Would you kill a baby to save your life? / Circumstances?

[ATAT]

NOT FOR THE FEINT OF HEART.

DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE, PREGNANT, ELDERLY, HAVE A HEART CONDITION, USE A PACEMAKER, OR ARE UNDER 42 INCHES TALL. PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AT ALL TIMES. PLACE ALL LOOSE ARTICLES IN THE BINS AT RIGHT. SEAT BELTS MUST BE FASTENED.



Under what circumstances would you kill a baby?

Suggested cases:


1. Rebel troops are murdering everyone in sight. Twenty civilians are hiding under the floor. A child begins to make noises. The only way to stop the noise is to kill the child.

2. Child is running toward soldiers with a grenade taped to his hands.

3. Child has a highly infectious disease, Incurable, lethal disease, on a boat with other children at Sea, rescue is days away.

4. Child soldier is holding a gun on another child. You could snipe the gun holder in the head from 100 yards away.

5. Adolph Hitler is in your scope rifle. You know this afternoon he will give the order for the Holocaust. The SS has just spotted you and are turning to shoot you, you have moments. Hitler picks up a child, the child blocks your view, but your powerful rifle could shoot through the child, killing Hitler, and you could get away.

5b. Adolph is in a school building with 500 children, your only chance, press the detonator and kill them all or let him live, last chance.

6a. Six children are about to die. The only way to discover the cure is to kill one and look inside his brain / heart, etc. Guarantee of success for the other five is 100%. Certainly they will otherwise die is 100% / 6b. 90%

6c. Which would you rather a doctor in another country chose for your 6 children?
6d. What if you only found out about it after the fact, and the news of the decision of the doctor is in an envelope on your desk. Would you want to open the letter and find that all 6 of your children were left to die, or that the doctor murdered one child and saved 5?
6e. same as 6d, but now you're the doctor, the children are yours, and you have to make the decision in four hours. This is, in effect, 6a again.



7. Child soldier abused, now marching with the enemy in the distance, ready to kill the good guys.

8. An ignorant child is holding at gun and will shoot the leg (not fatally) of another child. You can only stop the loss of the leg by killing the gun holder.

Please include whether or not religion plays a role in your answers, and thanks to those who answer.

These questions do not come up by the rich (I don't mean money), but they do come up in extreme circumstances. It is my belief that if we think about these questions in advance, we are more prepared to make the better choices under short time and high pressure, and have greater insight for when the choices are less balanced. For instance, many men in Africa with AIDs rape young children as a means to cure themselves of AIDs. Child soldiers are taboo, until a certain point, then they become more acceptable morally.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

2, 3, and 4 I could see myself doing, but I would never be the same after killing them. Though I'll probably for the rest of my life each day beg God's forgiveness for killing them.

 

[dmgdnooc]

No, to all your scenarios. Because I am a Christian, I would rather be killed than kill.
　
There is no need to invent scenarios, take some from real life.
　
1. Would you allow child slavery if it meant that your sneakers, or computer, or whatever, cost $5 less?
2. Would you poison an entire population on the chance that your enemy would be poisoned too?
3. Would you feed your cattle grain and deny a starving person a piece of bread?
4. Would you ignite the first nuclear weapon if there was a chance that the uncontrolled chain reaction would burn off the Earth's atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet?
5. Would you take from the poor to give to the rich?
　
Just being alive presents enough moral dilemmas to bust any head.

 

[ATAT]

2, 3, and 4 I could see myself doing, but I would never be the same after killing them. Though I'll probably for the rest of my life each day beg God's forgiveness for killing them.

Huge thanks for your answer!

 

[ATAT]

No, to all your scenarios. Because I am a Christian, I would rather be killed than kill.
　
There is no need to invent scenarios, take some from real life.
　
1. Would you allow child slavery if it meant that your sneakers, or computer, or whatever, cost $5 less?
2. Would you poison an entire population on the chance that your enemy would be poisoned too?
3. Would you feed your cattle grain and deny a starving person a piece of bread?
4. Would you ignite the first nuclear weapon if there was a chance that the uncontrolled chain reaction would burn off the Earth's atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet?
5. Would you take from the poor to give to the rich?
　
Just being alive presents enough moral dilemmas to bust any head.

