Would you kill one child to save the world?

[TheShiz]

looking at these topics i wouldn't be surprised if Mrfrog840's next great topic is something like:

thread title: OMFG jesus in my house!

message:

"omg i just took a dump and it looked like jesus and then it wouldn't flush, but then i flushed it, what if I didn't flush it?"

 

[Mrfrog840]

hmmmmm........
put yourself in the position of the kid. would you give up your life?

 

[gopunk]

<< 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

that's the pussy way out of it. you're attempting to absolve yourself of the situation. you don't want to have to make a bad choice, so you decide to default, trying to say that you didn't make a bad choice because it was the default action. do you see the flaw in this logic? just because you do not act does not mean you did not consciously choose one life over the lives of billions. there is no justifying it with some bizarre notion of morality. it really doesn't matter whether you actively or passively cause a death. the end result is the same.

if you sit on your ass all day, and do nothing, you will end up broke and homeless. who's fault is this? you did take a neutral stance, after all.


and you never answered my question... how selfish of you is it to put your own need to feel good about yourself (yes, that's what this is about), over the lives of billions?

 

[datalink7]

<< this question is incredibly stupid. >>



All impossible hypothetical questions such as this are generally inane to a certain degree, but hardly stupid. They will pose hard quesitons that serve some sort of deeper purpose than just giving an answer. This one here allows a questioning of your moral structure. If one does not ever question their ethics and beliefs, I would argue that they don't hold any ethics or beliefs of their own. Instead, they are merely a product of society and the dictation of others.

Definining yourself is never a stupid pursuit.

 

[goog40]

This reminds me of those parents who had Siamese twins, and only one of them could be saved. But they said they couldn't decide and would leave it up to God, so they let both of them die.



<< that's the pussy way out of it. >>



exactly

 

[datalink7]

<<

that's the pussy way out of it. you're attempting to absolve yourself of the situation. you don't want to have to make a bad choice, so you decide to default, trying to say that you didn't make a bad choice because it was the default action. do you see the flaw in this logic? just because you do not act does not mean you did not consciously choose one life over the lives of billions. there is no justifying it with some bizarre notion of morality. it really doesn't matter whether you actively or passively cause a death. the end result is the same.

if you sit on your ass all day, and do nothing, you will end up broke and homeless. who's fault is this? you did take a neutral stance, after all.


and you never answered my question... how selfish of you is it to put your own need to feel good about yourself (yes, that's what this is about), over the lives of billions? >>



You pose the question "do you see the flaw in this logic." For sure, logic would dictate that we take the childs life. But where do you equate logic with morals? Morality, while intertwined with logic in some part, is not in itself always logical. You yourself said that morals are subjective, while logic is generally considered to be objective. I believe he was speaking from a moral viewpoint, so you pointing out that he has a flaw in his logic cannot be a correct assessment, for he didn't use logic as the basis for his argument.

 

[gopunk]

You pose the question "do you see the flaw in this logic." For sure, logic would dictate that we take the childs life. But where do you equate logic with morals? Morality, while intertwined with logic in some part, is not in itself always logical. You yourself said that morals are subjective, while logic is generally considered to be objective. I believe he was speaking from a moral viewpoint, so you pointing out that he has a flaw in his logic cannot be a correct assessment, for he didn't use logic as the basis for his argument.

you can replace the word "logic" with "way of thinking" if it makes you feel any better. what i wanted to get across, still stands. it's just a convenient way out, using "morality" as an excuse.

 

[gotsmack]

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.

 

[Nefrodite]

only one?












to save 6? billion people i would shoot many a child if need be

 

[datalink7]

<< You pose the question "do you see the flaw in this logic." For sure, logic would dictate that we take the childs life. But where do you equate logic with morals? Morality, while intertwined with logic in some part, is not in itself always logical. You yourself said that morals are subjective, while logic is generally considered to be objective. I believe he was speaking from a moral viewpoint, so you pointing out that he has a flaw in his logic cannot be a correct assessment, for he didn't use logic as the basis for his argument.

you can replace the word "logic" with "way of thinking" if it makes you feel any better. what i wanted to get across, still stands. it's just a convenient way out, using "morality" as an excuse. >>



You think it would be an easy choice, either way?

