04 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou're kidding, right?
I cannot speak on behalf of the others. But, I have this weird thing about not knowing what to do with hypotheticals that appear to be internally inconsistent in the information they provide. A similar thing occurred during your sunlight hypothetical.
What is "the question" anyway? Are you referring to these below?
[quote]Is it ever a good thing ...[text shortened]... emirror.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/helping-through-harming-%E2%80%94-when-is-it-acceptable-part-i/
How is what you quoted all that inherently different than what I described?
If anything, you have shown a penchant for getting out of the thing put to you; nothing more, and literally nothing else.
Describe it in your terms, if it suits you better.
The dilemma remains the same.
The life of the remaining six or the life of the infant, so described.
The story needs no clarification or 'cleaning up,' as it were.
Just answer the questions as put and stop being needlessly evasive.
Your stalling doesn't shore up any deficiencies; they do nothing more than reveal the disingenuous nature of your complaints.
Answer the questions.
04 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo I am not kidding. Gee, I am sorry that it is such a burden for you to clarify and revise where appropriate. Feel free to submit a revised hypothetical, one in which the right course of action is the intentional killing of the baby (which is what you are asking about, after all), as opposed to a course of action that aims merely at the silencing of the baby but which could still bring about the death of the baby, unintentionally. I have already told you that I think it should be doable.
You're kidding, right?
How is what you quoted all that inherently different than what I described?
If anything, you have shown a penchant for getting out of the thing put to you; nothing more, and literally nothing else.
Describe it in your terms, if it suits you better.
The dilemma remains the same.
The life of the remaining six or the life of th ...[text shortened]... do nothing more than reveal the disingenuous nature of your complaints.
Answer the questions.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloIsn't that a hoot?
No I am not kidding. Gee, I am sorry that it is such a burden for you to clarify and revise where appropriate. Feel free to submit a revised hypothetical, one in which the right course of action is the intentional killing of the baby (which is what you are asking about, after all), as opposed to a course of action that aims merely at the silencin ...[text shortened]... e death of the baby, unintentionally. I have already told you that I think it should be doable.
You here describe the very dilemma almost as though you KNEW exactly what was at stake!
How did that happen?
Answer the question.
The kid dying--- and everyone who read it understood it that way--- is the only way to keep the other six alive.
Is it good to kill the baby?
Is it moral to kill the baby?
05 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPerhaps you do not understand how this works: you're supposed to provide a hypothetical that actually satisfies that description. Guess what: you haven't so far.
Isn't that a hoot?
You here describe the very dilemma almost as though you KNEW exactly what was at stake!
How did that happen?
Answer the question.
The kid dying--- and everyone who read it understood it that way--- is the only way to keep the other six alive.
Is it good to kill the baby?
Is it moral to kill the baby?
Again, I think it should be doable. But shouldn't you do you own work?
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Isn't that a hoot?
You here describe the very dilemma almost as though you KNEW exactly what was at stake!
How did that happen?
Answer the question.
The kid dying--- and everyone who read it understood it that way--- is the only way to keep the other six alive.
Is it good to kill the baby?
Is it moral to kill the baby?
The kid dying--- and everyone who read it understood it that way--- is the only way to keep the other six alive.
Now you are just contradicting your own hypothetical! You implied it would be sufficient to just shut the baby up.
For the last time, the difficulty for you here will be in sculpting the circumstances such that the intentional killing of the baby is called for, as opposed merely to the intention to silence the baby.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow is it that:
Perhaps you do not understand how this works: you're supposed to provide a hypothetical that actually satisfies that description. Guess what: you haven't so far.
Again, I think it should be doable. But shouldn't you do you own work?
1) everyone else knew what was at stake; and
2) you articulated what was at stake, yet
You STILL don't know what is at stake?
Is that even a thing?
Answer the questions.
Is it moral to kill the baby?
Is it good to kill the baby?
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPut up or shut up: present a hypothetical that actually shows that the intention to kill the baby is called for. Do you even understand the difference between causing the baby's death while holding that intention and causing the baby's death while not holding that intention?
How is it that:
1) everyone else knew what was at stake; and
2) you articulated what was at stake, yet
You STILL don't know what is at stake?
Is that even a thing?
Answer the questions.
Is it moral to kill the baby?
Is it good to kill the baby?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Apr 14
1 edit
It's plausible that a merciful choice is to kill the baby in the least painful way possible, compared to how the enemy might do it.
I'm reminded of Sophie's choice, the 1982 movie: Pick which of your two children, a boy and a girl, will go to the gas chamber and which will go to the labor camp, and if you don't choose, they both go to the gas chamber.
The wrinkle in this is that you may decide that both going to the gas chamber is the merciful choice; so not choosing is an option.
What would you do?
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI just read the "The Hiding Place" again where that came up. A mother and
Is it ever a good thing to knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy six-month old infant?
Is it ever a moral thing?
Seven people have been on the run from a band of Nazi soldiers, intent on hunting them down and killing four within the group.
