Would YOU kill the baby?

[Engineer]

[YOUTUBE="n89nnR1MdJ0"]She... She Killed It. Oh My God! OH MY GOD! I DIDN'T MEAN FOR HER TO KILL IT![/YOUTUBE]

 

[AOA]

Not only would it be ethically impermissible to kill the baby, I don't think anyone here would be capable of killing a baby (even if they had to).

+1

I've found with most people that their psychotic thoughts are only such because the action perpetrated of them is of a nature that could happen to them. For instance, if I *don't* have psychotic thoughts, then nobody ever had psychotic thoughts of me, thus I am free to feel the way I want. I admit I can't kill the baby, and what I said earlier is as a result of rationalising a situation where the baby would grow up to be someone I'd absolutely hate, which is not realistic.

 

[Thalassa]

I couldn't kill it.

I even hate killing bugs. It's like I feel the moment that they die.

It bothers me.

 

[ZPowers]

I couldn't kill it.

I even hate killing bugs. It's like I feel the moment that they die.

It bothers me.

I can understand this. I always try to take bugs outside. I catch spiders in napkins and moths in cups. Applying relative value to life based on what the creature that possesses it never made much sense to me, and is so very complicated. Better to just do as little harm as possible.

Realistically, I don't know that I could actually bring myself to do it, even if I legitimately think it is ultimately for the best.

 

[Caesar]

Why does it necessarily have to be a baby? What if it's a hysterical screamer? Shouldn't your answers be the same in any case? Does his age change the fact that he's endangering everyone or make it more acceptable to kill him? Is the OP trying to play off some notion about innocence and defenselessness because that'd change something about how people answer? If that's the case, then I wish people'd be more consistent with their morality. It should be no different from the dilemma that you're in a shipwreck, the lifeboat's overloaded, so you push one guy off.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Why does it necessarily have to be a baby? What if it's a hysterical screamer? Shouldn't your answers be the same in any case? Does his age change the fact that he's endangering everyone or make it more acceptable to kill him? Is the OP trying to play off some notion about innocence and defenselessness because that'd change something about how people answer? If that's the case, then I wish people'd be more consistent with their morality. It should be no different from the dilemma that you're in a shipwreck, the lifeboat's overloaded, so you push one guy off.

A hysterical person is more likely capable of defending themselves. People find the idea of killing something defenseless a lot more troubling than one that can fight back. More guilt is involved. Strange.

 

[Beargryllz]

Why does it necessarily have to be a baby? What if it's a hysterical screamer? Shouldn't your answers be the same in any case? Does his age change the fact that he's endangering everyone or make it more acceptable to kill him? Is the OP trying to play off some notion about innocence and defenselessness because that'd change something about how people answer? If that's the case, then I wish people'd be more consistent with their morality. It should be no different from the dilemma that you're in a shipwreck, the lifeboat's overloaded, so you push one guy off.

You're missing the entire point of a moral dilemma. We aren't here to speculate on whether the baby will scream or will not scream. We do not speculate on whether we can "fight off" the Nazis with our bare hands. We are under the strict assumption that the options are to: kill the baby and save many lives, or not kill the baby. By not killing the baby, we establish that the baby will cry, the Nazis will come, and we all die.

Could we be wrong? Absolutely, hence the dilemma. It is entirely possible that the baby would not cry, but this is irrelevant. You either do kill the baby or you do not.

 

[Caesar]

A hysterical person is more likely capable of defending themselves. People find the idea of killing something defenseless a lot more troubling than one that can fight back. More guilt is involved. Strange.

This ties in with the theme of innocence/ignorance/purity/sinlessness (etc) as well. I think it's no accident that almost all baby animals are cute, fuzzy and harmless, and as people near adulthood, we're less forgiving to them. If babies were, say, harming us without an intention or knowledge that they're harming us (or of the consequences of what they do), we're more than willing to forgive them because on some levels we know that if the baby does not mean to harm us, there is no way he can orchestrate a full-scale and lethal assault against us, while adolescents and adults certainly can. In this way, intention does matter in morality- it matters a lot, because it speaks volumes of how dangerous a person is to us. A person who accidentally kills another is not punished as much as a premeditated murderer. It's almost Biblical, in a way, that knowledge of Good and Evil is related to the original Sin.

You're missing the entire point of a moral dilemma. We aren't here to speculate on whether the baby will scream or will not scream. We do not speculate on whether we can "fight off" the Nazis with our bare hands. We are under the strict assumption that the options are to: kill the baby and save many lives, or not kill the baby. By not killing the baby, we establish that the baby will cry, the Nazis will come, and we all die.

Could we be wrong? Absolutely, hence the dilemma. It is entirely possible that the baby would not cry, but this is irrelevant. You either do kill the baby or you do not.

No. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I did not speculate on that at all, or whether we can fight off Nazis. Actually my post asks why the person who puts the entire group at risk is a baby, and would the answers change if the person is a hysterical. screaming adult who is frightened because it's curious, in that way, that a lot of these dilemmas are always set up with a baby. In fact, another such dilemma comes to mind: you're a bystander who has the power to divert a runaway train that will crash into two locations. A baby is in one and twenty adults are in another. Which way do you divert it. What does this fact illustrate about ourselves?

