I don't judge actions by their potential consequences, I judge them based on the action alone. So to me, killing a baby is wrong, no matter what. I don't think I would be responsible if we were all killed by the soldiers (the soldiers pulled the trigger, not me), but I would be responsible for the death of the baby if I killed it.
Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
Just imagine me sarcastically moving my arms in a scaling motion, kay?TheVioletBandit said:
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.
why is the whole idea of killing the baby coming up? if the only option of suffocating the baby firstly you need to think just that little bit harder. but if that's the assumption why does it need to be till death? you can very easily just do it till its passes out. to force ably make a baby stop crying killing it is not the only option even if you can only suffocate it. you still don't need to kill it.
I think the moral dilemma here kinda neglects something: it's only selfish to kill the baby if the hypothetical invaders you're all hiding from would give the baby a warm hug and a loving family before they stand the rest of you against the wall. Since you're all in peril here the baby's survival is at stake as well and that makes it a question of the baby dies or everyone including the baby dies - in other words, the baby dies either way and the question becomes: do you condemn everyone else so that you can keep your hands clean?
Not to say that it's an easy, moral or even a decent choice - not to suggest that you wouldn't have trouble living with it or that a decent human being shouldn't have trouble living with it but it's the only choice and if you aren't too paralyzed at the horror of it to move then that's what you have to do.
Now the kill-an-innocent-to-end-world-hunger problem, that's a head-scratcher...
Not to say that it's an easy, moral or even a decent choice - not to suggest that you wouldn't have trouble living with it or that a decent human being shouldn't have trouble living with it but it's the only choice and if you aren't too paralyzed at the horror of it to move then that's what you have to do.
Now the kill-an-innocent-to-end-world-hunger problem, that's a head-scratcher...
I chose no, but I'm really thinking I should have chosen yes.
Here is my logic: In general, I think it is not okay to suffocate the baby to protect yourself. Alternatively, I do think it is okay to kill the baby to protect it from dying in a more painful fashion at the hands of the enemy. If there is reasonable cause to suggest that the enemy would hurt the baby in a way that would make suffocating it more humane - I could see that being a viable option.
If the given situation is that the enemy WILL find you if the baby is not quieted - and you know that the baby will be subjected to pain before it dies - then you are within the right to take action to decrease the suffering. Regardless of the fact that this might save the rest of the people due to there no longer being any reason that the enemy will find you, this is the correct action. It ends up working that you might live, but had the baby not been quieted he would have died anyways. In either situation the baby dies, one in a worse way than the other.
Here is my logic: In general, I think it is not okay to suffocate the baby to protect yourself. Alternatively, I do think it is okay to kill the baby to protect it from dying in a more painful fashion at the hands of the enemy. If there is reasonable cause to suggest that the enemy would hurt the baby in a way that would make suffocating it more humane - I could see that being a viable option.
If the given situation is that the enemy WILL find you if the baby is not quieted - and you know that the baby will be subjected to pain before it dies - then you are within the right to take action to decrease the suffering. Regardless of the fact that this might save the rest of the people due to there no longer being any reason that the enemy will find you, this is the correct action. It ends up working that you might live, but had the baby not been quieted he would have died anyways. In either situation the baby dies, one in a worse way than the other.
It's from a movie. Or so I'm assuming cause I've seen a movie where this exact situation is played out.winnkey said:
That's a good point, though I'm guessing considering they're situation the person wasn't willing to take any chances. (holocaust movie, and from memory the person who killed it wasn't a parent. Could be wrong though)
I'd say it is morally correct... But I really doubt I could bring myself to suffocate my own child.
it's funny to think about how the people who say yes would fare in a situation like this. also why are the others not stopping me/ supporting me on this? can't i just take the baby run and hope for the best?
OT: hecks no if i did i'd have a rotting baby corpse locked in there with me
OT: hecks no if i did i'd have a rotting baby corpse locked in there with me
Yes it is definitely morally wrong to kill the baby. You will have made the choice to murder an innocent child. The circumstances are irrelevant. You made a decision and committed a heinous act. Some things are worth more than life, and integrity is one of them.RedxDecember said:
That said, I don't think I'd be able to blame someone for making that choice. It's an understandable response, especially when you're made responsible for a number of other lives. I'd like to think I'd never make that choice, but I can understand why someone would do it.
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?