 

[Turin39789]

when your morals are going to be responsible for teh death of humanity then yes I think it is weak. There are times when you must be able to act outside of your morals. You must be capable of anything.

 

[gopunk]

You think it would be an easy choice, either way?

either way? the two options are: "child dies" and "6 billion people die". "morality" has been brought up to introduce a third option, mentioned earlier in somebody else's post, "neutral". this is a cockassed way of choosing "6 billion people die". i was talking about this third option.

 

[Orsorum]

<< to save 6? billion people i would shoot many a child if need be >>



I'd never shoot a child, but I'd gladly kill a kitten.

 

[datalink7]

<< You think it would be an easy choice, either way?

either way? the two options are: "child dies" and "6 billion people die". "morality" has been brought up to introduce a third option, mentioned earlier in somebody else's post, "neutral". this is a cockassed way of choosing "6 billion people die". i was talking about this third option. >>



I still don't think it would be easy to choose either way, and that is why this hypothetical questions is a hard one. I can understand your viewpoint that killing the baby is neccesary, but for you to arrive at the conclusion that it would be "easy" is hard for me to grasp. Since when is killiing a baby and easy option?

And the other way applies. It wouldn't be easy not killing the baby, knowing that 6 billion people would die. Where is the easy in that?

edit: misread what you said a bit, and reworded

 

[gopunk]

I still don't think it would be easy to choose either way, and that is why this hypothetical questions is a hard one. I can understand your viewpoint that killing the baby is neccesary, but for you to arrive at the conclusion that it would be "easy" is hard for me to grasp. Since when is killiing a baby and easy option?

i don't recall saying "easy" or anything like that, but whatever. maybe i did. fact is, it took me all of a split second to make this decision. in that split second, i reduced this question down to essentials : 6 billion vs 1. they are all innocent, the 6 billion includes many children, so there is nothing that makes the child any more valuable than any one member of that 6 billion. it's like 6000000000x compared to x, in algebra. didn't take me long to figure out which one was "greater".

i think we are confusing decision making with action. it is easy to make the decision. pulling the trigger would probably be harder to do, however necessary.

 

[Orsorum]

<< I still don't think it would be easy to choose either way, and that is why this hypothetical questions is a hard one. I can understand your viewpoint that killing the baby is neccesary, but for you to arrive at the conclusion that it would be "easy" is hard for me to grasp. Since when is killiing a baby and easy option?

i don't recall saying "easy" or anything like that, but whatever. maybe i did. fact is, it took me all of a split second to make this decision. in that split second, i reduced this question down to essentials : 6 billion vs 1. they are all innocent, the 6 billion includes many children, so there is nothing that makes the child any more valuable than any one member of that 6 billion. it's like 6000000000x compared to x, in algebra. didn't take me long to figure out which one was "greater". >>



What if that one child was also the person who would grow up to invent a cure (separate of him/herself) to that disease?

It's not just a matter of numbers, although in a split-second, yes, it could seem that way.

 

[datalink7]

<<

i don't recall saying "easy" or anything like that, but whatever. maybe i did. fact is, it took me all of a split second to make this decision. in that split second, i reduced this question down to essentials : 6 billion vs 1. they are all innocent, the 6 billion includes many children, so there is nothing that makes the child any more valuable than any one member of that 6 billion. it's like 6000000000x compared to x, in algebra. didn't take me long to figure out which one was "greater".

i think we are confusing decision making with action. it is easy to make the decision. pulling the trigger would probably be harder to do, however necessary. >>



Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:

2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent.

 

[gopunk]

What if that one child was also the person who would grow up to invent a cure (separate of him/herself) to that disease?
It's not just a matter of numbers, although in a split-second, yes, it could seem that way.

first off, i made the decision on the assumption that the people would all die off immediately. i suppose this isn't really realistic, but then again, neither is the situation

secondly, what are the chances that the child will grow up to do that? statistically speaking, it is negliable. i'm not about to gamble the lives of 6 billion on odds that are worse than buying 10 winning lottery tickets in a row.

