Poll: Would you kill an infant if it meant saving the lives of a large group of people?

[the spud]

Stupid poll is stupid. This basically comes down to deontology vs concequentialism and not logic vs emotion. To say that if you wouldn't murder a baby then you're an "emotional thinker" (read: moron) is idiotic and fallacious. If you murder a child you deserve to die regardless of any and all underlying circumstances. Because, at the end of the day, either YOU are murdering an innocent child for purely selfish reasons (your own survival) or a group of soldiers is murdering a group of people. Which of those actions is your fault? See, by not being an evil baby-murdering psychopath, you aren't the one taking action. You can't be blamed for something you didn't do.
Also, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

Frankly I've always found the argument that inaction is morally neutral to be silly at best. The fact is that if the child is not silenced in one way or another the failure to act, the failure to prevent harm, does lie just as much with those who could have taken action and did not as it does with the soldiers. Yes, the implication is that we, as individuals and as a society, are in some way responsible for a great many evils that we do not directly take part in, but at least it does away with the myth of a pure personal responsibility for "individual" actions.

I agree.

While I think deontology could work in a perfect world, it just can't practically work in a world as ours. "Every man is guilty of every good he did not do."

 

[Himmelgeher]

Stupid poll is stupid. This basically comes down to deontology vs concequentialism and not logic vs emotion. To say that if you wouldn't murder a baby then you're an "emotional thinker" (read: moron) is idiotic and fallacious. If you murder a child you deserve to die regardless of any and all underlying circumstances. Because, at the end of the day, either YOU are murdering an innocent child for purely selfish reasons (your own survival) or a group of soldiers is murdering a group of people. Which of those actions is your fault? See, by not being an evil baby-murdering psychopath, you aren't the one taking action. You can't be blamed for something you didn't do.
Also, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

Frankly I've always found the argument that inaction is morally neutral to be silly at best. The fact is that if the child is not silenced in one way or another the failure to act, the failure to prevent harm, does lie just as much with those who could have taken action and did not as it does with the soldiers. Yes, the implication is that we, as individuals and as a society, are in some way responsible for a great many evils that we do not directly take part in, but at least it does away with the myth of a pure personal responsibility for "individual" actions.

I never said it was morally neutral, I implied it was morally right in the "don't-murder-the-baby vs murder-the-baby" dilemma. While you can choose to feel guilty for not being a cold blooded murderer, you are not at fault for something that you did not do. You're not responsible for the actions of the soldiers that kill the group, the soldiers are. You're only responsible for the deaths of those people if you kill them yourself or give the order to kill them. The baby has done nothing to deserve to die, and you are therefore committing an immoral, heinous action by killing it. If you kill the baby, you and the people you are with are just as deserving of death as the soldiers hunting you. If you're okay with that, fine, but don't try to pretty it up and make it seem like you're somehow in the right.

 

[diebane]

If they find us because the baby is screaming, everybody, including the baby, will die. So the only logical answer here is to kill the baby.

mfG diebane

 

[brunothepig]

As has been said, the scenario is broken. In some random situation where there was two options, let a baby die or let a group of people die, I'd let the baby die. Why the hell is it more important than even one older life, let alone a bunch of them? I'd probably choose to save one teenager, child or adult instead of one baby. They already have dreams, lives, a wider circle of friends, relationships, perhaps even people that depend on them.

My position may be influenced by the fact that I don't really care about babies... I don't know, probably.

 

[Hamish Durie]

finnaly a topic that i cannot answer good job you just made my day

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yes but ONlY because that soilder would kill us AND the baby anyway so it's a lose lose for the baby (unless the soldier somehow show mercy on the baby for some reason). Regardless this scenerio is flaw since I would of cover the baby mouth or something (my real answer is no since a baby is pure innocent).

 

[kidd25]

Can i kill the infant and the 20 other people?

only if you brought your cheat book.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

Depends is it my kids and a bunch of people I dont like, or is it someone else's kid and my whole family. Really if it was like a bus full of prisoners I'd have to go make some popcorn and watch it burn.

 

[Not George Carlin]

Isn't this how that wolf girl went insane in MGS4?

