in a scaling motion. On one hand we have death; an inevitability, whether or not you die here fighting or choose to end the life of a BABY and live a few more years your going to die, and no amount of infanticide is going to save your POS life indefinitely. Because of the inevitability of death it stands to reason that how ones life ends is inconsequential, instead the importance lies in the way one lives and the chooses ones makes while living. On the other hand you have cowardice; if you participate in the monstrous act of killing an infant to save yourself or the other cowardly selfish adults and you DO happen to have a conscience what well your quality of life be like afterwords anyways? Will you still respect yourself, will you question whether or not your worthy of the life you've stolen, if your honest to people about what you did will anyone ever really be able to love you? You would never be able to undo what you had done, and if you have any decency that single act would always be in the back of your mind sullying any happiness that came your way until the day death finally relieved you of your burden. Isn't an honorable death preferable to that kind of life? Death isn't to be feared when a life without self-respect or peace of mind is already forfeit. Personally I would rather my story end with me fighting tooth and nail rather than I turning into a character I would hate half way through the book.

If you really want to follow the OP's scenario, it would stand to reason that if the baby crying causes the enemy troops to find (and subsequently kill) you, without any chance for an alternative, than the baby will either die to keep it quiet, or its noise will bring the enemy down upon their heads, resulting in it being killed then instead. The baby is dead either way, the real question becomes what is more important, deferring the responsibility of an inevitable death, or saving the lives of many?

 

[Pinkamena]

Well of course it is. The baby dies anyways if they find you hiding. Why not kill it to save the rest of the group?

 

[rohansoldier]

I had to say no. I could not kill any child, especially not my own. I would rather tell the others to run with my child and I would sacrifice myself to help them escape, if it came to that.

 

[crazyfoxdemon]

One life to save many. You may damn your soul in the process but it can be worth it.