The four in question are responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of relayi ...[text shortened]... by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.
The baby starts to cry.
a baby needed to be hidden, the Boom family elected to hide them they
were moved to another place. The Nazi did come, but it wasn't the baby
but the mother who freaked out getting everyone caught. No one knows
what is going to happen, so if you want to be like a baby killing Nazi by
killing one yourself to save your own butt....have at it.
Kelly
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergNo, of course. But after the peril is past, we can look at the baby's death as 'an unfortunate accident'. Thus it becomes 'morally acceptable' to the group. A horrible thing, to be sure, but 'morally acceptable', regardless.
No, you are correct; I cannot be certain of that. However it's still the case that I would not be making any moral judgement call in that situation. What's more, supposing it had been the case that I did suffocate the child and the rest of us were not discovered by the nazis, I doubt I would be fit to evaluate the virtue of what I had just "accomplished".
Edit: But don't get me wrong, I could not kill my own baby intentionally, either.
05 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloOK. Say there is a man in a room, completely tied up, except for his right hand, which holds a rope connected to a guillotine. The guillotine is above the baby's neck. The baby is also tied down to a table such that the guillotine is always above the neck. The gleam of sunlight through the slats in the wall catches the edge of the guillotine, revealing to the man that it is razor-sharp.
No I am not kidding. Gee, I am sorry that it is such a burden for you to clarify and revise where appropriate. Feel free to submit a revised hypothetical, one in which the right course of action is the intentional killing of the baby (which is what you are asking about, after all), as opposed to a course of action that aims merely at the silencin ...[text shortened]... e death of the baby, unintentionally. I have already told you that I think it should be doable.
Baby's napping, and starts to stir. He's hungry and tied up, and the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him screaming his head off once he realizes it. The genocidal soldiers outside have missed the room in their search, because it is a hidden room. But they're still pacing around, and their stomps are audible.
Just to raise the stakes, there are also some other older children tied up in the room.
Sooooooo....
Is it morally right for the man to let go of the rope, knowing full well he'll kill the baby with the guillotine? But he will probably save the rest of the occupants from the genocidal soldiers outside.
Edit: Did I leave out the bit about the guillotine being a well, oiled, quiet machine with a rubber stopper to suppress the chopping noises? 😛
05 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry, but this is not the nature of the dilemma. The kid is going to die under any scenario. You have asked whether it is moral to be the agent that initiates the act that kills the child, which has the result that others are saved, as opposed to refusing to do so, which allows others to act in a way which results in the death of the child and others.
The life of the remaining six or the life of the infant, so described.
However, I am willing to play along, and on reflection I think it is the moral thing to do to kill the child.
Again, I don't see how being the father in this scenario has anything to do with the morality of the act. It affects capacity, but that is not what was being asked.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWhatever else the hypothetical scenario was about, it was not about killing someone in order to save your own butt.
I just read the "The Hiding Place" again where that came up. A mother and
a baby needed to be hidden, the Boom family elected to hide them they
were moved to another place. The Nazi did come, but it wasn't the baby
but the mother who freaked out getting everyone caught. No one knows
what is going to happen, so if you want to be like a baby killing Nazi by
killing one yourself to save your own butt....have at it.
Kelly
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIf the child had not started crying--- an otherwise innocent act by any measure--- death was not necessary.
Sorry, but this is not the nature of the dilemma. The kid is going to die under any scenario. You have asked whether it is moral to be the agent that initiates the act that kills the child, which has the result that others are saved, as opposed to refusing to do so, which allows others to act in a way which results in the death of the child and others ...[text shortened]... to do with the morality of the act. It affects capacity, but that is not what was being asked.
Her crying becomes the issue if the crying (and in this case it does) can only be stopped with her death.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think good is the wrong word.
Is it ever a good thing to knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy six-month old infant?
Is it ever a moral thing?
Seven people have been on the run from a band of Nazi soldiers, intent on hunting them down and killing four within the group.
The four in question are responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of relayi ...[text shortened]... by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.
The baby starts to cry.
It is of course possible to come up with scenarios in which killing a person [of any age]
is the 'best' moral choice to make.
However in such scenarios it is typically a choice of the least bad option and not of a
good option.
Such scenarios usually go out of their way to remove the good options from the table
before hand.
I have an alternate scenario which I think might satisfy LemmonJellos concerns.
You are a passenger on an aircraft that has been hijacked by a band of heavily armed
mercenaries.
They are flying the plane towards a sky scraper.
They hand you a gun with one bullet in it and tell you that if you don't kill one of the
other passengers [a child if you like] they will fly the plane into the tower killing everyone.
As in reality, you don't know if they will keep their word, you have no combat training,
you don't know how to fly the plane, you are outnumbered, and they have machine-guns with
more than one bullet in them [among other weapons] and are wearing body armour.
Do you shoot the kid?
Is it the morally correct choice to shoot the kid?