So Christians should not fight in wars at all?

What if the war is against Hitler and he's throwing unsaved Christian babies into the flames?

1. Define 'allow'. I would vote for a law banning goods from countries where products are made at wages below ours and by children. ... except, what if the children needed the job to feed themselves? I fed myself with my job from age 10. Seriously. I really did. I'd have been hungry if I didn't have my little job. No kidding. Not all child work is 'slavery'. Of course, it depends on the depth / how bad is it and what are the alternatives for the children? Starvation?

2. We bombed Hiroshima, Berlin, so, I wouldn't poison an entire population if I had an alternative way of defending myself. We were attacked first, they would have enslaved us or just flat out Holocausted us. So, morally, it was the right thing to do, my grandfather bombed the daylights out of Germany, I'm sure it meant 'innocent' people - who were really innocent - died. My grandfather was a hero for killing innocent Germans... because he wasn't aiming for them, he aimed for the factories and war machines and soldiers, etc. So, yes, I'd even push the button. And I'd try to enjoy it, so that I wouldn't hesitate in the future and I wouldn't be a bad example for our children who may need to kill monotheistic extremists from parts of the world which hate us and are making nuclear weapons today to kill us all in the West.

3. Why are they starving? If the starving person is on my doorstep, I'd call social services and he'd be fed.
If they are in war - torn Ethiopia, then he's starving because his third cousins are driving around in jeeps shooting at food workers as a means to rule politically through starving people. If because the starving person was lazy, drunk, or whatever, and lived in our society, then, if we have the money, we should provide them with an uncomfortable but living food supply. If the person was retarded or handicapped or blind, I'd vote for them to get much more. I'd have to fine tune this answer, but that's the gist.

4. I don't know. The question came up, but the likelihood was considered very remote and it wasn't deep theory. The question comes up again with the super-colliders and I think you have a point, I think we shouldn't. After all, what exactly causes a start to go pulsar or super-nova? Is it that life gets to this point and blows themselves up? That would explain the silence from outer-space, all life blows itself up the moment they push the button on some experiment some day.

Even trying it on the moon might not be safe enough, but good luck stopping them...

Good point.

5. Would I take from the poor to give to the rich?

Hmmmm... In the zoo and nature, the lions eat the rabbits. There's an interesting Radio Lab where parents approved of 'live feedings' where rabbits were let loose and were caught and eaten. On some level, we're all predators, we all eat lower forms of life and grow fat, rather than using chlorophyll...

I think we take from the poor all the time, but only if they hand it over to us for goods in exchange. I'd prefer not to raid a village like a Viking invader, taking food they saved up for and gold from their Churches, but, we have to think about it from the Viking's perspective.

Reverse Robin Hood? I can't see myself just stealing from the poor when my fridge is full of ice cream, so, in that case, no.

But if the 'poor' were rich, like the Christians in France and my Viking village is starving on a bed of ice 4 months a year?

Well, with my Harvard education today, I'd tell myself to become educated by the French and learn to move to more fertile ground, use the scientific method as a whole culture and grow my own food.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: By J Diamond to the contrary.


Thank you for your great reply!

 

[Wissenssteigung]

1. Rebel troops are murdering everyone in sight. Twenty civilians are hiding under the floor. A child begins to make noises. The only way to stop the noise is to kill the child.

Difficult to answer because killing the child may result in other people making noise and the rebel soldiers find them. Assuming that others will not make noise at the child's death, and killing the child guarantees or gives a near 100% chance of survival, then yes.

2. Child is running toward soldiers with a grenade taped to his hands.

I wouldn't kill because the child would likely die, either by grenade exploding or soldiers shoot to save themselves.

3. Child has a highly infectious disease, Incurable, lethal disease, on a boat with other children at Sea, rescue is days away.

I would kill but wouldn't be able to live with my decision for some time.

