Would YOU kill the baby?

[rav3n]

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

Not necessarily. Where is the guarantee that the baby will cause the Nazis to kill everyone? It's being assumed that this will happen. So now, who's making a rational or emotional decision? It could easily be said that the individuals who choose to kill the baby "in case" the Nazis hear it are basing their decision on fear which is an irrational emotion.

 

[Red Herring]

Two things:

1. The question seems to be about weighing the certain death of one person (the baby) against the possible death of a group including oneself. The rest is decoration (as the question "what is two apples plus three apples" is not about fruit) . From that perspective it makes little sense to discuss alternative solutions or the color of the baby's pacifier.

2. On the other hand, classic ethical dilemmata are usually presented as an A or B choice. Life however is seldom A or B. So I have been wondering recently if teaching and discussing ethics with the help of A or B scenarios strengthes this in the box black and white thinking in real life. Could it lead to narrowmindedness or in the box thinking? If there are many shades of grey and dozents of factors to consider in real life, and quite often there is a third way out if you only look for it. So what might the implications be if we are used to these simplified scenarios?

Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Not_Me]

Not necessarily. Where is the guarantee that the baby will cause the Nazis to kill everyone? It's being assumed that this will happen. So now, who's making a rational or emotional decision? It could easily be said that the individuals who choose to kill the baby "in case" the Nazis hear it are basing their decision on fear which is an irrational emotion.

Since this is likely a thread dealing with ethics rather than logistics, I think we can cut to the chase and assert that the Nazis are out for blood and that killing the baby will increase your chance of survival astronomically. The key issue is whether one think or feel it is moral to do so. I find it interesting to see how people make the decision.

 

[rav3n]

Since this is likely a thread dealing with ethics rather than logistics, I think we can cut to the chase and assert that the Nazis are out for blood and that killing the baby will increase your chance of survival astronomically. The key issue is whether one think or feel it is moral to do so. I find it interesting to see how people make the decision.

This entire situation has nothing to do with logic and neither do ethics or morals. It's all subjective.

 

[Not_Me]

2. On the other hand, classic ethical dilemmata are usually presented as an A or B choice. Life however is seldom A or B. So I have been wondering recently if teaching and discussing ethics with the help of A or B scenarios strengthes this in the box black and white thinking in real life. Could it lead to narrowmindedness or in the box thinking? If there are many shades of grey and dozents of factors to consider in real life, and quite often there is a third way out if you only look for it. So what might the implications be if we are used to these simplified scenarios?

I think these scenarios can prepare you ahead of time in case it happens in real life. It's better than facing it for the first time in the field where a split second decision is necessary.

I notice your type preference is "P", which suggest that you prefer to leave decisions to the last minute.

 

[Red Herring]

Not so much postpone them out of an aversion towards decision making but because, hey, maybe I overlooked something, there are so many factors to consider. Wouldn't it suck to kill somebody and then suddenly realize it would have been better to chose another option?

And the preparation is exactly what worries me. What if there are 3 or 4 or 5 options and you only see 2 because you are trained to see them?

 

[Not_Me]

This entire situation has nothing to do with logic and neither do ethics or morals. It's all subjective.

If it was just an individual decision, then it can be decided on the whim of the moment. However, in social situations, it is beneficial to agree on a common framework that everyone is bound to. This turns the decision into an ethical one. For example, we can agree that joy killings are forbidden, even if one member subjectively disagree.

In this scenario, do we set rules, or do we assert that no agreement is possible, so everyone is free to follow their conscious without repercussions from the rest?

 

[Not_Me]

And the preparation is exactly what worries me. What if there are 3 or 4 or 5 options and you only see 2 because you are trained to see them?

That is so "P". I'm not a super strong "J", so I understand to a degree. But I like to plan for all known contingencies ahead of time. If new information shows up, then I will be able to devote all my energy on the unexpected.

 

[rav3n]

If it was just an individual decision, then it can be decided on the whim of the moment. However, in social situations, it is beneficial to agree on a common framework that everyone is bound to. This turns the decision into an ethical one. For example, we can agree that joy killings are forbidden, even if one member subjectively disagree.

In this scenario, do we set rules, or do we assert that no agreement is possible, so everyone is free to follow their conscious without repercussions from the rest?

What you're suggesting is called a social contract. Since this situation is a one-off, a social contract isn't necessary or desired since black and white decisions about killing babies aren't regular occurrences.

The question is whether or not individuals within the group choose to defend the baby against the others who vote to kill it. And if that happens, the ensuing noise from the adult brawl will surely attract Nazi attention. So, the baby will be safe unless the anti-baby division is willing to risk attracting the attention of the Nazis, in order to silence the baby since the baby might attract the Nazis from its crying. And then pure irony hits!

