Would you kill one child to save the world?

[MacBaine]

Hey Gotsmack, you a vegetarian?

 

[datalink7]

<< This is such a stupid thread, I can't believe it got to 4 pages. I'm not even going to comment on the question because if the answer isn't 100% obvious to you, then you deserve to be chained to the ground and pecked to death by ducks. >>



The purpose to this question isn't to get an answer. If you see an obvious answer, you aren't looking at the question correctly.

 

[aka1nas]

I think that the argument is a little circular because if you take the stance that its ok to kill an innocent to preserve the lives of the rest of humanity, then you have decided that the individual human life is not important enough to merit its own right of choice. By taking this one beings free will away, we are in effect declaring him to be no better than a thing(A clear violation of Kant's Categoratical Imperative, BTW). The fact that we can so coldly deprive one being of their basic human dignity also brings up another question: Why would someone who is willing to do this care about the lives of any other person? They have already decided that other people are in effect objects, and can and must be manipulated to achieve desired results. This question is of course, unrealistic and produces a sort of moral logic bind. There are always other options which could be attempted. Any choice in this case is logically and morally wrong on on or another level.

 

[MacBaine]

Would you people listen to what you are saying??? ONE person dies, or the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE CEASES TO EXIST, INCLUDING THAT ONE PERSON. No morals are involved. It is a survival issue.

 

[Piano Man]

No because the value of one can outweigh the value of many. Plus if we did kill the child, he or she would become the next "Jesus", and one is more than enough for me.

 

[gotsmack]

<< Hey Gotsmack, you a vegetarian? >>



no I am not.

 

[toant103]

yes

 

[Lithium381]

I woudln't, it's not up to me to put a value on one persons life over another(few million),.,,,,,

 

[SuperTool]

I would first make the whole world give me money for saving them, and take advantage of the situation as much as I can, then kill the kid.
And take his pocket money too.
But that's just me.

 

[SmirnoffIsTasty]

I'd sacrifice a million kids.

 

[Turin39789]

<< I think that the argument is a little circular because if you take the stance that its ok to kill an innocent to preserve the lives of the rest of humanity, then you have decided that the individual human life is not important enough to merit its own right of choice. By taking this one beings free will away, we are in effect declaring him to be no better than a thing(A clear violation of Kant's Categoratical Imperative, BTW). The fact that we can so coldly deprive one being of their basic human dignity also brings up another question: Why would someone who is willing to do this care about the lives of any other person? They have already decided that other people are in effect objects, and can and must be manipulated to achieve desired results. This question is of course, unrealistic and produces a sort of moral logic bind. There are always other options which could be attempted. Any choice in this case is logically and morally wrong on on or another level. >>



This is the problem with modern philosophy, the majority of it is used to set small little traps, make wide assumptions and prove nothing. By weighing and comparing the value of human lives, you are not declaring him/her no better than a thing. Yes in one sense all humans are physical entities, things, they are carbon based have a brain etc. But there is also something more, a spiritual compononent, or some form of free will(another debate right there). Humans are like light, they behave as both a particle and a wave. By reacting with them in a physical sense you do not erase their free will.

 

[gtsukada]

sure, how many you need?

 

[Evadman]

They way it is worded, it is an easy answer. I know the reasoing behind it, to make ya think.

But the way it is worded, the kid wold die anyway ( whole world right? ) so just kill him/her first. then world saved.

It is all about numbers. I would give my life to save anothers. That is the way most humans are. some people do not deserve it tho, so I hope I do not toss my life away on some looser.

 

[foggy]

What is life?

No. I wouldn't kill the child. Don't play God.

However, having said that, you never know what will happen until you come to a situation like that. Until then, adios and good luck with this cyclic argument.

 

[SinNisTeR]

what a silly, childish, flame bait filled thread.

 

[troglodytis]

all humans die?

what child must i protect??? finally! the chance i've been needing to save the world from our parasitic species.



silly humans.

