The moral issues of killing

[Jonluw]

Hiya escapists.

So I've spent some time thinking of killing.

I am no proponent of infanticide. If forced to choose, I'd rather kill a random grown person than a random child.
I am not the type to let my ethics be dictated by emotions, so I've been working on trying to understand why it is, logically, that it is better to kill an adult than a child.
The one logical reason I've arrived on is potential.
A child yet has potential to become a great person, contributing much to humanity, and live a fulfilling life, while most adults will already be living thoroughly mediocre lives, plus they have already gotten to experience a great deal of life, so I'm not taking away their potential to experience life in the first place, as I would to a child if I killed it. I believe it better to let two babies live half a lifetime each, than for one of them to live an entire lifetime at the cost of the other's life.

I consider this view to be consistent with my view that I'd rather kill a newborn child than a person who is currently doing something great for humanity as well.
So it seems that this logical basis for my ethics works well.

However, if I value life on the sole factor of potential, I should really be against abortion.
Which I'm not.
Moral code inconsistencies. Ouch.

An fetus has just as much potential as a newborn child, but still I'd rather terminate a pregnancy (given it isn't somwhere around the 7th month or later) than kill a grown person.

I've been trying to work out why it is I think like this. Am I simply biologically wired to value newborns over most every other life, this being what my ethics in truth are based on?
After all, in natural conditions, a newborn is worth more than a fetus, since pregnancies are risky and it's not even certain the mother will be able to carry the fetus to term. A newborn represents this risk overcome, and as such, working hard to preserve its life is far more reasonable than thinking "oh I can just make another one anyways".

I've also tried a different angle: seeing as a fetus's brain isn't highly developed, killing it isn't much worse than killing a fish or a similar low-standing animal.
But if I am valuing the lives of humans based on the stage of development their brain is in, I should more readily kill an infant than an adult.
The only somewhat satisfying answer I've been able to come up with is that I logically value life on the basis of both potential and brain development.

Spoiler: I made a rough chart to clarify what I mean

[small]Positive scale markers missing, because drawing arrows is hard.[/small]
The graphs may not be to scale in relation to one another.

So what do you think, escapists? How do you determine what human lives, on a general basis, are worth more?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is me after reading this. Disregard the monkey.

Spoiler

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Who are you to determine whether someone's potential, or lack thereof, means they should have their lives taken away?

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

 

[Jonluw]

Who are you to determine whether someone's potential, or lack thereof, means they should have their lives taken away?

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

I'm not saying anyone deserves to have their life taken away.
I'm just saying that if some cartoonish villain dangles a toddler and some random dude over a cliff and I can only save one, I'd go for the toddler. And this has some unfortunate implications regarding the internal coherency of my moral code, concerning abortion specifically.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Who are you to determine whether someone's potential, or lack thereof, means they should have their lives taken away?

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

I'm not saying anyone deserves to have their life taken away.
I'm just saying that if some cartoonish villain dangles a toddler and some random dude over a cliff and I can only save one, I'd go for the toddler.

The potential for something great doesn't outright invalidate the life of an adult.

Who will unleash said potential of the infant? The parents who, while very loving parents, live very mediocre lives? The older brother, whilst a terrible academic himself, spurs the younger child towards greater things?


Those with the 'potential' to do great things, are propped up by the mediocre.

 

[Jonluw]

Who are you to determine whether someone's potential, or lack thereof, means they should have their lives taken away?

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

I'm not saying anyone deserves to have their life taken away.
I'm just saying that if some cartoonish villain dangles a toddler and some random dude over a cliff and I can only save one, I'd go for the toddler.

The potential for something great doesn't outright invalidate the life of an adult.

Who will unleash said potential of the infant? The parents who, while very loving parents, live very mediocre lives? The older brother, whilst a terrible academic himself, spurs the younger child towards greater things?


Those with the 'potential' to do great things, are propped up by the mediocre.

But potential that is not there in the adult is still present in the child.
A given child carries a larger likelihood of doing something good with its life than a given adult, I figure.
Which is why I would rather see an adult die than an infant.

Surely, most people agree that if they were forced to choose between a random adult dying and a random child dying, they'd choose the adult?

 

[Rawne1980]

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

I'll fetch my shotgun.....

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Who are you to determine whether someone's potential, or lack thereof, means they should have their lives taken away?

I'm a thoroughly mediocre student, I have a boring job. As far as contributions to society go, I have taken more than I have given.

