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

[Brandon237]

The child is unlikely to have formed desires and hopes with regards to its future, whereas the 20 adults have. I'd silence the child if possible and kill if necessary.

This, the thing is not sapient for the first part of its life, and has no concept of death. The other poor sods in that room do.

Besides, in your scenario, the baby will end up dead anyway if not silenced... or raised by nazi's... Makes the decision pretty "easy" as far as moral choice goes...

 

[Codeknight]

Edit 2: Would your decision change or be modified in any way if it was your baby? Also, I am sorry for the limited poll, I just thought this is sort of a yes or no type of question.

As has been pointed out in this, and most other yes/no poll threads there are never just 2 options. Frankly I don't see why people post polls like this. It's got to be trolling or something like it. Bad question made in bad taste as I see it.

 

[Spartan448]

My friends, this is why I ALWAYS make sure to have duct-tape available - it fixes everything, including whining! It can also be made into an effective trap!

 

[SD-Fiend]

no i would try to find something for it to suck on I doubt the person with the kid would alow that and probably freak out and alert our pursers anyways

 

[Alucard788]

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?

I'm not a father...but I feel exactly the same way.

I do not fear death...I choose no and I'd choose to give my own life so the child could live.

...and yes in a real life situation I'd do exactly what I said I'd do. Not all of us are tethered by a fear of the afterlife...the need to survive at all costs.

Edit 2: Would your decision change or be modified in any way if it was your baby? Also, I am sorry for the limited poll, I just thought this is sort of a yes or no type of question.

As has been pointed out in this, and most other yes/no poll threads there are never just 2 options. Frankly I don't see why people post polls like this. It's got to be trolling or something like it. Bad question made in bad taste as I see it.

I equate it to the rampant misanthropy, that is spreading in our society...it's sad and it's frightening.

As of my post 118 yes...27 no...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Where's the, "sacrifice myself by making them follow me outside of the town while the others escape" option?

I'm not afraid to die, and doing this I would save the lives of everyone else.

 

[Jimmybobjr]

Dont kill the baby. Be killed by Soldiers. Baby Dies.

Kill the Baby. Dont be killed by Soldiers. Baby Dies.

Uhm.

No matter what happens, baby dies.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Why is it in these scenarios, I am the one who has the kill the 'cute' or 'innocent' thing? What about that guy?! *points*

But no, I don't think I could bring myself too. Since I'd probably have to kill the parent(s) too. You think they are just going to let me kill their baby? That's two to three lives I've killed to slightly reduce our chance of survival and that's still no guarantee. What if some asshole sneezes or can't keep in a huge fart while the enemy soldiers are right over the trapdoor? So I killed two to three people (one of which was an infant) and the guy who had the mega-burrito at lunch gets everyone killed. That sounds more like my luck.

If not me, then there is no doubt that someone else in that room would probably want to and succeed in doing it.

 

[Manicotti]

The obvious correct answer is to tie a grenade to the baby and then throw the baby at the soldiers, killing both.

 

[Spoonius]

Put a hand over the baby's mouth?...

 

[JoJo]

If there was no other choice between all dying and the baby dying, then however hard it would be I would have to choose "yes." However in reality I would be much more likely to try to find an alternative even if it meant sacrificing myself. I have no wish to die but nor do I want to cause the death of an innocent solely to save myself.

 

[Caffeine Rage]

Sounds as if someone has just finished watching the final episode of M*A*S*H*.

Anyway, I have to agree with some others in that I would find a way to silence the child while not killing it in the stated situation. Killing the child is (if you pardon the rather morbid pun) overkill.

I have to admit that when I read the title I thought you were going to go with a baby Hitler. Even then, I'm not sure if I would kill him without a thought. My hesitation isn't in support of the man he would become but of the course of history that he would have a hand in creating.

Without Hitler, the Twentieth Century would have taken a dramatically different path. All bets would be off if World War II would have even taken place. Without the wartime economy boost, the Great Depression could have carried on for a far greater period of time. While the New Deal did blunt the Depression in the United States, it was war that brought such a swift end to it.

