Could you do this for the price of world peace?

[mirage202]

Torture the baby to bring about world peace.

Everyone is happy, no more military spending, medical advances explode, disease is eradicated, population booms, baby has grown into adulthood, adult dies a slow death to starvation when resources run out.

IMO world peace is an admirable goal, but not a realistic one. Here in the UK, we are already starting to feel the strain due to overpopulation (not even 70m when I last looked it up) on our most basic resource, water.

I reckon world peace would do far more damage to our species than any number of wars and conflicts ever could. Not to mention the whole idea would be thrown out for war a long time before things like oil ran out completely.

In short? No, I wouldn't torture a baby for world peace.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I think someone has already mentioned this but the question can be thought of more logically by rephrasing it to it's most basic form, namely, does the end result justify the means by which you get there?

I would say maybe, you can't really say yes or no because each instance of the question is different. For example if I could cure all cancer but it involved doing a few horrific experiments on a few people then i probably would. Yet if the question was would i be willing to commit genocide against one particular group of people in order to save the rest of the world from destruction then i would say no. It's all a value choice and you might chose differently based on what you believe to be right.

To answer the OP's question then no i would not. To me the end does not justify the means.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

Hell, give me a truckload of babies just in case. I'm all about world peace.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Sounds like a pretty stock Utilitarianism vs. Deontology debate.

Me personally, I'd probably do it and feel awful afterwards. Still, world peace is worth it, I think. There's no easy answer to these sorts of problems.

 

[370999]

Not at all. Why? Because how is this world peace to come about? A fundamental rewriting of human nature? Not interested. Humans fight, it's what we do and while I can understand that victims of those fights despices them, it would be like removing the emotion of love.

There is also the factor that presumably I'm making this deal with some type of entity. So I again would refuse on the principle that the peace of humanity is to be achieved by humanity. and that any creature that demands some a dickish act as torturing a baby would have such a warped definition of peace that I would not be interested in interacting with it beyond learning how best to kill it.

So no.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

no i would not...

 

[lacktheknack]

After drugging myself so I don't remember.

Although, if they aren't specific, I would force the baby to eat a food it hates. That's torture, if you ask a baby.

 

[Fappy]

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.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I am not usually an ends-justify-the-means kind of guy, but sacrificing two for countless lives sounds like a decent trade to me.

 

[viranimus]

Yeeeah...


Im going with the option that prevents undoing one of the only things that keeps our population in check and just view torturing babies as the bonus.


In all seriousness. World peace is a lie, because it only serves to perpetuate our self destruction. Given the references to torchwood, look instead at miracle day in a flash forward sort of eye. We struggle with our population now. We cannot or will not feed every human being we have. People still die of starvation. So, if you remove the mechanism that thins out the herd by sending young men off to die, how many generations would it take for the population to become completely unsustainable?

 

[Queen Michael]

Yeah, because otherwise there'll be lots more people getting tortured.

Oh what the hey, I'll be honest: I wouldn't be able to even though I would consider it to be the right thing to do.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where the moral thing to do is not the right thing to do. Logically, the right answer would be yes. But morally? I don't think I could. Even if I worked up the resolve to try I don't think I could follow through.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

You selfish, selfish person.

Anyway, better a baby than a real person.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Hearing about world peace like this just makes me think of this one episode of The Simpsons that was a parody of The Monkey's Paw. Lisa wished for world peace, just in time for aliens to invade Earth.

In a more serious sense, I don't think there's much of a need for anything of the sort. We're not having some brutal, global war, after all.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where the moral thing to do is not the right thing to do. Logically, the right answer would be yes. But morally? I don't think I could. Even if I worked up the resolve to try I don't think I could follow through.

No, logically the right answer is not just yes. There is no answer that is simply the logical one. It would be the logical answer if you assumed that what is best is maximum amount of lives saved. I think other considerations are in order that make it not be the logical answer. Logic does not have to discard morality, if someone ignores morality in their logic then it was their choice, not a facet of logic itself.

I think you're right, however when I was referring to the logic of the situation, I was referring soley to the numbers. Causing one being discomfort, discomfort that it will likely never remember, in exchange for assuring that many more lives avoid death and potentially worse suffering. Put that way, it doesn't seem that unreasonable, but the morality surrounding the situation is equally important.

 

[Comando96]

I'm suicidal.

Sure. I'd do it.

However if world peace relied on me to continue torturing this baby until he/she was an adult or generally for a prolonged period of time then I may have killed myself by then.

Torture a baby... secure world peace. If it would then yes.

Knowing that I'd done something immensely beneficial to the world for which 7+ billion people would benefit from... I'd happily take what I did to the grave... or realistically infront of the next passing train.

The personal pain of what I did... won't be there for long...

2 lives for the sake of billions... how many lives has America spent of its own citizens on its "interests".

 

[TWEWYFan]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where the moral thing to do is not the right thing to do. Logically, the right answer would be yes. But morally? I don't think I could. Even if I worked up the resolve to try I don't think I could follow through.

No, logically the right answer is not just yes. There is no answer that is simply the logical one. It would be the logical answer if you assumed that what is best is maximum amount of lives saved. I think other considerations are in order that make it not be the logical answer. Logic does not have to discard morality, if someone ignores morality in their logic then it was their choice, not a facet of logic itself.

I think you're right, however when I was referring to the logic of the situation, I was referring soley to the numbers. Causing one being discomfort, discomfort that it will likely never remember, in exchange for assuring that many more lives avoid death and potentially worse suffering. Put that way, it doesn't seem that unreasonable, but the morality surrounding the situation is equally important.

Well logic is more than numbers. Bit of a pet peeve of mine when people misuse the word logic in what appears to be an absolute sense like that since in other cases people get really insistent that logic says they're objectively right when logic kind of depends on the initial values you put in.

I see what you mean. I didn't mean to bother you, most of my definition of logic comes from Star Trek.