Could you do this for the price of world peace?

[game-lover]

So seeing that thread "Save One...Save Many" reminded me of this topic I saw on another forum stemming from this youtube video down here... I have no idea how to embed these things so if you wanna watch, feel free to click it. For those who don't wanna watch, why just jump on down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WKurvkobtV0


To basically sum it up, this girl was on this other site she frequents where they sometimes get polls with serious questions. And on this day, she got the question: "Would you torture a baby for world peace?"

Her answer was yes and she gave reasons and stuff. It's really a short vid. But now I am asking you all!

Could you do it? Would you do it?

My answer by the way is no. Sorry world. I'm not gonna go against my morals and risk emotional scarring and a whole bunch of issues for you. NO DICE.

 

[Mayhaps]

Babies are silly, it's torture for them to finish their meal.
Put some peas on their plate and bang! World peace!

 

[krazykidd]

Sure why not . Babies don't feel pain anyways . Like fish .

Seriously though . A baby wouldn't remember anything ( assuming i don't kill IT ) . Getting hurt as an infant is better than getting hurt as an adult because they will forget . Maybe not right away but after a year .

Also world peace is a hell of a great reward . That means no more millions of people dying in wars evey year? Yes please .

 

[OneCatch]

Can I take the Republican definition of 'baby' and proceed to torture 40 cells?

 

[IndomitableSam]

The question that really boils down to is: Would you sacrifice yourself for world peace? And maybe leave behind some lasting scars on a baby? The baby would forget and heal quickly - you won't. But if it was for lasting world peace? I'd throw that baby under the bus in a second. And myself along with it.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

No. i don't know whether its because i've read too many epic fantasy novels where the hero is always caught out by subtle wording, but i can't help but realise that
a) the length the peace lasts in unspecified
b) Complete eradication of life technically gives you world peace.

point a) is more pertinant, as i don't believe lasting peace is really possible. I mean, i get into flaming rows with people i really like, how are 7 billion people meant to co-exist for any length of time without shit hitting the fan. And that's without taking rampant inequality, nationalism and racial/religious tensions into account.

 

[JoJo]

Grudgingly yes, assuming there wasn't any silly catches or get-out-clauses for the world peace. As terrible as it would be for the baby, it would be worth the thousands of other children's lives saved from excessive pain and death and of-course the adults too. War is an absolute destroyer of economy and liveihoods too so with all war out of the way, Africa might finally have a chance to start digging itself out of the very deep hole it's in. If there was an alternate to torturing the baby though, like having myself tortured for example, I'd take that instead.

 

[Popadoo]

Totally. What's special about this person? Because they're young they're more important than the 7 billion people effected by constant bloody wars and damn fights?

 

[Bertylicious]

No way dude, this is how they get you! First you tell a guy that you'd throw acid in a babies' face for world peace, the next thing you know you're in Abu Gharib being lead into room 101!

 

[Rowan93]

Yes, obviously, it's simple mathematics. But I'd much rather throw the baby in the general direction of some actual professional torturers, since torture is messy, both in a literal and a political/legal sense.

 

[Rawne1980]

Nope.

The world is an interesting place.

If you make it peaceful it would be boring as fuck.

Now if you threw in free Big Macs for a year and a lifetimes supply of Jameson's I would put some serious thought into it.

 

[bojackx]

Definitely. Kids die all the time from conflict and this way no more die, not even the one I'm torturing.

It's a disturbingly easy decision.

 

[DugMachine]

I don't like hurting anything. I felt so bad when I accidentally stepped on my kittie's tail so I don't think I could uh, torture a baby.. that's just all kinds of fucked up.

 

[SckizoBoy]

No... a few million times, no...

If you want my rationale as to why genuine world peace will never happen, for all our hope and wishful thinking you'd need a full dissemination of the human psyche. People, as a race of individuals, are exactly that: individuals. Some (perhaps a lot) value their individuality a hell of a lot more than others, and conformity is what world peace needs to persist. Naturally, there are those who will mock conformity, bridle against it or outright threaten it. Resolution without conflict is virtually impossible except under circumstances that approach the two extremes: absolute oppression; or absolute anarchy. The former is genuinely reviled, but is the capitalist ideal of the social elite where they are able and willing to exercise their power and influence to their hearts' content in full knowledge of the impugnity with which they act. The latter is generally reviled, for lack of predictability, organisation or unity, removing power from those who feel they should have it, from those who desire it and from those who actually have it, and generally either dispelled or given to those who do not care for it. Anywhere in between and you have a system whereby the individual is allowed his/her voice and with ample opportunity to be heard and opposed.

Dissent is what breeds progress. Besides, sooner or later there will come a time when mankind rediscovers greed and envy. Wars are nothing but organised violence on an international scale, so one wonders how it would be that petty fighting between groups of neighbours will not escalate to this level?

/my temporary idiocy...

 

[Heronblade]

Define world peace first, I'm not going to do something like that only for the constant conflicts to spring up again next week, or for the nuclear holocaust to occur and kill everyone thereby ending all conflicts, or for what's left of the human race to be all lobotomized to the point of being incapable of conflict (or just about anything else).

I am reasonably convinced that a universal and reasonably lasting peace is impossible so long as human nature and our situation in this world remain unchanged. I would love to be proven wrong on that score, but am not about to march blindly into whatever solution pops up.

In the spirit that the question was asked, yes I would be willing to do such a thing, in spite of the cost to both myself and the child. However, depending on how "world peace" is defined and attained, I just might be considering someone else's question about torturing a baby in order to avoid it.

 

[Kae]

Nope, just because the scenario makes absolutely no sense to me, I don't see any possible scenario that would give you this choice that is not completely ludacris and stupid, in fact the only think I can think of is sacrificing the baby to make a deal with a demon, and we all know those always have catches, so anyway, NO because the scenario is impossible in the first place, not to mention the lack of explantation of what exactly this world peace consits of, I mean it could be acquired by taking away the free will of people so that the are no longer able to fight or something, anyway NO.