 

[Red Herring]

If it was just an individual decision, then it can be decided on the whim of the moment. However, in social situations, it is beneficial to agree on a common framework that everyone is bound to. This turns the decision into an ethical one. For example, we can agree that joy killings are forbidden, even if one member subjectively disagree.

In this scenario, do we set rules, or do we assert that no agreement is possible, so everyone is free to follow their conscious without repercussions from the rest?

QED. That's what I meant when I talked about the previous simplified discussion limiting the freedom of choice in the moment of real life implementation.

If a dilemma, by definition, is a choice between two equally bad options, a social codification of the "right" choice is arbitrary. It can facilitate desicion making under duress, but that does not mean that your socially condoned choice is inherently better (unless the fact that there is a consensus creates a value of its own).

 

[Not_Me]

I think I am satisfied that this is a personal choice. I would choose myself over the baby since the decision is equally moral as the alternative.

 

[Lark]

I think I am satisfied that this is a personal choice. I would choose myself over the baby since the decision is equally moral as the alternative.

You can not kill without consequence, you can not kill the innocent without a greater consequence, this is not a question of law or even moral calculation but conscience, psychological emotion and affect. The point you make sounds very much like a rationalisation.

You might survive but the trauma might to enough to kill you eventually or drive you mad. I know it would do it to me, I'm stronger than a lot of people I know. I may do it to spare them and save more people than myself but the cost could be my life or mind, I know that. Moral philosophising wont be much consolation.

 

[Nicodemus]

If Lark cannot do it, no one can!

 

[Not_Me]

You can not kill without consequence, you can not kill the innocent without a greater consequence,

You're mistaken. You most certainly can. Besides, both alternatives would result in at least one innocent death.

this is not a question of law or even moral calculation but conscience, psychological emotion and affect. The point you make sounds very much like a rationalisation.

Why would I feel guilty if I didn't do anything wrong?

You might survive but the trauma might to enough to kill you eventually or drive you mad. I know it would do it to me, I'm stronger than a lot of people I know. I may do it to spare them and save more people than myself but the cost could be my life or mind, I know that. Moral philosophising wont be much consolation.

You've been watching too much dramatic TV.

 

[Noon]

I'd likely not. What if in my trying to kill the baby, the parents/relatives feel equally froggy and form a counter-attack?
Then the resulting violence causes a huge commotion and all of us are discovered?

Eh. Maybe I'd be too frozen with fear to do anything though.

 

[You]

If you're asking if I'd choose myself over a baby of undisclosed origin, I probably would. In spite the fact that I am not a Jew, and this incident, or predicament for that matter, wouldn't happen to me, and seems all too unlikely, I would do my best to keep the baby and myself alive.

 

[Stigmata]

Yes. If the baby is heard, you'll be hauled off to a concentration camp somewhere where you and everyone else will meet their imminent demise, either through the slow agonizing pain of starvation, or the quick death of being executed upon arrival. To me, it's a matter of analyzing the situation; Do I jeopardize the safety of multiple people to save one child? Or do I sacrifice this child to better our chances of survival? Would I enjoy it? Hell no.

With either of the choices the baby is going to die; It's just a matter of whom will be the one to kill it.

 

[Lark]

You're mistaken. You most certainly can. Besides, both alternatives would result in at least one innocent death.

Why would I feel guilty if I didn't do anything wrong?


You've been watching too much dramatic TV.

Affect and emotion is more powerful than reason, the best you can do is rationalise after the fact but it will not provide you would a completely clear conscience, if you doubt that you should consider the longitudinal studies which have been carried out on the psychological costs of killing in wars by soldiers who were to all intents and purposes fighting just wars or fighting just for their own personal survival even.

I'm not talking simply about the evidence from WW1 which indicated that in a large enough number all soldiers would shoot wide or above their target, hoping that someone else in their company would make the kill shot, that was a different time and I'd argue on in which there was more of a conscientious objection to violence and war than today. I am talking about studies involving stockholm syndrome, survivors guilt, PTSD, guilt etc. Rationalisations are no magic bullet. Just ask any Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapist or Cognitive Behaviour Therapist if you have any doubt because positive reframing and rationalisations are in part their stock and trade.

I mentioned the TV show because it corresponded to what I new and it was a pop reference, not because I felt it was stand alone truth or evidence.

 

[Nicodemus]

If Lark cannot do it, no one can!

Update: If some cannot do it, no one can!

 

[5231311252]

Can I not banish the crying baby and it's parents from the hiding place? Wait...they might snitch. I'd have to go with killing it, but then again, it's highly unlikely that I'd hide with or near anyone with a child. If the Nazis are planning to kill us, then either way the baby dies, but there is a higher chance of survival for the adults. I am a self-preservationist and if you stand in the way of the only viable path, I will remove you.


I've found two examples of a 'crying baby dilemma', with one resulting in the capture and murder of twenty people.

The rabbi ordered that no one should risk harming the child and, as a result, all twenty people were discovered and murdered by the Nazis.