Would you kill one child to save the world?

[Siva]

I'd do a lot of things if i had the time

 

[gotsmack]

at last, someone who understands.

If one does not have his morals, then what?


and shame, shame on all those who would destroy the innocent. and a child at that!





<< Is it really that of a coward? >>



only a coward would shield his own life with that of a child.

 

[gopunk]

No, it is a matter of morals.

no, it's not. you're killing people either way. there is no better "moral" choice.

 

[Freejack2]

It's from Star Trek but it makes a lot of sense. I don't remember the exact words but I think it's the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I wouldn't just up and kill the child without being sure. If there was a chance to save that child without risking the world I'd take it. If not... I wouldn't enjoy it but to save 6 billion people...

 

[djheater]

<< I'll et you know when the fate of the world hinges on one child's future, and I'm the only one with the power to make that decision.

I hate these ridiculously irrelevant hypothetical questions. >>



I agree. why does one need to challenge one's moral conscience on such a rediculous and savage hypothetical... Read a book for god's sake.

 

[gotsmack]

yea, but Spock CHOSE to give his life, it was not taken from him by someone else.

 

[datalink7]

<< No, it is a matter of morals.

no, it's not. you're killing people either way. there is no better "moral" choice. >>



I disagree. You aren't killing people by not killing the baby. The people are dying regardless. You are, on the other hand, choosing to kill an innocent child. No matter how justifiable the act might seem by the end it serves, murdering a baby is a wrongful doing.

If an action is morally bad in and of itself, it cannot serve a good end. An action which uses unjust means defeats the end it pretends to serve.

 

[Siva]

ok, i don't think anyone has mentioned this, but the child is gonna die without adults around anyway, so what's the point of not killing him/her. I say take the little bitch down, he's just gonna be a drain on society for the next 10 years of his life anyway.

 

[gotsmack]

you are truely my brother in arms. I salute you.

 

[veryape]

That's just a very stupid question, but some folks would consider my answer to be equally as foolish, but I don't. Here it is: I would gladly wipe out the whole middle east, including but not limited to men women and children, if of course it would save the planet. So not only would I be saving the planet but i'd also be ridding the world of warmongers and future warmongers. This is all theoretical of course, although truth be told i'd do it today without the threat of the earth imploding or whatever you said. Go ahead and flame away, as we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

What kind of question is that? Without a second thought, that kid would be on the disection table.

nik

 

[chuckieland]

i would say no
there is gotta be another way
and no matter how hard is it, we'll find a way out together
killing this one child is not acceptable
it may sound like a good trade, but it's not.
you are just taking a easy way out, and go straight to hell

Let's change the question around
let say Russia is going to launch all it's nuke around the world, unless we kill someone(you) on TV.
would you do it?
I would say no

 

[gopunk]

I disagree. You aren't killing people by not killing the baby. The people are dying regardless.

no, they are not dying regardless, they will live if you kill the child. how is that "regardless"?

whether you are "killing" the people or not is a semantical argument.

it simply comes down to 1 vs 6 billion.

how selfish are you, to deny the lives of 6 billion people just to fulfill your own desires to be "moral"?

 

[PliotronX]

<< Life, is my passion. >>


It looks like you're contradicting yourself here, Gotsmack. If you realize it, there are millions and millions of innocent children, and according to this question, would die if one child kept his/her life. It's a given that any one of us would do everything in our power to make absolutely sure that the deed must be done before commiting to it. But this branches out and conjures up several other questions such as how long do we have to decide and/or take action. So sticking to the hypothetical at hand, it should be a nobrainer to save humanity, all other aspects aside. If you want to get down to it, think of the kid's future had the rest of humanity perished. He or she would be alone. Would not be able to procreate. Would just die a lonely young & confused person. I think that's more cruel than saving his or her life and letting the rest of mankind being dead.

My .02

 

[Aquaman]

If only the blood is needed why kill the child........... just do a hell of a lot of blood donations Or one massive blood transfusion

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<<

<<

<< who are you to deny the existing lives of 6 billion others to meet the selfish ends of one? >>


i'll break it down for you:
6 billion people die versus 1 child dies
i would make that choice even if i were not involved (either i was going to live or die no matter what).
it's a matter of numbers. >>


No, it is a matter of morals. >>



If the human existence ends then that child will die anyway. You would rather see everyone die, including that child, then to willfully let one child die so the rest can survive? Basically you choose for the deaths of 6 billion people rather than the death of one. Guess that would make you a mass murderer.

Edit: Nice morals you have. I presume you vote conservative?

 

[gotsmack]

it could be seen as a contradictory statement, I give you that.