EDIT: Yes, I would. It'd die if we were found so there's no reason not to.

 

[Alucard788]

Stupid poll is stupid. This basically comes down to deontology vs concequentialism and not logic vs emotion. To say that if you wouldn't murder a baby then you're an "emotional thinker" (read: moron) is idiotic and fallacious. If you murder a child you deserve to die regardless of any and all underlying circumstances. Because, at the end of the day, either YOU are murdering an innocent child for purely selfish reasons (your own survival) or a group of soldiers is murdering a group of people. Which of those actions is your fault? See, by not being an evil baby-murdering psychopath, you aren't the one taking action. You can't be blamed for something you didn't do.
Also, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

Frankly I've always found the argument that inaction is morally neutral to be silly at best. The fact is that if the child is not silenced in one way or another the failure to act, the failure to prevent harm, does lie just as much with those who could have taken action and did not as it does with the soldiers. Yes, the implication is that we, as individuals and as a society, are in some way responsible for a great many evils that we do not directly take part in, but at least it does away with the myth of a pure personal responsibility for "individual" actions.

I never said it was morally neutral, I implied it was morally right in the "don't-murder-the-baby vs murder-the-baby" dilemma. While you can choose to feel guilty for not being a cold blooded murderer, you are not at fault for something that you did not do. You're not responsible for the actions of the soldiers that kill the group, the soldiers are. You're only responsible for the deaths of those people if you kill them yourself or give the order to kill them. The baby has done nothing to deserve to die, and you are therefore committing an immoral, heinous action by killing it. If you kill the baby, you and the people you are with are just as deserving of death as the soldiers hunting you. If you're okay with that, fine, but don't try to pretty it up and make it seem like you're somehow in the right.

Finally someone else with a soul.

What amazes me is how many people here would kill the child...and either not feel any guilt at all or actually revel in the act.

Scary world we live in here.

 

[Roofstone]

I would kill it, if it was the ONLY fucking choise. (Sorry about the cursing there, but it got out my point)

There are several ways to stop a baby from crying. But, given no other choise. Whatsoever, meaning that we were all without arms and legs to cower its mouth with? Yes, I would kill it.

 

[Chawx]

Killing the baby will save our heads from being severed, but killing the baby will sever our hearts.

 

[Chawx]

Plus, only a sick bastard would kill a wailing infant to save even a 100 people.

 

[exessmirror]

the child is going to die in your scenario anyway,
hell yeah i would kill it

 

[Purkki]

Yes I would kill the little child. That was the most immoral sentence I have ever said.

 

[Nekkie]

I would never kill the baby for the greater good, the people who would are not doing it for the greater good they are doing it for themselves anyways.

If a child was to die to save my ass i would probably have the decency to atleast try to save the child and die with it (the world isnt black and white those hypotetical situations don't exist theres always option C).

What amazes me is how many people here would kill the child...and either not feel any guilt at all or actually revel in the act.

Scary world we live in here.

Angsty teenagers over-rationalising most of them wouldn't really do it and the ones that would deserve to die murder is never excusable especially in a situation to save your own ass and using the greater good as an excuse.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

For the love of God, WHY would you even come up with something like this? My answer is no, I would find another way. Like I have already seen mentioned, try to have someone nurse the child, give the child a toy, etc. etc. and if I exhaust every option available, then I will tell everyone to get ready to run the opposite way, while I run out and try to kill every soldier possible to create a distraction. In other words, I choose to give MY life to protect everyone else and the childs.

 

[Lexodus]

Can i kill the infant and the 20 other people?

Damn, ninja'd.

 

[Doclector]

Has someone been watching torchwood? Who knows...

No seriously. Doctor who probably knows.

*tumbleweed*

Tough crowd. Anyway, I have some way to kill the kid, so why not the soldiers? I don't honestly know what I'd do in the confines of the set question. I think, deep down, no decent person would truly know the answer, even if they think they do.

Outside of the question? Use him as bait, line up along the wall with the door on it, when the soldiers come in, ambuse them. No one dies who doesn't deserve to.

Captcha: embracing Regicto. But...he sounds like a pantomime villain!