And if an answer must be provided here, no, I will take my chances with the Nazis instead of killing a baby, but the answer would be the same if it was an adult.

 

[Beargryllz]

No. You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I did not speculate on that at all, or whether we can fight off Nazis. Actually my post asks why the person who puts the entire group at risk is a baby, and would the answers change if the person is a hysterical. screaming adult who is frightened because it's curious, in that way, that a lot of these dilemmas are always set up with a baby. In fact, another such dilemma comes to mind: you're a bystander who has the power to divert a runaway train that will crash into two locations. A baby is in one and twenty adults are in another. Which way do you divert it. What does this fact illustrate about ourselves?

And if an answer must be provided here, no, I will take my chances with the Nazis instead of killing a baby, but the answer would be the same if it was an adult.

I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I would say that the helplessness of the baby is a major consideration, but probably not the most significant one. I say this because we perceive adults to be more capable than infants. One would imagine that, in a crisis, an adult is well-equipped compared to the baby. When I pose these dilemmas, I generally use the word person, rather than baby. Again, with the runaway train, we cannot ignore the feeling that 20 adults could avoid disaster better than an infant, so this will influence the decision.

 

[paperoceans]

I would never kill a human child.

 

[knight]

perform head lock until baby taps out and agrees to not cry anymore

 

[JediVulcanisim]

Not enough info

Excuse me, but there is not enough information present in the initial question. What are the environmental factors? I.E. are there mattresses underneath the floorboards or walls? How many people are in the room? (their bodies could be used as a muffling solution). What kind of time frame are we looking at?

OI!!! Your question is incomplete.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Excuse me, but there is not enough information present in the initial question. What are the environmental factors? I.E. are there mattresses underneath the floorboards or walls? How many people are in the room? (their bodies could be used as a muffling solution). What kind of time frame are we looking at?

OI!!! Your question is incomplete.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!!!!

Imagine w.e the fuu you want. I said no muffling of the baby--Risk is present. Its either ALL or nothing. Kill the baby, or let it live(muffle it, and you're still at risk). Ensure utter safety, or Don't. .

 

[Vie]

I would not even consider killing the baby.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

I would not even consider killing the baby.

You'd be one of the escapees, that I would ask to kindly get water for the injured, then we'd leave you behind as soon as you left.

The weak must perish!!!

 

[Vie]

Hahaha. It's more of...

So, you supposedly have this innocent baby who is making sounds. This may or may not be heard by Nazis, and then the group as a whole may or may not be captured because of the noises the baby makes. The baby can't help making the noise and although I can foresee that the baby will probably die anyways if captured by the Nazis, it isn't really just to kill an innocent on the mere probability of being captured. It's kind of like a gamble.

And then I figure even if the baby doesn't make a noise, or the Nazis don't come that way then, at some point (given the course of the war), our group will be forced to flee or be captured at some point anyways. Weak in some people's eyes, but definitely the only right decision.

 

[ZPowers]

Hahaha. It's more of...

So, you supposedly have this innocent baby who is making sounds. This may or may not be heard by Nazis, and then the group as a whole may or may not be captured because of the noises the baby makes.

Well, the likelihood of being discovered and/or how well the boards cover noise is important. If they are say, normal floorboards with spaces between them and lacking in soundproofing, if there are Nazis treading on those boards the chance they find you and kill you, the baby, the others who are hiding and those who are hiding you in a pretty slow, horrific, concentration campy way is about 100%.

 

[Vie]

Well, the likelihood of being discovered and/or how well the boards cover noise is important. If they are say, normal floorboards with spaces between them and lacking in soundproofing, if there are Nazis treading on those boards the chance they find you and kill you, the baby, the others who are hiding and those who are hiding you in a pretty slow, horrific, concentration campy way is about 100%.

Even with this, I still couldn't kill a baby. I suppose my need to survive is outweighed by the maternal instinct in me.

 

[ZPowers]

Even with this, I still couldn't kill a baby. I suppose my need to survive is outweighed by the maternal instinct in me.

I wouldn't dare call that a fault.

 

[Ginkgo]

You are a Jewish person inside Nazi occupied France. You are hiding under the floorboards with many others Jewish people, when evil Nazis come in to search houses near by. As you are there, a baby with the jewish hiders starts to cry.


This baby cannot stop crying, and you know if it continues to cry, you, and everyone under the floor, could possibly be discovered by the nazis and killed. You don't have time to find out if they're going to skip your house or not, and even then, there is still the possibility of them hearing it.

Do you kill the baby?

NO CHEATING

No "muffling his cries, getting it drunk, etc"

You either kill it, or you don't and risk the possibility of getting everyone else killed.

Is it against the rules if I use the pulpy little shit as a bullet shield? That way, the Nazis kill it, I survive, and I get to blame them during the Nuremberg Trials. Now that's a Win/Win/Win for me.