4. Child soldier is holding a gun on another child. You could snipe the gun holder in the head from 100 yards away.

I would kill because the child soldier is likely to kill others or has already killed others. They probably couldn't be negotiated with successfully.

5. Adolph Hitler is in your scope rifle. You know this afternoon he will give the order for the Holocaust. The SS has just spotted you and are turning to shoot you, you have moments. Hitler picks up a child, the child blocks your view, but your powerful rifle could shoot through the child, killing Hitler, and you could get away.

I would not kill. Others close to Hitler (emotionally and mentally) would carry out his plans because everything would already be set up.

5b. Adolph is in a school building with 500 children, your only chance, press the detonator and kill them all or let him live, last chance.

Logically, it may lead to fewer deaths than the Holocaust but I'd be unsure if I could press the detonator and live with the consequences.

6a. Six children are about to die. The only way to discover the cure is to kill one and look inside his brain / heart, etc. Guarantee of success for the other five is 100%. Certainly they will otherwise die is 100% / 6b. 90%

Since there is a guarantee, then I would. The illness may also spread to other people so I would know the cure when they are affected also.

6c. Which would you rather a doctor in another country chose for your 6 children?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking if 6 of my children would be killed by a doctor for the purpose of generating a cure? If so, I would not kill them.

6d. What if you only found out about it after the fact, and the news of the decision of the doctor is in an envelope on your desk. Would you want to open the letter and find that all 6 of your children were left to die, or that the doctor murdered one child and saved 5?

Before the incident, if I would love my children a lot, then I would open the envelope to see whether 5 of mine lived. Either outcome would be hurtful because at least one child is dead but I would take the hit in the hope that if 5 are alive, I could be with them and not ignore their existence.

6e. same as 6d, but now you're the doctor, the children are yours, and you have to make the decision in four hours. This is, in effect, 6a again.

I would because the cure would not only save the remaining children but others as well. I believe losing one would be less hurtful than losing all.

7. Child soldier abused, now marching with the enemy in the distance, ready to kill the good guys.

I would not kill because the child soldier would be killed by the "good guys". My goal would be to help the child but that is not possible in this case.

8. An ignorant child is holding at gun and will shoot the leg (not fatally) of another child. You can only stop the loss of the leg by killing the gun holder.

I would not kill because the non-fatal shot allows for both children to live. The wounded child could still live, although their life would be changed, they could still live.

Please include whether or not religion plays a role in your answers, and thanks to those who answer.

Religion does not play a role because even if I truly believed in a higher being, I would try to help others as best as possible despite any emotional harm I would take. I would be the one doing the killing, not the higher being so I would try to decide on my own terms as best as possible.

1. Would you allow child slavery if it meant that your sneakers, or computer, or whatever, cost $5 less?

I would not allow child slavery and the impact of $5 is something I could live with, both financially and morally. Preventing child slavery is worth well more than $5 to me.

2. Would you poison an entire population on the chance that your enemy would be poisoned too?

I would try to find alternative ways that does not affect the innocent population as much. However, if I could not, I'd assess how much of the enemy population would likely be killed. If a good amount would be, then yes I would.

3. Would you feed your cattle grain and deny a starving person a piece of bread?

Depends why they're starving and if I could assist them in other ways. The question is too vague.

4. Would you ignite the first nuclear weapon if there was a chance that the uncontrolled chain reaction would burn off the Earth's atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet?

In theory, chances are low of destroying the atmosphere. Depends why I as lighting the first weapon. If it were to prevent/kill a large enemy population, then

5. Would you take from the poor to give to the rich?

I cant answer because it depends how much I'm taking and why I'm taking, and I don't feel like writing out paragraphs of possibilities.

 

[Rakhel]

As much as it pains me, a mother of 5, to say this, the answer is yes, I would.
These are not made up scenarios. These things have and continue to happen around the world

 

[Mister Emu]

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
5a. No
5b. No
6a. No
6b. No
6c. No
6d. Yes, I like to know things
6e. No
7. Yes
8. No

My religion plays a huge part in informing my morality, and my morality informs my decision, so I guess that my religion plays a pretty big role in my answers.

