Poll: Morally Correct?

[sinterklaas]

Option 1: Everyone dies.
Option 2: Only the baby dies.

You want to have not only the death of the baby on your head but also the deaths of the others because you're to stubborn to change your view?

If it was just me with the baby in there I would not kill the baby to save myself but I also have to think about the others. Do you really want to let them die because your morals prevent you from killing the baby, who would die in both scenarios anyway?

You have to remember you hold the power to save the others. You do not hold the power to save the baby. Are you not going to save the others? That really is morally reprehensive.

Their deaths wouldn't be on my head. I wouldn't feel responcible in the least because I can't control the men with guns. Go ahead and eliminate option 2 because you can stop at 1, everyone dies. A time comes when every person must face their fate, and in this invasion scenario its apparent that it will come soon enough.

Today it might be the child, tomorrow the old woman you had to leave behind, the next day the sick man howling with fever and even if you live you'll go to your grave remembering every second you spent with your hands wrapped around their throats, every scream they uttered while you sacrificed them for the many, and every pleading beg as you leave the sick and weak behind. No, I'll die now with a clean conscience. Any person worth saving would never allow the child to die and any person willing to kill the child isn't worth saving.

Let's agree to disagree then because I believe the exact opposite. Any person who wouldn't sacrifice one (one who dies either way) to save the others isn't worth saving. I for one would be willing to live with the burden you mentioned, an unclean conscience, for the simple reason of having saved many others.

But I respect your view on it even though I find it absurd. Morality is a very touchy subject.

Suffocating the baby would be more of a knee-jerk reaction then a logical one. If you were going to be hiding out for your very life in a place where a crying baby would get you killed, you would hopefully bring something that could be used to force the child to be quiet, such as a bit of alcohol in it's milk, or heck, a small amount of chloroform. I agree that a chemical solution is hardly ideal in the growth of a child, but it's better for it then, say, bullets. Or ray guns, if said invaders happen to be aliens. Or heck, even Zombie bites, since those are popular. By the way: I am now picturing this scenario during a Zombie Apocalypse.

Yes of course, but the OP specifically postulated a scenario with only two options. In reality there probably would be more choices but that's not the scenario the OP set for us.

 

[Mafoobula]

I reject the conclusion of the scenario that suffocation is the only way to silence the child. Sleeper hold, nap time, the child isn't damaged in the process, problem solved.
And I know, I've been (almost) choked out before as part of a demonstration. Some few minutes later I was back on my feet, no worse for wear.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Let's agree to disagree then because I believe the exact opposite. Any person who wouldn't sacrifice one (one who dies either way) to save the others isn't worth saving. I for one would be willing to live with the burden you mentioned, an unclean conscience, for the simple reason of having saved many others.

Where is your limit? Kill one to save 100, kill one to save 10, kill one to save 2? I am not capable of judging the value of others lives in comparison to one child so I state simply that I will not kill the child regardless of the number saved.

I feel the need to reitterate the fact that it is your child. If you've ever provided care for one you'd realize that there really is no alternative.

 

[sinterklaas]

Let's agree to disagree then because I believe the exact opposite. Any person who wouldn't sacrifice one (one who dies either way) to save the others isn't worth saving. I for one would be willing to live with the burden you mentioned, an unclean conscience, for the simple reason of having saved many others.

Where is your limit? Kill one to save 100, kill one to save 10, kill one to save 2? I am not capable of judging the value of others lives in comparison to one child so I state simply that I will not kill the child regardless of the number saved.

I feel the need to reitterate the fact that it is your child. If you've ever provided care for one you'd realize that there really is no alternative.

If I were to be in a situation the OP described, where killing one person will save everyone else (if that person is not killed to save the others, everyone dies), saving even one other person than myself would be worth it. If it were just me and the child, I would not do it. I value every life and therefore saving one life (excluding my own as I would not be able to live with that) would be worth more than saving no life (the child would die either way).

 

[Jimbo1212]

No need to think hard.
Dead kid = people live.
Living kid = everyone dies.

