FreakyKBH,
Are you asking for only a human reasoning answer that has nothing to do with God? If you are asking what does God say about it, then you can read about it. If you want a purely human reasoning answer, then it no longer becomes moral does it? The only thing that matters then, is will some human group hold you accountable.
The problem exists, however, in that God will judge man individually. Even if a human group does not hold a person or few people accountable, God will judge on His own holiness.
Originally posted by KingOnPointWas there an answer in there, somewhere?
FreakyKBH,
Are you asking for only a human reasoning answer that has nothing to do with God? If you are asking what does God say about it, then you can read about it. If you want a purely human reasoning answer, then it no longer becomes moral does it? The only thing that matters then, is will some human group hold you accountable.
The problem exi ...[text shortened]... uman group does not hold a person or few people accountable, God will judge on His own holiness.
In another twist to the story, it turns out that that people hiding are in fact bank robbers, and the people chasing them the police.
If the baby cries, the bank robbers will live the rest of their live in Jail and suffering, whereas if they escape they will live lives of freedom, happiness and wealth.
Is it good to kill the baby?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it is clear that there can be cases in which the right course of action is intentionally killing, say, an otherwise healthy infant (with some caveat as hinted below). Your opening hypothetically surely ain't one of them, though. But others here in this thread are trying to put forth better ones.
The two in OP.
A typical setup (highly contrived, but...) I have seen in moral dilemma essays is that of a runaway trolley car. There is a site below that gives some background on such dilemmas. Throw an infant in there someone and season the dilemma description to taste; I'm sure you will end up with something better than your original hypothetical offering.
However, I still think it will be difficult for you to show that the intentional killing of the infant (in which such killing is per se the primary or main intention of the agent) is called for. Check out, for example, the Doctrine of Double-Effect. You seem extraordinarily sloppy in how you treat intentionality in these dilemmas, which is very unfortunate since your initial opening question seems to deal materially with intentionality.
http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Trolley.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Originally posted by LemonJelloGreat answer.
I think it is clear that there can be cases in which the right course of action is intentionally killing, say, an otherwise healthy infant (with some caveat as hinted below). Your opening hypothetically surely ain't one of them, though. But others here in this thread are trying to put forth better ones.
A typical setup (highly contrived, but...) I ha ...[text shortened]... n.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Trolley.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/