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.
Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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
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
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.FaceFaceFace said:
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.wilsontheterrible said:
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.
And is that a fact, or is that your opinion? Because you're stating it pretty definitively.Fagotto said:
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.
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.
Ok, so the basic answer to this whole thing is probably "On your head, be it"Fagotto said:
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]
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?
. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I would just put him to sleep, or at least try(meaning the sleeper hold), but if it doesn't work, yes.
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.Fagotto said:
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.