Would YOU kill the baby?

[Athenian200]

The Einsatzgruppen operated in Russia too and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews(around 300-400,000 I believe). Their exploits are actually far more well known than what the Einsatzgruppen did in Poland. There's the famous film, shot by a man in the Luftwaffe IIRC, showing these men at work - having Jews line up in a ditch and then shot. Actually there's plenty of film and photos of these units in action, but due to the forum rules I can't produce them here.

Well, actually that's true... the "don't waste bullets" policy was mostly applied to German Jews, I think. They probably didn't have as many qualms about using them on foreign Jews who were more likely to put up resistance. So I guess whether they were likely to use bullets or not, depends on whether you're a German Jew or not.

 

[MacGuffin]

The Nazis didn't care about wasting bullets. The problem was the effect it had on the shooters. They would break down, or become drunks, or worst of all - begin to enjoy it. Can't have those kind of people returning to the glorious Third Reich. Gas chambers made it easier on the killers.

 

[Sniffles]

Well, actually that's true... the "don't waste bullets" policy was mostly applied to German Jews, I think. They probably didn't have as many qualms about using them on foreign Jews who were more likely to put up resistance. So I guess whether they were likely to use bullets or not, depends on whether you're a German Jew or not.

The Nazis made little, if any, distinction between the two. Jews were Jews, period. There were a few exceptions though, such as for Jews who served in the German army in WWI, which provided them with some protection - in the beginning at least. That and for Jews and half-Jews who were in the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine. I haven't fully read it yet, but Bryan Mark Rigg wrote about this in Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military.

 

[ZPowers]

The situation is hypothetical until the choice and the set situation has been made. I wouldn't kill the baby. Not in my interests. Being alive is not necessarily always in my personal interests also. Once the choice has been made I would enjoy the outcome of trying to kill a few nazi soldiers were they to find us. Me and two others stay up on ground floor hidden behind a few objects. The baby's cries could be a decoy for them to look towards a certain direction while we give them a good surprise from behind as they look down hopefully allowing us to steal a few guns in the process assuming we have no guns. It would have to be played out perfectly.

Oh, good point.

I forgot about the part where you can totally just change the scenario to make it easier and less ambiguous.

I have an Iron Man suit in the scenario. I kill all the Nazis there and then Hitler.

 

[Perch420]

That isn't a realistic situation. I'd just muffle the baby's mouth and let it breathe through its nose. If it's still making a noise, I'd hold down the nose for 30 seconds and let go for it to get air in before clamping down the nose again.

 

[ZPowers]

That isn't a realistic situation. I'd just muffle the baby's mouth and let it breathe through its nose. If it's still making a noise, I'd hold down the nose for 30 seconds and let go for it to get air in before clamping down the nose again.

It doesn't matter how realistic it is. Maybe the baby is across a piece of flooe that will set off an alarm and you have a silenced pistol with one bullet. Maybe you have knife hands.

Frankly, Nazis aren't a very big threat today, either. You are never going to run into this choice in your life, at least not laid out like this. The point is a question that taps into your own moral code to see how it responds in intense situations. Anything else, all the "this isn't realistic" or "I'd do this instead" misses that point. It makes it seem like you are uncomfortable or unsure of your own morality (to me).

So:

Would you kill a baby to almost certainly save yourself and several others, and if the baby is not killed it will just as likely also die.

That's the question. The details, the threat, the reasons the baby has to die don't matter.

 

[Beargryllz]

Would you kill someone else to save your own life?

 

[kyuuei]

Depends on the situation, but probably. ^

 

[MacGuffin]

Would I kill an innocent person to save my own life? No. Some things are worth dying for, and not becoming a murderer is one of them.

 

[ZPowers]

Would you kill someone else to save your own life?

Well, just to save myself? No, not unless it was direct self-defense. To save myself and others? Yes.

 

[rav3n]

Would I kill an innocent person to save my own life? No. Some things are worth dying for, and not becoming a murderer is one of them.

Exactly! I emphasized the innocent part since it will make a difference in my choice not to kill or kill.

 

[ZPowers]

Exactly! I emphasized the innocent part since it will make a difference in my choice not to kill or kill.

That begs the question: How guilty is guilty enough?

 

[rav3n]

That begs the question: How guilty is guilty enough?

If the potential deceased is an adult who understands and won't shut up, that's guilty enough for me.

 

[Not_Me]

Well, just to save myself? No, not unless it was direct self-defense. To save myself and others? Yes.

From a rational perspective, what is wrong with saving yourself? Or is it simply an emotional decision?

 

[Not_Me]

Exactly! I emphasized the innocent part since it will make a difference in my choice not to kill or kill.

Your actions will result in at least one death, either the baby or yourself. Are you making a rational or emotional decision?

 

[ZPowers]

From a rational perspective, what is wrong with saving yourself? Or is it simply an emotional decision?

Well, I imagine the guilt would be constant burden on me. Something that at least drags my life down and at worst drives me to self-harm. The life of the other person, who survives (and, if it was not self-defense, did not need to kill to do so and is possibly fully unaware of the situation), would be unmarred by guilt and therefore better in quality. Self-defense is more easily rationalized, as is killing someone who is the worst king of terrible (i.e. a Bundy or Dahmer) or someone I know poses a continuing threat to others.

The issue of the guilt that weighs on me is not wholly rational but I am not certain I can escape it. Survivor's guilt is often called irrational even by those who experience it, but they still feel it.

I would feel guilt for killing the baby but the fact that the baby dies and several others live means that ultimately my guilt and the baby's death are less than the cost of everyone present's life. To me, not killing the baby may be a selfish action.

 

[Not_Me]

Well, I imagine the guilt would be constant burden on me.

So you consider it to be your own personal preference rather than an absolute virtue? In other words, if another person felt no guilt, then you would be fine with them killing the baby?

 

[ZPowers]

So you consider it to be your own personal preference rather than an absolute virtue? In other words, if another person felt no guilt, then you would be fine with them killing the baby?

Clearly the person with the least qualm of killing the baby should do it. A rare case of sociopathy working toward the greater good. That person's future worth or deficit of worth is another issue.

 

[Beargryllz]

Well, just to save myself? No, not unless it was direct self-defense. To save myself and others? Yes.

Why for others? Can you really speak for them or know that this is a good decision? Would any "others" qualify, or only certain people?

 

[ZPowers]

Well, we waver into generalities. Maybe the baby I kill is going to grow up to be a mass murderer or genocidal maniac. For the most part, that isn't true. For the most part, people would like to live. I can only make the decision based on likely input or results.

I guess if I were to kill Martin Luther King to save myself, Stalin, Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy, no, I wouldn't do it.

We could get infinitely semantical, but I don't see the point. If I want to answer "but what if"s ad nauseum, I'll hang out with a 4-year-old.

Of course it depends on the specifics, which is why I take hypothetical situations to be "in general" or "to the best of your assumptions, based on what you see in the world and people around you." I don't arbitrarily assign significance, good or bad, to anyone in the scenario except those explictily stated to be killers or saints.

If I did, I'd have to look at the vague situation "Kill one person or ten" as "well, maybe all ten are suicidal or evil, so I guess save one"