And of course I'm saying all of this from my computer chair, and not in a position to have to put it to the test.

You cannot murder an innocent to save lives.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I don't make rules or regulations for another's conscience.
I would not kill, even Hitler or Osama, though I would be sorely tempted.
Seems to me that a Christian should suffer evil but refrain from doing evil.
　
1. OK, allow does have a range of meanings, some not applicable to living under the rule of a Government.
Let's say instead 'take a profit from' whether by being a shareholder in a corporation that has outsourcing practices that encourage virtual slavery or by pocketing the saving and not making a compensating donation to a charity that is equal to the reduced cost of the particular product of slavery that you've bought.
　
2. I was thinking of the use of defoliant poisons in Vietnam. The Vietnamese still suffer the effects of being mass poisoned.
　
3. Doesn't matter why they are starving. Not to me. But I do agree with a graded response based on circumstance.
The circumstance governing the point is that the Earth produces enough grain to more than feed the entire population but the West's addiction to meat requires that a vast proportion of that grain be transformed into animal poop.
　
4. The decision to detonate the first bomb, imo, was an illustration of monumental irresponsibility. Dropping it even more so.
　
5. We are all (on some level) predators, but lions don't prey on lions.
The Vikings didn''t come south because of hunger, the North Sea was super-abundant with fish, their farming techniques were more than adequate to comfortably feed their population and their trade networks supplied all other needs.
They came south to murder, rape and pillage because their wants far outstripped their needs.
Normandy (Northmandomain) England, large tracts of Europe even as far south as Scicily were conquered and enslaved, the name Russia (Rusland) commemorates a Northman tribe.
I think that your chosen example favours the 'no' side of this scenario, and it appears that they anticipated (or would have taken) your advice, he says with a lol.
　
Cheers
nooc

 

[Father Heathen]

9. You're in a movie theater, and for some reason another movie goer brought their baby in with them, which begins to cry very loudly and obnoxiously, ruining your movie viewing experience, which you paid good money for.

 

[dmgdnooc]

9. You're in a movie theater, and for some reason another movie goer brought their baby in with them, which begins to cry very loudly and obnoxiously, ruining your movie viewing experience, which you paid good money for.

As Shepherd Book observed.
'There is a special place in Hell, reserved for child-molesters and those who speak at the theatre.'
Your point is well taken, because he never mentioned what would happen if a child was the one disturbing the spectacle.

 

[Smoke]

　
There is no need to invent scenarios, take some from real life.
　
1. Would you allow child slavery if it meant that your sneakers, or computer, or whatever, cost $5 less?
2. Would you poison an entire population on the chance that your enemy would be poisoned too?
3. Would you feed your cattle grain and deny a starving person a piece of bread?
4. Would you ignite the first nuclear weapon if there was a chance that the uncontrolled chain reaction would burn off the Earth's atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet?
5. Would you take from the poor to give to the rich?

Are you trying to complicate our ethical discussions with reality?

What if the war is against Hitler and he's throwing unsaved Christian babies into the flames?

Unsaved Christian Babies would be an excellent name for a rock band.

 

[ATAT]

As for the next noisy child in the movie theatre, I would not kill the child.
That's what I promised the parole board.

Unsaved Christian Babies = rock band, lol!

{I wrote 'unsaved Christian babies' because I didn't want to say 'unsaved babies' in the Holocaust, because that could be read that I think that Christian babies would go to heaven... as opposed to the Jewish babies... I don't think one baby is any different than the other, so I wrote unsaved babies of Christians. I wrote 'unsaved' because the motivation of Christians answering this question could be biased toward whether someone is 'saved' or not, and I wanted them to really worry about those dead babies, you know, the band that plays after Unsaved Christians. I don't mean 'biased' good or bad or blinding, I mean 'biased' in the legitimate use of the word, there's nothing wrong with being 'biased', so long as you are careful in how you got that way. I'm 'biased' towards the scientific method, properly so.}


Does anyone have a good CONCISE paragraph from Kant on this? He's the one who said you should not lie, even if the murderer is asking where the victim is hiding, right?