 

[hans007]

man we do it all the time. you guys think its so wrong. we go over to afghanistan blow up a whole village i'm sure, more than 1 child dies , directly or indirectly (hell maybe we killed the kids parents, and he's gonna die anyways because no one will care for him). and we are doing all that just for a machoistic manhunt. far more trivial and stupid reason than saving all of humanity.


needless to say , i'd kill the child

 

[MacBaine]

<< Who are you to deny an existing life a chance, to meet the selfish ends of others? >>




<< It is totally different when you preserve this love for your own existence by removing another (non threatening life) from existence. >>




<< Where is the honor in prolonging existence if it must be done with the actions of a coward, thief, and murderer? >>




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




<< every life is sacred and has a right to at least exist , in regards to outside interference? you know, let things run their natural course. >>


-----


<< Hey Gotsmack, you a vegetarian? >>




<< no I am not. >>



Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[Ultima]

<< The entire race of man be damned.

What sort of civilization is this we live in, which we would deny life to an innocent child in order to further our own selfish goals.

This is not civilization. We are no longer fit to be called men. We are but savages upon this Earth, looking down upon others and spitting on them. such as the silkworm mocks the spider.

I ask of you, where is you sence of honor? >>



Um, there's no honor at all in letting 6 billion die for one person. That's just very stupid and impractical, think about it.

 

[LeStEr]

<< hell our goverment ready to shoot down a plane with 300 people or more just to save some building or presidents ass >>



Well better then having them all die as well as the president.

 

[Ultima]

<< TURIN

I neversaid I was an english major

Funny that you mentioned the sanctity of life. Isn't that some sort of catch phrase that basically states that every life is sacred and has a right to at least exist , in regards to outside interference? you know, let things run their natural course.

It is suddenly weak to uphold one's morals? That is a new one.


GOPUNK

I will not derive any satifacation knowing that I could have saved man from extinction but chose not to. >>



I wouldn't say its weak, I'd say its god damn boneheaded. Who are you to impose your morals on 6 billion people? Maybe you should move to the middle east

 

[Ultima]

For all those mlahhing about the "morals"... THINK ABOUT IT! Saving the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE by killing ONE kid! I don't think anyone here would let the human race die if this was a real question (which it will never be cause its a dumb hypothetical one ), and if they would, then their head is screwed on backwards.

 

[datalink7]

<< For all those mlahhing about the "morals"... THINK ABOUT IT! Saving the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE by killing ONE kid! I don't think anyone here would let the human race die if this was a real question (which it will never be cause its a dumb hypothetical one ), and if they would, then their head is screwed on backwards. >>



I never stated that the best option would be to refrain from killing the child. Or even the most moral. All that I stated is that it is immoral to kill an innocent child, and anyone who says in a nonchalant manner "sure, I'd kill the child" needs to really examine their morals. It wouldn't be an easy decision, even if it is a neccesary one.

 

[Howard]

How about we kill gotsmack and save the world from insanity?

 

[Swag1138]

My stand on this (and I didnt read the whole thread):

I will not take a life, under any circumstance. It is against every fiber of my being to take a life. Even if by taking that life I could save billions of other lives. And, if I knew that somone had been killed to save me, I would personally not take the cure. People die, there is no way around that. You would be taking one life early on, so that billions get to die at a later date....not an even trade off to me.


However, if by sacrificing myself, I could save those billions, I would do it, simply because in that case, even though I might not be morally bound, I would feel responsible for their lives.

A more difficult question to answer would be "If you knew a child would grow up to kill billions, would you take his life"
example: Say you somehow landed back in time, and saw little baby Adolf Hitler, or Osama binLaden, or any mass murderer, would you take his life?

Again, I didnt read the whole thread, so if its just rehashing of whats been said over and over again, then sorry. Forgive me, lifes too short to hold stupid grudges over internet forums.