Do I deserve to die?

I'm not saying anyone deserves to have their life taken away.
I'm just saying that if some cartoonish villain dangles a toddler and some random dude over a cliff and I can only save one, I'd go for the toddler.

The potential for something great doesn't outright invalidate the life of an adult.

Who will unleash said potential of the infant? The parents who, while very loving parents, live very mediocre lives? The older brother, whilst a terrible academic himself, spurs the younger child towards greater things?


Those with the 'potential' to do great things, are propped up by the mediocre.

But potential that is not there in the adult is still present in the child.
A given child carries a larger likelihood of doing something good with its life than a given adult, I figure.
Which is why I would rather see an adult die than an infant.

Surely, most people agree that if they were forced to choose between a random adult dying and a random child dying, they'd choose the adult?

That really depends. If it were my fiancée or some random kid, I'd save my fiancée.

If it were two strangers, I'd save the kid, but it would be nothing to do with the philosophy of whether that kid has the potential to do more than the adult.

 

[Jonluw]

That really depends. If it were my fiancée or some random kid, I'd save my fiancée.

If it were two strangers, I'd save the kid, but it would be nothing to do with the philosophy of whether that kid has the potential to do more than the adult.

As I said: Random adult (stranger), random child (stranger).

Then why would you save the child?

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't think potential is a valid guide. Everyone has potential. A 40 year old plumber might decide to dedicate the rest of his life to science and discover a cure for AIDS or cancer or something. It's not likely, but it's about as likely as any one random child growing up to achieve anything exceptional.

Anyway, I don't give a shit about children. Until the age of at least 4 they're worth no more than your average farm animal. I would say an infant's life is worth less than an adult's life.

On the whole though I prefer not to pass value judgements on other lives. Given one of those silly 'train track' thought experiments, where you can choose to divert the train killing one person but saving five, I would choose not to act. This is mostly to preserve my conscience. I don't care who or what dies as long as I can remove myself from the situation and avoid personal responsibility.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

That really depends. If it were my fiancée or some random kid, I'd save my fiancée.

If it were two strangers, I'd save the kid, but it would be nothing to do with the philosophy of whether that kid has the potential to do more than the adult.

As I said: Random adult (stranger), random child (stranger).

Then why would you save the child?

I'd sleep easier at night having saved the child.

 

[Hagi]

For me it's pretty simple.

The difference in an adult and child isn't just in potential but also in capability. An adult can reasonably be expected to take care of himself/herself, a child can not. Thus if given the choice one should save the child, it should not be expected to save itself.

The difference in a child and a fetus is in being sentient and sapient. A child is and a fetus is not. Until sufficient brain activity is present to reasonably assume the existence of a consciousness (on a basis of science) a fetus is essentially nothing more than a piece of tissue in the mother's body and has the same rights as any other organ. Removing a lung for example is certainly not something to be done lightly but if it's presence can reasonably be expected to prove a detriment to the person's life then there's nothing wrong with removing it, likewise for a fetus that's not yet achieved sentience.

 

[Lieju]

If you go by 'potential', should you also consider sperm cells and eggs worthy of the same protection? They have the potential to start life, after all.

A zygote has potential to become a human being, but it doesn't feel, or think.

You can't pinpoint at what stage of the pregnancy it is human enough, but at some point, like when it's already born, it can feel and think, but doesn't really make important choices.
So killing a child isn't justified the same way as killing someone who made the conscious choice to end up in a situation such as a war zone is.

if we are talking about something like a war, a three-year old doesn't understand enough to take sides, or to be a threat.

But I don't think potential is a very good reasoning.
After all, everyone is a potential killer. If I was put into a bad enough situation, I would probably kill, despite being a pacifist.
It doesn't mean I should be treated as a killer.

On the whole though I prefer not to pass value judgements on other lives. Given one of those silly 'train track' thought experiments, where you can choose to divert the train killing one person but saving five, I would choose not to act. This is mostly to preserve my conscience. I don't care who or what dies as long as I can remove myself from the situation and avoid personal responsibility.

But ignoring the situation is a choice you make.
Let's say you come across a car that has been crashed and hear a scream of help inside. Would you merely go 'not my problem!'? Because in that case you then become quilty of negligience. Want it or not, just by living in a society you are personally responsible for the society.

 

[Jonluw]

The difference in an adult and child isn't just in potential but also in capability. An adult can reasonably be expected to take care of himself/herself, a child can not. Thus if given the choice one should save the child, it should not be expected to save itself.

