Poll: Morally Correct?

[Nathan Crumpler]

I vote no. The question states that if the baby continues to cry, the invaders will find you and kill you. At first I would have said yes, but I was assuming the baby would continue to cry. If I kill the baby, the baby is guaranteed to die, but if the baby lives there's a chance he/she will stop crying. I would hope that I or some one with us will know how to calm the baby down. This may go against the groups safety, but it will work towards the groups sanity. If every one survives, they will remember what they had to do to survive. They maybe able to rationalize it logically, but emotionally may be a different matter. The baby could also serve as a symbol of hope. The beauty in the heart of darkness, if you will.

Last of all, wars greatly impact the culture of a civilization for many generations. If cold-hearted logic wins out over empathy and peace of mind, that may not be a world I want to live to see.

 

[LetalisK]

I'd kill the baby and end up leading a life of alcoholism to drown out the nightmares and end up dieing at a young age of liver failure.

And for the people bitching that there are realistically other options: No shit. But this is a hypothetical philosophical question. You only get these two options. Deal with it.

 

[CrazyJew]

What Spock says at 2:05

 

[Dr Druza]

It would be better to run out of the house and sacrifice yourself, if it could somehow save the others.
Otherwise, survival is survival. You have to protect the people with you.

 

[Nouw]

I couldn't do it, I'm sure someone else could. And it is morally correct in my book, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In this instance anyway.

 

[gbemery]

I swear I have read this exact scenario on here multiple times

 

[Slayer_2]

Or just cover it's mouth so it makes little to no noise. If that is somehow not an option, kill it.

 

[Rawne1980]

I'll be honest, and i'm not saying this to sound like a "hard man" but I wouldn't be hiding.

I'd have found a way to get my wife and kids somewhere safe and then took to fighting.

I'll be fucked if anyone is going to threaten my family while I cower in a bloody attic, thats just not me.

If the choices were die cowering in an attic while my family were killed (you're in an attic, they will find you) or make sure my family get somewhere to at least have a chance then i'd go for that.

Be like being back in the Army ..... except without decent equipment, or tank support, or any support of any kind ..... actually, it wouldn't be anything like being back in the Army but you get the general idea.

 

[biggskanz]

Morality has nothing to do with this situation.

Once someone brings force into the equation all morality goes out the window. The person who initiated the force is immoral but you cannot hold the people who force is being used against up to moral scrutiny.

E.g.:
Lying is immoral. A guy comes to your house and asks where your wife is so that he can find her and kill her. Is it immoral to not tell him the truth?

Same situation but with less stigma of killing babies. Once someone does something immoral to another person you can no longer hold that person to moral standards which the first person has already broken.

 

[A Free Man]

This question has already popped up multiple times in different and the same formats but I'll answer the same as I did before.

OT: Well there is no real right or wrong answer since both options are wrong. I suppose the major difference is that in one case you are causing the deaths of quite a lot of people whereas in the other case you are actually the one killing someone. Basically if it was someone else in the situation I would probably be all for killing the baby but not matter what, if it was my child I would never. I don't care how selfish it is, I would do one of two things, I'd either leave with my baby and try to hide somewhere else in the hopes to not attract attention to the others, and if that wasn't an option I would stay and fight for my baby until we and everywhere else in there died. Sorry guys but you wouldn't want to be stuck with me

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

If I may quote everyone's favorite Vulcan, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."

 

[emeraldrafael]

thats not your only option. Medically if you suffocate the child they'll pass out before tehy die.

So it doesnt matter, cause you're not killing the child. its just like gagging one. If it keeps them quiet so you can watch House in peace, and no one is hurt in the end, then theres no moral question.

 

[Wuggy]

I would suffocate the baby. That's just what I would do, because I see it as the more logical choice to ensure the well-being of me and others. The baby would've died either way, speaking in terms of end result it doesn't matter whether it's by my hand or by the hand of the soldiers.

Now, here's the thing, I'm not sure this is the "morally correct" thing to do. If I wouldn't suffocate the baby, everyone would die but I woulnd't have done anything wrong: I am not directly responsible of the deaths, even if I had an opportunity to stop them. If however I do suffocate the baby, I would be directly responsible of a death of a completely innocent being: by no stretch of the imagination is that a "morally right" thing to do on any situation, but it may be necessary evil to ensure the best end result.

Also: People who try to think third options or nitpick the scenario: You obviously are not familiar with philosophical hypotheticals. The point is not whether the scenario is beliavable.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

No, I just can't do it. I couldn't live with myself if I chooked someone to death, I know there's other people who are in danger, but I can't live with myself if I have to know I killed someone because they couldn't help but cry. I don't have the right to sacrafice the other lives, but no, I won't bear such a burden or do something so vile. They will have to take the child from me and kill it while holding me back. I can't just take a life, I have no right to do so.

 

[Filiecs]

No because it is not the only option. There is ALWAYS another option and ALWAYS a chance for both parties to survive. As long as that chance exists it is still morally wrong for you to kill the baby.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Also, in this specific hypothetical situation, if you are going to suffocate a baby in order to stop it crying, you could also either only choke (or concuss) it into unconsciousness, or clamp your hand over it's mouth enough to stop it making a sound, but leave it's nose and airways unrestricted enough so as not to kill it.

This is always the kind of response i think of for this situation.
Why does killing the baby have to be the only option when all you need is make it quite?

 

[Sam Cohen]

It happened during the Holocaust. When Nazis began raiding villages and cities in search for Jewish people, there were many cases of people having to suffocate their children so they wouldn't be discovered.

 

[Diplodocus462]

No matter how much your intuitions scream in protest, the right thing to do is to suffocate the baby. The baby has seconds to live no matter which option you choose, and if you suffocate it quickly, you could save the lives of other people who do not have to die.

In my view what this thought experiment actually shows is how our intuitions are not a reliable guide to morality. I feel the same intuition as everyone does telling me how deeply immoral it is to kill the baby. But this intuition *must* be incorrect: the baby has seconds to live *no matter what you do*. Keeping the baby's blood off of your hands is not a luxury you can afford when there are others' lives at stake.