 

[Orsorum]

<<

<<

i don't recall saying "easy" or anything like that, but whatever. maybe i did. fact is, it took me all of a split second to make this decision. in that split second, i reduced this question down to essentials : 6 billion vs 1. they are all innocent, the 6 billion includes many children, so there is nothing that makes the child any more valuable than any one member of that 6 billion. it's like 6000000000x compared to x, in algebra. didn't take me long to figure out which one was "greater".

i think we are confusing decision making with action. it is easy to make the decision. pulling the trigger would probably be harder to do, however necessary. >>



Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:

2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent. >>



The situation sucks... I have two conflicting personal views.... one is that, yes, human life is precious, you should preserve whatever you can - kill the one. However, I also have to look at it as though, "Will this one person eventually contribute more back to society than those two?"... and maybe let those two die.

I can honestly say, I do not know how I would react.

 

[gopunk]

Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:
2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent.

i'd have to get to know the people...

with 6 billion, it is virtually assured that there will be at least 2 people equal or better than that child. very unlikely that the child was going to be the next jesus.

with two people? who knows, they might be convicted murderers or something.

 

[Orsorum]

<< What if that one child was also the person who would grow up to invent a cure (separate of him/herself) to that disease?
It's not just a matter of numbers, although in a split-second, yes, it could seem that way.

first off, i made the decision on the assumption that the people would all die off immediately. i suppose this isn't really realistic, but then again, neither is the situation

secondly, what are the chances that the child will grow up to do that? statistically speaking, it is negliable. i'm not about to gamble the lives of 6 billion on odds that are worse than buying 10 winning lottery tickets in a row. >>



I was looking at it more from the point of view that this disease was more spread out - similar to AIDS.

Again, I don't blame your choice to sacrifice the child. Neither choice, IMO, is really desirable. It's a burden of responsbility that no one wants to face.

 

[datalink7]

<< Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:
2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent.

i'd have to get to know the people...

i wouldn't be surprised if my answer differed. but you have to recognize the difference between any small number of people, and all of humanity. >>



So then where do you draw the line? Is the life of the 1 person (or child) worth killing for 10 people? 100? A million? What if only 999 million people were to die from the disease, so a million would still be left and humanity would survive. Would your answer be different then?

 

[gopunk]

I was looking at it more from the point of view that this disease was more spread out - similar to AIDS.

okay, but the question still assumes that the people will die no matter what. it's not fair if they live

Again, I don't blame your choice to sacrifice the child. Neither choice, IMO, is really desirable. It's a burden of responsbility that no one wants to face.

very true... although i would want to face it, if it came down to either me or somebody who would pick the child to live, making that decision.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:
2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent.

i'd have to get to know the people...

i wouldn't be surprised if my answer differed. but you have to recognize the difference between any small number of people, and all of humanity. >>



So then where do you draw the line? Is the life of the 1 person (or child) worth killing for 10 people? 100? A million? What if only 999 million people were to die from the disease, so a million would still be left and humanity would survive. Would your answer be different then? >>



i've edited my message to illustrate my point better. this last one didn't show the reasoning. btw, where you draw the line, i do not know. but i know the line is somewhere in between 1 and 6 billion. that much i can tell you.

 

[datalink7]

<<

<<

<< Let me tackle this from a different angle. Take this hypothetical situation:
2 people are going to die unless you kill this 1 other person. Do you then kill this person? All are innocent.

i'd have to get to know the people...

i wouldn't be surprised if my answer differed. but you have to recognize the difference between any small number of people, and all of humanity. >>



So then where do you draw the line? Is the life of the 1 person (or child) worth killing for 10 people? 100? A million? What if only 999 million people were to die from the disease, so a million would still be left and humanity would survive. Would your answer be different then? >>



i've edited my message to illustrate my point better. this last one didn't show the reasoning. >>



I stated all are innocent.