The situation I'm penning is one where the child and the adult are equals in all but accumulated lifetime though.

Imagine being strapped to a mechanism with a gun that will go off in ten seconds no matter what you do. The gun can be set to aim at a baby strapped down in front of you, or an adult strapped down next to it. The gun can only be moved between these to positions. Who receives the bullet?

The difference in a child and a fetus is in being sentient.

I'm sure you agree that a fetus at the end of the ninth month of pregnancy is as sentient as a newborn child, while a week-old lump of stem-cells is not sentient at all.
At what point during the pregnancy is sentience gained?
I think looking at sentience in this black and white way is a gross oversimplification. Sentience isn't binary, it's a spectrum; there's no magical point at which a fetus becomes sentient.

The way I see it, a fetus becomes a person/a mind the moment the first neuron fires. However, it is a very primitive being which I'd have no qualms about killing, if it wasn't for this whole issue with potential.
As time passes and both potential and complexity of mind increases, more and more justification will be needed for me to take the step to kill it.

I'd sleep easier at night having saved the child.

And why is that?
Because of the way your emotions react to the child?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The difference in an adult and child isn't just in potential but also in capability. An adult can reasonably be expected to take care of himself/herself, a child can not. Thus if given the choice one should save the child, it should not be expected to save itself.

The situation I'm penning is one where the child and the adult are equals in all but accumulated lifetime though.

Imagine being strapped to a mechanism with a gun that will go off in ten seconds no matter what you do. The gun can be set to aim at a baby strapped down in front of you, or an adult strapped down next to it. The gun can only be moved between these to positions. Who receives the bullet?

The difference in a child and a fetus is in being sentient.

I'm sure you agree that a fetus at the end of the ninth month of pregnancy is as sentient as a newborn child, while a week-old lump of stem-cells is not sentient at all.
At what point during the pregnancy is sentience gained?
I think looking at sentience in this black and white way is a gross oversimplification. Sentience isn't binary, it's a spectrum; there's no magical point at which a fetus becomes sentient.

The way I see it, a fetus becomes a person/a mind the moment the first neuron fires. However, it is a very primitive being which I'd have no qualms about killing, if it wasn't for this whole issue with potential.
As time passes and both potential and complexity of mind increases, more and more justification will be needed for me to take the step to kill it.

I'd sleep easier at night having saved the child.

And why is that?
Because of the way your emotions react to the child?

Children can't defend themselves.

You're average adult can.

 

[Uszi]

We talked about this a bit in a psychology class when I was at University, but people are usually fairly consistent at valuing the life of more "established" children than younger ones.

Anyway, the example in class is, lets say your on a sinking ship, the Titanic if you want. A young infant or an older child, (4, 5, 6) year old. But importantly, both of them are too young to help themselves in the situation. Due to whatever circumstance, you can only save one from the sinking ship. Which do you choose?

Turns out a majority of people pick the older child, which is interesting. It sounds horrible, I guess, but the explanation we got in class is that there are some evolutionary explanations, i.e. due to historical infant mortality rates and what not, the choice is between a child who has survived and a younger child who still may not, and also the older child represents more resources spent as a parent. That sort of stuff.

So, OP... from what I was taught, no. You are not biologically wired to value newborns over other life. You are biologically wired to be more protective of newborns than like, middle aged strangers. And that doesn't require any sort of logic. It's exactly why we think puppies and baby mammals with big heads and eyes and relatively small bodies are "cute." Were it not for this instinct, people might be killing puppies and keeping cock roaches as pets.

This is me after reading this. Disregard the monkey.

Spoiler

Impossible. The monkey was all I saw after the warning.

 

[Jonluw]

And why is that?
Because of the way your emotions react to the child?

Children can't defend themselves.

You're average adult can.

Not in the hypothetical I'm trying to put forward here.
It is absolutely guaranteed that you will be successful in killing the adult, and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

[Jonluw]

If you go by 'potential', should you also consider sperm cells and eggs worthy of the same protection? They have the potential to start life, after all..

The way I see it, a fetus is a mind which is developing; has something like an 80%(wild guess) chance of at some point becoming sapient, while genital cells are biological components capable of producing a mind.

Killing sperm is no more wrong than "breaking" amino acids.
Killing a fetus is killing a mind, albeit a very primitve one, but importantly a mind that will develop into a more complex one if given time.