Also, the events started in World War II carried throughout a great portion of the Twentieth Century. Changing or even removing World War II would greatly impact the whole of the Twentieth Century. For example, it was World War II that made the United States a world superpower. This led into butting heads with the Soviet Union and triggering the Cold War after World War II. The Cold War fueled quite a few conflicts in Eastern Asia and Middle East -- not to mention an arms race and a technology race-- as both sides attempted to gain superiority over the other. This lasted all the way till the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. While killing Hitler wouldn't mean that these events won't take place, it will alter them. Then, all bets are off on what happens in the new Twentieth Century.

The problem with changing history is that no one can be sure of the outcome or even if there will be a net benefit to humanity for changing even a single event. Would the world be a better place if World War II, the Holocaust, and all the events past that point never happened? It is impossible to tell and that's why I wouldn't change a thing.

Maybe I've just watched Back to the Future one too many times to want to tamper with history. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[Bobbity]

It seems to me like this topic was made a while ago, and that the scenario was the same, even down to the wording.

OT: I don't know. That's all I can say.

 

[HydraMoon]

Yes, it's for the greater good ("The Greater Good"):
Also, wasn't this exact scenario in the M*A*S*H finale?

Ahhh, crap. I'm going to have that in my head all day. Thanks for the reminder- I need to watch that again.

+++


Yes, I'd kill the baby in this thought experiment (perhaps not as it's written but as it's meant in spirit). It's the same answer I had when my philosophy prof asked it many moons ago. Back then I was the only one in the room who said kill the baby. I've never had twenty people all look at me like I was eating a puppy while weeing on the Bible...it was novel.

 

[Canned Spam]

So my choices are killing a baby or having everyone (including the baby) die. Hmmm.

 

[the spud]

It seems to me like this topic was made a while ago, and that the scenario was the same, even down to the wording.

OT: I don't know. That's all I can say.

You are the second person to say that.

I did a search, but you know how finicky the bar can be.

If it has been done before, I am sorry.

I was inspired to do this thread from a program on the discovery channel, so that might be what you are thinking of.

 

[squeekenator]

Yes. Twenty lives are worth more than one. Anyone who refuses to on the basis that "I couldn't" or "I'd feel terrible about it" is frankly being cowardly and selfish by valuing their own peace of mind over the lives of nineteen people. I may end up being tormented by my guilty conscience for the rest of my life about my decision to kill the baby, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

EDIT: Also, while I'm having my little tirade, everyone saying "lulz i would just make it stop crying/kill the bad guys and save everyone lol" is contributing nothing to the discussion and shouldn't bother posting.

 

[Rabish Bini]

If the twenty people were all people who I did not know, and I did not have to watch them die, and I am not part of the 20 people, then there's no chance I'd kill an infant myself.

Otherwise, yes, I'll just have to learn to deal with it.

 

[Faux Furry]

There's another way to look at this query from a detached perspective. Would you rather save a stack of blank sheets of paper or a personal library full of books and drawings, some of which are hackwork while others are boilerplate standard fare while fewer still are outright masterpieces when someone needs to burn something for heat for one night while utilities are down in the middle of winter.

True, upon those blank sheets the greatest works of art and literature may someday be rendered but then again, they may be used for missives containing hate speech, tracings of other great works, vapid doodles or even be used as toilet paper when someone forgets to buy some from the store. It would be nice if it got the chance to be used for greatness but it is worse to lose the product of much hard labor than potential greatness.

Add-On:Oh, and more importantly, everything is lost anyway if the infant doesn't die, wise men and women slaughtered along with the fools all because of someone who was too self-absorbed to stop whining about his/her wants or needs for a moment drew danger to their doorsteps, so the choice is practically made for oneself if one is actually in that kind of grave situation rather than thinking about it in a generally safe environment.

 

[Galliam]

This isn't logical vs emotional.

In my mind it's logical to assume that living among a society that would oust one member deemed minor in order to elevate the majority is the mob rule evil which I could not accept.

THIS. I'd take my chances trying to quiet the baby down, and I'd stop anybody attempting to harm the child.