Poll: Would you kill an infant if it meant saving the lives of a large group of people?
- Thread starter the spud
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Considering that the kid would die anyways, and I exist in a bizarre universe where you can't just stick a pacifier in the baby's mouth, I would, greater good and all.
The greatest good for the greatest number. I'm a pragmatist.
So yes I would kill one person for the good of many (or one infant) though the particular example is not the best situation. If however I was in a situation were there was no way around it then yes.
Though its an entirely different matter as to whether i would be able to actually go through with it, then again the self preservation instinct is very strong. Regardless I would recognise the necessity of the action.
So yes I would kill one person for the good of many (or one infant) though the particular example is not the best situation. If however I was in a situation were there was no way around it then yes.
Though its an entirely different matter as to whether i would be able to actually go through with it, then again the self preservation instinct is very strong. Regardless I would recognise the necessity of the action.
Clearly this baby emits deadly radiation as long as it is alive so I would not hesitate to kill it.
kill the baby. i dont think this is would determine if your an emotional or logical thinker. it to me seems the most logical and emotional response. al lthe other people probably have children or parents of there own.
Not like if the baby make a single noise i kill it but if it keeps making noise and nothing we do will quiet it.
also if it was my kid i guess i would if possible make a run for it and try not to put anyone else in danger.
Not like if the baby make a single noise i kill it but if it keeps making noise and nothing we do will quiet it.
also if it was my kid i guess i would if possible make a run for it and try not to put anyone else in danger.
i doubt killing hitler would help anyone. there would be another person to step up to take his place in history. better the devil you know. for all you know his replacement might have won the war and conquered the world.Ogargd said:
I voted no, instead of killing an innocent child for the lives of 20 other people myself and the rest of the men would counter attack giving those unable to fight time to flee. Of course, my part in the counter attack would be 2 towns over in a church tower looking my enemy square in the eye through my sniper scope.
Not in your scenario, there are other options.
In a scenario where I either murder the baby or murder a large group of people, then yeah, the baby.
In a scenario where I either murder the baby or murder a large group of people, then yeah, the baby.
TheLoneBeet said:
Hivemind moment haha.
OT: As has been said in the thread, there are a number of different ways to shut a kid up. Generally I'm opposed to forcing someone to sacrifice themselves for others (even if this someone is a baby without much knowledge of what's going on). If the situation ever arose in a group in which the safety was threatened, I'd probably leave the group and try to work things out myself instead.
I seem to remember being told a story by my teacher in high school about a woman that suffocated her crying baby to hide from the Nazis with a group of fellow refugees, how true it is I don't know.
But could I do it personally? No. As a father, I can't. Any man that is in that group with me should give up their lives to allow the women and children chance to escape. We've had our chance at life, and obviously we didn't do well. It isn't fair to take that from a child just so you can have a few more years of life you will probably be too emotionally wrecked to live anyway.
Could you honestly look yourself in the mirror after?
But could I do it personally? No. As a father, I can't. Any man that is in that group with me should give up their lives to allow the women and children chance to escape. We've had our chance at life, and obviously we didn't do well. It isn't fair to take that from a child just so you can have a few more years of life you will probably be too emotionally wrecked to live anyway.
Could you honestly look yourself in the mirror after?
It kinda helps that I hate kids anyway, the only question then is how to do it? Do I have like a big rock? A mace? A dagger?
Well since the only two options were to kill/not to kill. I went kill, it wouldn't be as easy as some people are making it out to be. I see the reasoning to kill one and save many and it makes perfect sense I just don't know if I could actually follow through with it.
Although in reality I think I would try absolutely everything to prevent killing the child.
Although in reality I think I would try absolutely everything to prevent killing the child.
can,t we just keep the mouth of the baby closed or put a sock in it?
if not kill the darn thing.
if not kill the darn thing.
If we boil down your question it seems that you are equating the lives of many to the life of one infant. Why is a kid more valuable? I might have trouble doing the pragmatic/sensible/right thing if i was in the actual situation (emotional responses and all that) but thinking about it logically, the only correct answer is to sacrifice one so that more than one can live.
Its hard to say unless I was really in the situation, but I dont think I could. I know they would find us and the baby would still die anyway, but I just don't think I'd have it in me to do it.
EDIT: And are you saying the odds of these soldiers finding us is nil if the baby dies? Cause in this scenario, they're just reduced, right?
I'd rather give up my own life to save the others than kill another to save myself and the others.
EDIT: And are you saying the odds of these soldiers finding us is nil if the baby dies? Cause in this scenario, they're just reduced, right?
I'd rather give up my own life to save the others than kill another to save myself and the others.