So the kid is fucked either way sadly, but you and the other people do not have to be.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

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.

all's fair in love and war.
the soldiers will kill ALL of them, including the baby. baby will die.
it makes more sense to kill the baby (who is essentially dead already) and save them all.
so yes it is.

 

[Princess Rose]

Is it morally correct to suffocate the baby?
Thank you for reading.

No, it is neither morally nor ethically correct to suffocate the baby.

However, in that situation, you should do it anyway.

It doesn't make it right - it makes it necessary. The action is no less wrong for the fact that it is required.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That's bullshit! There's ALWAYS another option.
"As soon as men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

 

[Shoqiyqa]

The kid's dead by tomorrow either way. *scrunch*

If we are being hypothetical though why have I not yet gone down fighting in fashion whilst using a device equal to this...

Kills Commies dead

The invaders are fascists, not commies, and that is therefore useful only to them, not to you.

 

[Ampersand]

The baby's not doing anything wrong so, I think I'd slaughter the invaders instead.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

If I were to be in a situation the OP described, where killing one person will save everyone else (if that person is not killed to save the others, everyone dies), saving even one other person than myself would be worth it. If it were just me and the child, I would not do it. I value every life and therefore saving one life (excluding my own as I would not be able to live with that) would be worth more than saving no life (the child would die either way).

So you'd sacrifice your own child for one stranger? (That was the question afterall) At least you're consistent. Self-sacrifice is acceptable, even noble in a number of circumstances, sacrificing another never is. The lives of strangers mean relatively little, they will fight and beg and die, they can take care of themselves, I cannot control them. A child has no voice, it can't stand for itself, so I must.

Even if the child will die in any case I will die knowing I was not the creature that did it. Your perspective only works by assuming all life is equal, it is not, I'd gladly kill all the death row inmates to spare one child. I'd kill dozens to save my brother. We apply value subjectively based on experience and personal bias.

I never said I valued all life equally but you did. You would sacrifice one human for another, you will comprimise your own belief that all life has value through murder, and you would justify it saying that the ends justify the means. The ends never justify the means.

 

[sinterklaas]

If I were to be in a situation the OP described, where killing one person will save everyone else (if that person is not killed to save the others, everyone dies), saving even one other person than myself would be worth it. If it were just me and the child, I would not do it. I value every life and therefore saving one life (excluding my own as I would not be able to live with that) would be worth more than saving no life (the child would die either way).

So you'd sacrifice your own child for one stranger? (That was the question afterall) At least you're consistent. Self-sacrifice is acceptable, even noble in a number of circumstances, sacrificing another never is. The lives of strangers mean relatively little, they will fight and beg and die, they can take care of themselves, I cannot control them. A child has no voice, it can't stand for itself, so I must.

Even if the child will die in any case I will die knowing I was not the creature that did it. Your perspective only works by assuming all life is equal, it is not, I'd gladly kill all the death row inmates to spare one child. I'd kill dozens to save my brother. We apply value subjectively based on experience and personal bias.

I never said I valued all life equally but you did. You would sacrifice one human for another, you will comprimise your own belief that all life has value through murder, and you would justify it saying that the ends justify the means. The ends never justify the means.

Life is equal, it's just that we humans value life close to us more than life we don't know. Sacrificing the child in order to save others is the right thing to do. But as I've said before, whether I'd actually be able to do it is another question, for the exact reasons you stated in your post. I hope I would have the strength to make the better choice but I cannot guarantee I would kill my own child (who is dead either way) to save strangers.

If I would do it, I'd live the rest of my life miserably, but at least with the knowledge I did everything I could to save as many lives as possible.

But to be honest, I don't think I'd have the strength to do it.

You would sacrifice one human for another

No, I'd sacrifice one human who is going to die anyway for another. That's a very big difference.

The ends never justify the means.

It's never black and white.

But it's a very interesting topic and your posts certainly make me think.

 

[Henkie36]

The ''kill one save a lot''-problem. If you don't have to, you wouldn't do it. But since you don't have a choice, it's kill or be killed. And the baby dies anyway.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Typical Heart vs Head dilemma.

