kill the baby. If it means everyone surviving, it'd be far more immoral to sacrifice everyone for that one life, which would likely be ended by the invaders anyway.
Poll: Morally Correct?
- Thread starter RedxDecember
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I lol'd at all the hardboiled smartasses who honestly think they are capable of killing someone, yet alone a child. Personally, I would kill the child, if I was capable of it. I know that due to my mental nature, I'd not be able to harm the child.
For the note, I don't think you can say it is morally correct or incorrect. You can say it is ethically correct, though. But you can also argue it is ethically incorrect, so.. Comes down to what you believe. For myself, I believe that if you sacrifice one to save many, that's ethically correct, but I would not be able to complete the "task".
For the note, I don't think you can say it is morally correct or incorrect. You can say it is ethically correct, though. But you can also argue it is ethically incorrect, so.. Comes down to what you believe. For myself, I believe that if you sacrifice one to save many, that's ethically correct, but I would not be able to complete the "task".
Yes, more people will die, but if you kill the child yourself, you are directly responsible as opposed to indirectly responsible.Mr Thin said:
I know we'd all die if I didn't, but I couldn't do it. I couldn't bring myself to physically, directly kill it. MAybe I'd be able to let someone else do it, but chances are the whole group would die.
But the thing is, you're not killing the baby and only saving your life. You're killing the baby and saving everyone in the building. By killing the baby you have the loss of one life, by not killing it everyone will be dead including the baby. So in either case, the baby will be dead, therefore the best choice of action is the one that leads to the least loss of life, which is killing the baby yourself.wilsontheterrible said:
Whether I would have the mental strength to do it myself is another question, but is it morally correct? Yes.
Just as you have your morals, I have mine and I find being so stubborn as to not save as many lives as you can just because you think killing a baby is wrong while the baby is going to die either way morally reprehensive.
OP: This is pathetic.
You could muffle the sound of the baby without "being forced to" suffocate him/her (Probably with whatever you were going to use to suffocate her/him with).
While I'm starting to get a bit bored of everyone trying to "test the moral fibre of the Escapist community" by presenting us with these hypothetical, at least most of them are somewhat valid. please come up with something that actually makes sense.
You could muffle the sound of the baby without "being forced to" suffocate him/her (Probably with whatever you were going to use to suffocate her/him with).
While I'm starting to get a bit bored of everyone trying to "test the moral fibre of the Escapist community" by presenting us with these hypothetical, at least most of them are somewhat valid. please come up with something that actually makes sense.
Of course it's the right thing to do. Either kill the baby and save everyone else, or let the baby cry and get everyone, including the baby, killed.
This isn't a question of saving the baby OR saving other people. It's a question of saving a few people or not saving anyone at all.
This isn't a question of saving the baby OR saving other people. It's a question of saving a few people or not saving anyone at all.
The lives of the many take priority over the lives of the few.
Unless it's me, yahtzee, Charlie Sheen or Chuck Norris.
Unless it's me, yahtzee, Charlie Sheen or Chuck Norris.
I just think it's worth pointing out one thing. People say the baby is defenceless and so should not be harmed. But the soldiers have guns. You're all defenceless.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Plus if your getting screwed over that bad in a situation a baby is just dead weight. Also the resources to keep the baby alive probably wouldn't be worth it.
I remember hearing something like this happening in another country. I believe Vietnam. Groups of people were fleeing from their homes to get away from an army or something. If a child was loud or wouldn't stop crying the parents/group would leave it behind.
I remember hearing something like this happening in another country. I believe Vietnam. Groups of people were fleeing from their homes to get away from an army or something. If a child was loud or wouldn't stop crying the parents/group would leave it behind.
So, either you kill the baby and just the baby dies.
Or you don't kill the baby and everybody dies, including the baby.
Seems like suffocating the baby makes the most sense. This being said, I don't get why you can't stop once the baby as fainted but is still alive.
Or you don't kill the baby and everybody dies, including the baby.
Seems like suffocating the baby makes the most sense. This being said, I don't get why you can't stop once the baby as fainted but is still alive.
Posted to a response similar to yours. I can't be held repsoncible for the decisons of others, only my own.sinterklaas said:
If I had more options I'd fight like a mad dog to buy escape time, that would be easy. I don't have that option though. The others have made their choices and lived their lives, so have I. Sacrifice one for many and eventually you'll have one dying for two that will spend the rest of their lives waiting to be abandoned by the other. Rather die with my dignity than live a broken man.wilsontheterrible said:
Causing the deaths of many by inaction is a greater evil than killing one person with your own hands. At least in my book. It's an old quote, and there's a lot of people it's been attributed to, but I think it applies here; "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Also, I'm guessing the OP has watched M*A*S*H.