However, there is more to being alive then just existance.

I never said life was easy.





<< If the human existence ends then that child will die anyway. You would rather see everyone die, including that child, then to willfully let one child die so the rest can survive? Basically you choose for the deaths of 6 billion people rather than the death of one. Guess that would make you a mass murderer. >>



The child does not have to die. There are many things that can happen. Perhaps provisions are made for him/her to be happy, safe, warm, and well fed.

If you have to suck the poison out of a snake bite to save a person and do not that does not make you the killer.

Have you forgotten a little thing called personal freedoms?

 

[datalink7]

<< I disagree. You aren't killing people by not killing the baby. The people are dying regardless.

no, they are not dying regardless, they will live if you kill the child. how is that "regardless"?

whether you are "killing" the people or not is a semantical argument.

it simply comes down to 1 vs 6 billion.

how selfish are you, to deny the lives of 6 billion people just to fulfill your own desires to be "moral"? >>



You have reduced human beings to numbers. I cannot agree with that conjecture. You aren't taking some arbitary number on a piece of paper and burning it. This is a child you are talking about.

Mostly what I am trying to get across is that it is a moral issue, regardless of whether those morals would dictate that you go ahead with the killing or not (as apparently yours would). This issue would not just be a mathematical equation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well if the Kids name was Damian I think it would make the decision a little easier.

 

[datalink7]

<<

<<

<<

<< who are you to deny the existing lives of 6 billion others to meet the selfish ends of one? >>


i'll break it down for you:
6 billion people die versus 1 child dies
i would make that choice even if i were not involved (either i was going to live or die no matter what).
it's a matter of numbers. >>


No, it is a matter of morals. >>



If the human existence ends then that child will die anyway. You would rather see everyone die, including that child, then to willfully let one child die so the rest can survive? Basically you choose for the deaths of 6 billion people rather than the death of one. Guess that would make you a mass murderer.

Edit: Nice morals you have. I presume you vote conservative? >>



How about we abstain from ad hominem attacks and straw man examples? They get nowhere and just lead to flame wars.

Oh, and I vote whatever I feel is best. I am an independent. Last presidential election I voted Nader because I didn't like either politician up there. I'll vote conservative some times, but most of the time I actually lean a bit to the left.

Besides, what is equating bad morals with being conservative? You surely can't believe that people who have different morals than your are immoral?

 

[Geekbabe]

<< Well if the Kids name was Damian I think it would make the decision a little easier. >>



hahaha ! real head spinning thought that !

 

[gopunk]

You have reduced human beings to numbers. I cannot agree with that conjecture. You aren't taking some arbitary number on a piece of paper and burning it. This is a child you are talking about.

i have reduced them to numbers because they are otherwise equal. you seem to place some artificially high value on the life of one child as opposed to the lives of millions of other children. do you realize this? these are the lives of MILLIONS of children we are talking about.

Mostly what I am trying to get across is that it is a moral issue, regardless of whether those morals would dictate that you go ahead with the killing or not (as apparently yours would). This issue would not just be a mathematical equation.

you can call it a moral issue if you want, but morality is irrelevant. not only is morality subjective, but in this case, irrelevant since in EITHER event you will be responsible for the deaths of people.

 

[gotsmack]

<< in EITHER event you will be responsible for the deaths of people. >>



true, to a point.

By not taking action you are declaring a neutral stance.

there is a difference between not doing anything vs. murder

 

[Turin39789]

gotsmack you are posting mindless drivel in the form of poorly written olde english chivalry. It worked for me when I was 14 too.

The selfish and weak willed thing to do would be to let the child live because you are afraid to violate a moral code. When you come to understand that the sanctity of life outweighs and preceived morals or inhibitions you may have you will understand this. Yes it would be the hardest thing I have ever done to kill a child. Yes I would be ending an existence, a entire world and method for percieving it. But I would be saving billions more. There would be no joy or relish in the murder, just grim determination. And yes failure to do what you can to save another is a crime. Though it comes from hearesay(my father) I understand that on teh road from washington to ALaska you can be arrested for failure to stop and help a stranded motorist. The conditions on the highway are taht severe that if you pass someone up you will be dooming them to death.


Even if you made provisions for the child to survive and live it's life you would be destroying humanity. Unless of course you made provisions for the child to grow up and be able and willing to understand genetics enough to create an offspring from some lingering male DNA. Arg this whole thread is so pointless



I lost my train of thought like 8 times in the middle of this post. Goign to war3 now

 

[LongCoolMother]

can we cut the child and let its blood come so that everyones happy