• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Would YOU kill the baby?

Would YOU kill the baby?


  • Total voters
    61

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Killing the baby means I might also have to kill the baby's mother or father. I'd probably do nothing.

That is the real problem isn't it. What would be noisier, the child, or the grieving parents and outraged citizens...
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Deliberately killing another person, for a specific reason, to gain something? Sounds like murder to me

Not as it's generally defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Killing in self-defense isn't malicious, unlike murder. It's not morally or legally the same, at all.


If the child were actually acting to kill you, killing it would be self defense. But it's not; in this theoretical situation, your would be murderers are the nazis, not the baby. Killing them would be acceptable, killing the child would not.
 

sciski

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
467
MBTI Type
NSFW
Enneagram
6w7
To those who would refuse to kill the baby, suppose someone else in your group started to kill the baby instead... would you stop them? (might be overcomplicating things here, but I'm interested).
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Not as it's generally defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Killing in self-defense isn't malicious, unlike murder. It's not morally or legally the same, at all.

Then how is killing the baby not self-defense? The act of killing the baby is not malicious, therefore it is not murder. We can safely say that the baby's actions are threatening your life. How can you see the baby as anything BUT a direct threat to your life, and to the lives of others. How is it different than any other act of self-defense?
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
To those who would refuse to kill the baby, suppose someone else in your group started to kill the baby instead... would you stop them? (might be overcomplicating things here, but I'm interested).
I probably wouldn't stop them, unless it was my baby or niece or nephew.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og7lUpWutyY"]killing Napoleon 1[/YOUTUBE]
(starting 0:50)
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9RUbJPBcgw&feature=related"]killing Napoleon 2[/YOUTUBE]
(starting 2:50) He even mentions Aquinus.
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Then how is killing the baby not self-defense? The act of killing the baby is not malicious, therefore it is not murder. We can safely say that the baby's actions are threatening your life. How can you see the baby as anything BUT a direct threat to your life, and to the lives of others. How is it different than any other act of self-defense?

The baby isn't acting to kill you, that's why. The nazi soldiers are.
 

ZPowers

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
1,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
No, the baby doesn't realize that it is acting to kill you, but it is. The actions of the baby lead to your death, regardless of intention.

This. A man who accidentally runs you over is still a man who kills you.

Is causing indirect death through inaction as bad as murder to you? Your inaction would result in something tantamount to suicide and the death of the people you are with. Sad as it seems, in this situation, the baby CAN NOT be saved, period. Why is it less moral to make the child's death as quick as possible while preventing harm to befall yourself and others (hell, who says there aren't other babies and children, if we're appealing to innocence?)

Additionally, it gives you a chance to actually do something with your lives to redeem the action, including doing something substantial to fight your oppressors. The others you are with have the same option if they live. Something better than an impotent, hopeless and desparate rush on armed soldiers.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
No, the baby doesn't realize that it is acting to kill you, but it is. The actions of the baby lead to your death, regardless of intention.
Using this logic, should felons found guilty of manslaughter be chemically terminated?
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It may lead to your death, but it is not killing you. It is not only not intending to kill you, it isn't killing you, period. The soldier is. The baby signifies your location, the soldier chooses to act on that. You can't control the actions that somebody else, (the soldier in this case) takes, but you can control your own actions. There are worse things than death, one of which is being a murderer.
 

ZPowers

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
1,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Using this logic, should felons found guilty of manslaughter be chemically terminated?

Malicious intent does count for something, it's true. But does lack of intent completely resolve guilt? If so, those convicted of manslaughter should face no punishment.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Using this logic, should felons found guilty of manslaughter be chemically terminated?

Depends entirely upon the society. Some condone sanctioned murder, some don't. Furthermore, different criteria exist in different societies for what is worthy of this punishment. I would consider it a waste of human resources to terminate a person.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Malicious intent does count for something, it's true. But does lack of intent completely resolve guilt? If so, those convicted of manslaughter should face no punishment.
A baby has no control or understanding similar to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity.
 

Spamtar

Ghost Monkey Soul
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
4,468
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I would give it some hot sauce and then pop it in a cold shower
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
It may lead to your death, but it is not killing you. It is not only not intending to kill you, it isn't killing you, period. The soldier is. The baby signifies your location, the soldier chooses to act on that. You can't control the actions that somebody else, (the soldier in this case) takes, but you can control your own actions. There are worse things than death, one of which is being a murderer.

We are operating under the fact that the soldier will kill you, so the part where the soldier chooses to act is actually not a choice, but a predetermined circumstance for the scenario in question. It is a nice rebuttal, but it does not change the fact that the baby's action will result in your death. You said that you can control your own actions. This is true. Not only can you control your own actions, but you can also control the actions of the baby (by silencing it, or murdering it, if you prefer that word). You do not, however, control the actions of the soldier. We must work through an intermediary. The soldier's action is actually dependent on your action, because the only way you can control the soldier's action is by making him unable to act (killing the room of people). To make the soldier unable to act, the baby is silenced.
 

ZPowers

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
1,488
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
A baby has no control or understanding similar to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Or by neglect, assuming a sane case of manslaughter. No doubt. It is impossible to fault the baby.

Essentially, this question has been asked and asked specifically of us infinite times and boils down to:

"do you do something morally wrong or bad to prevent an inevitable outcome that is considerably worse than the results of the immoral action?"

Probably everyone has some kind of tipping point. Do you kill a convicted killer to save the entire earth? Do you punch a child to save his life? Do you kill a doomed baby to save yourself and others?

I'd say yes to all of them.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Depends entirely upon the society. Some condone sanctioned murder, some don't. Furthermore, different criteria exist in different societies for what is worthy of this punishment. I would consider it a waste of human resources to terminate a person.
The first part about jurisdictional differences is a distraction since the bulk of the membership understand what manslaughter means. Then terminating a baby who might or might not give the hiding place away should also be a waste of human resources.
 
Top