moral question

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all, why? Why is it much more reprehensible to do the one and not the other?

Because when the positive consequence and the negative one both come from one act, the positive can be used to justify the negative. When they're separate acts, the negative stands on its own.

You asked me if I think intent matters. Well if I had the intent to target and kill babies because those babies would then go straight to heaven, isn't that much more good than accidentally killing a baby (or several thousand babies) by carpet bombing a city?

That depends on what the carpet bombing accomplishes (and also what alternatives are available to you besides carpet bombing - I'm assuming this is a WWII-era scenario where you don't have access to things like laser-guided bombs that would let you take out your target without destroying the entire city).

And yes, I think that the logical conclusion of some versions of Abrahamic faith is that mass slaughter of infants would be a good thing... I'm just glad that people don't generally take their faith to this logical conclusion.

 

[tarasan]

Killing babies: right or wrong?

that depends how much worth are we attributing to the babies?

 

[tarasan]

by that i mean do they have infinate worth? or just very high worth?

or no worth?

 

[Nooj]

If you think that babies could be killed without fault, then you shouldn't attack the Bible on the grounds that killing babies is wrong. You should argue that killing babies was wrong in this particular scenario for some other reason.

Of course, if you believe that killing babies is wrong 100% of the time, and condemn killing babies regardless of the intention or consequence, you'll probably have an easier time.

I would think that sort of intention would fall under a mental illness or brainwashing, and thus, would not be a good yardstick to measure by.

So intention doesn't matter? Or only certain sorts of intention determine whether an action is right or not?

When they're separate acts, the negative stands on its own.

I don't understand...

If you carpet bomb a city, the positive consequence (destroying industry/military etc) and the negative consequence (killing babies) go hand in hand.

 

[painted wolf]

That's an interesting point. However, while it may be argued, at least in that case killing babies was not the goal of the bombing.

It may not be the goal... but it's accepted, calculated and glossed over. In the case of Dresden and Tokyo it was even helpful for breaking the spirits of the populace.

In the OT, Hebrews at one point killed everyone but the baby boys, and God sent them back specifically to kill the babies. So that seems to me completely indefensible.

They killed everyone else... is it more humane to leave the baby boys to die slowly?

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand...

If you carpet bomb a city, the positive consequence (destroying industry/military etc) and the negative consequence (killing babies) go hand in hand.

Yes. I was thinking of the Biblical example that's been talked about here, where the army vanquishes an enemy and then is commanded by God to slaughter all the infants. I was comparing the two cases.

Basically, my point is that in the Biblical examples we're talking about, the deaths of the infants aren't "collateral damage".

 

[painted wolf]

What do you mean "there is no moral answer to the question"??? It's wrong to kill babies. End of story. Whether we do it or not has no impact upon the matter. It's wrong when we do it too.

If it's always wrong than we should never fight in any wars, unless doing so would stop other people killing babies.... but then we will end up killing a few babies ourselves trying to stop people killing babies....

The reason there is no moral answer, is because morality isn't a black and white issue.

If killing babies is always evil, then we were just as evil as the Nazis during WWII.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's always wrong than we should never fight in any wars, unless doing so would stop other people killing babies.... but then we will end up killing a few babies ourselves trying to stop people killing babies....

The reason there is no moral answer, is because morality isn't a black and white issue.

If killing babies is always evil, then we were just as evil as the Nazis during WWII.

If killing babies is always evil, then we're morally obligated to choose the course of action that results in the fewest babies being killed. This won't always be inaction or pacifism. It might even mean that our own actions directly kill babies as a result of attempts to prevent other babies from being killed.

 

[painted wolf]

If killing babies is always evil, then we're morally obligated to choose the course of action that results in the fewest babies being killed. This won't always be inaction or pacifism. It might even mean that our own actions directly kill babies as a result of attempts to prevent other babies from being killed.

Which is why morality is not black and white... and why this subject is a trap.

If you say killing babies is ok, you are a monster by admission.. but if you say it's never ok, then you are a monster by omission.

wa:do

ps. I totally agree we are morally obliged to take the action that reduces the most suffering possible.

 

[Autodidact]

So killing babies isn't wrong if they are collateral damage.

I'm not making any argument that is right--or wrong. What I'm saying is that deliberately murdering them is clearly wrong, and only a Christian would have trouble seeing that.