Aren't a lot of Catholic morals based on his thinking?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We make choices every day most not as serious as the scenario you set up.
Most decisions are made on balance of benefit.

The cases you give are no different ( except for the unrealistic ones)
Religion does not come into it. except that it helps in establishing, in some cases, what that balance ( Good/Evil) should be.

The whole scene indicates that sins...choices...commandments .... can never be absolute.

You make your own choice in these situations... and if you are religious you leave your own fate in the hands of God to decide.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wouldn't kill a child for any reason.

But you never know - it does seem reasonable to kill a child to save many lives. But for now, I would say that the child's life is more precious than anything.

 

[sojourner]

9. You're in a movie theater, and for some reason another movie goer brought their baby in with them, which begins to cry very loudly and obnoxiously, ruining your movie viewing experience, which you paid good money for.

I've done that! (Don't tell anybody!)

This little kid was totally ruining Napoleon Dynamite for me, so I used my ninja skills...

opcorn:

 

[sojourner]

Unsaved Christian Babies would be an excellent name for a rock band.

I love it!

:ymca::guitar1::jam::band:unk::drums:

 

[sojourner]

Unsaved Christian Babies would be an excellent name for a rock band.

Can't... frubal... you... yet...
must... try... harder...
gotta... frubal... Smoke...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Unsaved Christian Babes

 

[sojourner]

NOT FOR THE FEINT OF HEART.

DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE, PREGNANT, ELDERLY, HAVE A HEART CONDITION, USE A PACEMAKER, OR ARE UNDER 42 INCHES TALL. PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AT ALL TIMES. PLACE ALL LOOSE ARTICLES IN THE BINS AT RIGHT. SEAT BELTS MUST BE FASTENED.



Under what circumstances would you kill a baby?

Suggested cases:


1. Rebel troops are murdering everyone in sight. Twenty civilians are hiding under the floor. A child begins to make noises. The only way to stop the noise is to kill the child.

2. Child is running toward soldiers with a grenade taped to his hands.

3. Child has a highly infectious disease, Incurable, lethal disease, on a boat with other children at Sea, rescue is days away.

4. Child soldier is holding a gun on another child. You could snipe the gun holder in the head from 100 yards away.

5. Adolph Hitler is in your scope rifle. You know this afternoon he will give the order for the Holocaust. The SS has just spotted you and are turning to shoot you, you have moments. Hitler picks up a child, the child blocks your view, but your powerful rifle could shoot through the child, killing Hitler, and you could get away.

5b. Adolph is in a school building with 500 children, your only chance, press the detonator and kill them all or let him live, last chance.

6a. Six children are about to die. The only way to discover the cure is to kill one and look inside his brain / heart, etc. Guarantee of success for the other five is 100%. Certainly they will otherwise die is 100% / 6b. 90%

6c. Which would you rather a doctor in another country chose for your 6 children?
6d. What if you only found out about it after the fact, and the news of the decision of the doctor is in an envelope on your desk. Would you want to open the letter and find that all 6 of your children were left to die, or that the doctor murdered one child and saved 5?
6e. same as 6d, but now you're the doctor, the children are yours, and you have to make the decision in four hours. This is, in effect, 6a again.



7. Child soldier abused, now marching with the enemy in the distance, ready to kill the good guys.

8. An ignorant child is holding at gun and will shoot the leg (not fatally) of another child. You can only stop the loss of the leg by killing the gun holder.

Please include whether or not religion plays a role in your answers, and thanks to those who answer.

These questions do not come up by the rich (I don't mean money), but they do come up in extreme circumstances. It is my belief that if we think about these questions in advance, we are more prepared to make the better choices under short time and high pressure, and have greater insight for when the choices are less balanced. For instance, many men in Africa with AIDs rape young children as a means to cure themselves of AIDs. Child soldiers are taboo, until a certain point, then they become more acceptable morally.

You forgot "secure your tray tables and make sure your seat is in its upright, locked position."