But it's not much of a moral dilemma since there is no such thing as morality in war (no matter how we try to dress it up; the goal of warfare is to eliminate the enemy so you can thrive/survive; it's a simple mathematical application of violence when you get right down to it).
In either scenario: The soldiers are going to be directly responsible for the death of that baby; either by forcing you to kill it, or by killing it (and you) themselves.

What pain they bring upon the mother/father is of no consequence beyond that.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Life is equal

Strip away everything else and that?s the core of the matter. I've always been of the opinion that all people begin life as equals and that through our choices and life decisions separate ourselves. For me that child represents infinite potential, I could never bring myself to extinguish that even if it ment sparing others. Maybe I'm wrong by the standards of society but its the only thing that feels right, so that's what I'll stand by.

 

[Kurokami]

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.

Person could go on to have a baby.

Bam.

Not really much more to say, especially since you didn't answer half of my scenarios or consider that morality doesn't depend on an action, it depends on one's consideration. We may as well be debating religion, neither of us would budge. For the record, I have little problem with you saying you wouldn't kill the baby, it's admirable, or that killing the baby is wrong, I just think you're a moron and less than a decent human being for thinking you can judge people forced into that decision as pieces of shit for making the choice that, in the end, yields the most benefit and can easily be morally justified. (If you can actually try to see it)

 

[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.

Person could go on to have a baby.

Bam.

Not really much more to say, especially since you didn't answer half of my scenarios or consider that morality doesn't depend on an action, it depends on one's consideration. We may as well be debating religion, neither of us would budge. For the record, I have little problem with you saying you wouldn't kill the baby, it's admirable, or that killing the baby is wrong, I just think you're a moron and less than a decent human being for thinking you can judge people forced into that decision as pieces of shit for making the choice that, in the end, yields the most benefit and can easily be morally justified. (If you can actually try to see it)

What fucking scenarios? Besides the name calling, informing me that other humans have consciences(which I know by the way captain), and hyper-rationalizing killing a baby down to a fucking math problem (baby < adults); you have said absolutely nothing! and in regards to your "morality doesn't depend on an action." statement (which made me want to cut a switch by the way) I have to ask, seriously? Morality, which is by definition a code of conduct by which virtuous ACTION is taken isn't dependent on ACTION!? Do you really believe this shit or are you just conforming to what the majority in this thread has said? Whatever your intentions may be; you have made me reconsider my opinion on this issue. If your ever actually put in this situation, and the baby happens to be YOURS I think you should kill it (moral or not) It's probably better for the rest of us. Bam!

 

[MrHero17]

Just because finding loopholes is fun, if I put something over the babys mouth wouldn't it just pass out and stop crying.

 

[Majorlagger]

I edited this question from a documentary.

Your country is attacked and bombed. The invaders enter your town and are ordered to kill anyone and everyone they find. You are couped up in the attic of a abadoned home with a group of refugees when your own child starts crying. He won't stop. You try everything to quiet him down, but nothing works. If your baby continues to cry the invaders will find you and the group, ending everyone's life.
Is it morally correct to suffocate the baby?


This is your only option.

Think hard before you choose.

NOTE: Ethic or morally correct, whatever you feel is the correct term for right and wrong in this situation. Almost forgot something too...

Thank you for reading.

So many issues with this... i understand you are getting to the point of kill the baby for many lives or let all die...

However with this Scenario there is quite a few big flaws... KILL the baby is the only option? what about knock it out? or smother the sound? or make some sort of run for it with the baby? stay and fight back? you know they are coming ambush them... so many flaws... and its sad our though goes straight to will we kill or wont we... use your brain we have logic and reason solve this problem differently

there are also other factors not involved are all these other people your with faultless? because that baby is. these people have undoubtedly been at fault in some way at some point to what degree is unknown but say the rest of the people where rapists or murders? what then? way to many unknown factors involved in this...

 

[Majorlagger]

Edit: Double Post