 

[Autodidact]

I thought the thread was about whether it was right or wrong to kill babies.

Yes, it's about whether it is right or wrong to deliberately, not as an effect of anything else, directly, slaughter a human infant, not an embryo. Some people would like it to be about anything but that.

But I can draw it back to the OP. Some people might say that there are circumstances in which killing babies is right, for example killing one baby to save the life of a thousand other people. If so, maybe the killing of babies described in the Bible is right because of extenuating circumstances.

Not according to the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

I thought the thread was about whether it was right or wrong to kill babies.

But I can draw it back to the OP. Some people might say that there are circumstances in which killing babies is right, for example killing one baby to save the life of a thousand other people. If so, maybe the killing of babies described in the Bible is right because of extenuating circumstances.

Are you one of those people?

 

[Autodidact]

that depends how much worth are we attributing to the babies?

How much worth do you attribute to human infants? Are they all worth the same, or are some worth more than others to you?

 

[painted wolf]

How much worth do you attribute to human infants? Are they all worth the same, or are some worth more than others to you?

From a cold biological level... yes.

Do you honestly value starving children in Bangladesh as much as your own kin? If so, why aren't you there feeding them?

We are all hypocrites. It's our biology. Trying to make one group out to be more so than yourself only proves the monkeysphere true.

wa:do

ps. dropping a weapon of mass destruction is a very deliberate act.

 

[Autodidact]

If you think that babies could be killed without fault,

I don't think there is any circumstance in which it is morally right to deliberately kill a baby.

then you shouldn't attack the Bible on the grounds that killing babies is wrong. You should argue that killing babies was wrong in this particular scenario for some other reason.

No, I argue that killing babies, in and of itself, is wrong.

Of course, if you believe that killing babies is wrong 100% of the time, and condemn killing babies regardless of the intention or consequence, you'll probably have an easier time.

I don't have to deal with every circumstance, unless you are asserting that the Biblical instances are one of those circumstances?

Although, truth to tell, I really can't think of a circumstance where it would be right, can you?

So intention doesn't matter? Or only certain sorts of intention determine whether an action is right or not?

Of course intention matters. If I happen to be late for the bus, causing the bus to pause a minute for me to get on, and as a result the bus is in the exact spot to hit a toddler that runs into the street, and kills it, I am not morally culpable, or certainly not as morally culpable as if I take out a sword, walk up to a sleeping baby, and stab it to death. I would think that would be obvious.

If you carpet bomb a city, the positive consequence (destroying industry/military etc) and the negative consequence (killing babies) go hand in hand.

There are no carpet bombs in the Old Testament.

In a particular incident, the Hebrews kill everyone, except the babies. God gets very angry at them, and commands them to go back and kill the boy babies, but keep the girl babies for themselves. In my view I cannot think of a more immoral action.

So my question is, is it suddenly moral just because God commands it?

 

[Autodidact]

They killed everyone else... is it more humane to leave the baby boys to die slowly?
wa:do

First, they didn't. They were directed to take all the virgin women and children prisoners.

Second, if you really think hard, can you think of any other solution to the problem of an orphan, other than killing it?

 

[Autodidact]

Which is why morality is not black and white... and why this subject is a trap.

If you say killing babies is ok, you are a monster by admission.. but if you say it's never ok, then you are a monster by omission.

wa:do

ps. I totally agree we are morally obliged to take the action that reduces the most suffering possible.

Could it possibly usually be wrong, and rarely ok? For example, after having killed all the men and most of the women, and taken the rest of the females prisoner, could it possibly be moral to deliberately stab the baby boys to death?

 

[waitasec]

How much worth do you attribute to human infants? Are they all worth the same, or are some worth more than others to you?

american babies are worth more i would imagine...:sarcastic

 

[painted wolf]

First, they didn't. They were directed to take all the virgin women and children prisoners.

Second, if you really think hard, can you think of any other solution to the problem of an orphan, other than killing it?

Not if you don't want them to contribute to your gene pool. Or to grow up wanting revenge.

Given the time period, technology and so on... orphanages are not a likely option.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Could it possibly usually be wrong, and rarely ok? For example, after having killed all the men and most of the women, and taken the rest of the females prisoner, could it possibly be moral to deliberately stab the baby boys to death?

Is it more moral leaving them to the desert elements to die slowly?

wa:do