Also, I'm guessing the OP has watched M*A*S*H.
Option 1: Everyone dies.wilsontheterrible said:
Option 2: Only the baby dies.
You want to have not only the death of the baby on your head but also the deaths of the others because you're to stubborn to change your view?
If it was just me with the baby in there I would not kill the baby to save myself but I also have to think about the others. Do you really want to let them die because your morals prevent you from killing the baby, who would die in both scenarios anyway?
You have to remember you hold the power to save the others. You do not hold the power to save the baby. Are you not going to save the others? That really is morally reprehensive.
I voted it was not morally correct, but that is not to say that I don't support doing it. During situations like these, I separate myself emotionally, and just go with "the most efficient solution".
With that being said, I don't know if I would have it in me to kill the child. I would not stop, nor blame, someone else who did though.
If I did kill the child, it would most likely be, because the fear was overwhelming, not because I was strong enough to do it.
With that being said, I don't know if I would have it in me to kill the child. I would not stop, nor blame, someone else who did though.
If I did kill the child, it would most likely be, because the fear was overwhelming, not because I was strong enough to do it.
Their deaths wouldn't be on my head. I wouldn't feel responcible in the least because I can't control the men with guns. Go ahead and eliminate option 2 because you can stop at 1, everyone dies. A time comes when every person must face their fate, and in this invasion scenario its apparent that it will come soon enough.sinterklaas said:
Today it might be the child, tomorrow the old woman you had to leave behind, the next day the sick man howling with fever and even if you live you'll go to your grave remembering every second you spent with your hands wrapped around their throats, every scream they uttered while you sacrificed them for the many, and every pleading beg as you leave the sick and weak behind. No, I'll die now with a clean conscience. Any person worth saving would never allow the child to die and any person willing to kill the child isn't worth saving.
Look up the Ghetto Massacre from WWII, or frankly, any major genocide in history, and you will see that this scenario is far from imposable. You cannot reason with them: they have been ordered to kill you on sight. They will not "keep" the baby, because they have been brainwashed to believe that the baby is evil by default of whose baby it happens to be.SidingWithTheEnemy said:
What the OP has described is a COMMON occurrence. War and genocide go hand and hand, even in modern times. An invading army might exterminate and enemy town or village, either for religious reasons or just to make an example. And yes, invasions still happen.
Who did the "President" piss off? What does it matter? Perhaps North Korea is attempting to unify Korea under a single leader, and the hypothetical situation is happening in a boarder town? Perhaps China, under the pressure of it's own massive population, has declared war on a neighboring country in an effort to expand it's borders. All that really matter's, in this scenario, is that some invading force has been ordered to exterminate a population, and one scared group of survivors had to choose between killing a baby or probably getting caught and then killed.
On Topic:
Suffocating the baby would be more of a knee-jerk reaction then a logical one. If you were going to be hiding out for your very life in a place where a crying baby would get you killed, you would hopefully bring something that could be used to force the child to be quiet, such as a bit of alcohol in it's milk, or heck, a small amount of chloroform. I agree that a chemical solution is hardly ideal in the growth of a child, but it's better for it then, say, bullets. Or ray guns, if said invaders happen to be aliens. Or heck, even Zombie bites, since those are popular. By the way: I am now picturing this scenario during a Zombie Apocalypse.
But to answer the question at hand; No. There are other ways.
Let's agree to disagree then because I believe the exact opposite. Any person who wouldn't sacrifice one (one who dies either way) to save the others isn't worth saving. I for one would be willing to live with the burden you mentioned, an unclean conscience, for the simple reason of having saved many others.wilsontheterrible said:
But I respect your view on it even though I find it absurd. Morality is a very touchy subject.
Yes of course, but the OP specifically postulated a scenario with only two options. In reality there probably would be more choices but that's not the scenario the OP set for us.
I reject the conclusion of the scenario that suffocation is the only way to silence the child. Sleeper hold, nap time, the child isn't damaged in the process, problem solved.
And I know, I've been (almost) choked out before as part of a demonstration. Some few minutes later I was back on my feet, no worse for wear.
And I know, I've been (almost) choked out before as part of a demonstration. Some few minutes later I was back on my feet, no worse for wear.