Is this Good?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
For an answer, watch the final episode of MASH.

The problem with this kind of hypothetical is that it assumes certainty WRT outcomes, whereas in real life there would be uncertainty. Could the crying be stifled, would the Germans notice the crying, would they then kill the 7, would they kill all but the children, etc.

However, in the case where the crying is certain to alert the Germans, and death of the 7 including the infant is certain if discovered, killing the crying infant is morally permissible but is not morally obligatory, IMO.

A more troubling scenario is where it is certain that the infant would be spared but the other 6, or only the adults, will be killed if discovered.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, you asked two questions in your OP, to which the answer in both cases is clearly yes.

That I did.
You, however, mentioned the final episode of M*A*S*H, thus the chicken in my rejoinder...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That I did.
You, however, mentioned the final episode of M*A*S*H, thus the chicken in my rejoinder...

Don't worry, I got it.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Don't worry, I got it.

No worries.
Is the kid dead or not?

Originally posted by JS357
The problem with this kind of hypothetical is that it assumes certainty WRT outcomes, whereas in real life there would be uncertainty. Could the crying be stifled, would the Germans notice the crying, would they then kill the 7, would they kill all but the children, etc.

However, in the case where the crying is certain to alert the Germans, and death of th ...[text shortened]... infant would be spared but the other 6, or only the adults, will be killed if discovered.

Play the ball where it lies.
Is the kid dead?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Is it ever a good thing to knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy six-month old infant?

Is it ever a moral thing?

Seven people have been on the run from a band of Nazi soldiers, intent on hunting them down and killing four within the group.
The four in question are responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of relayi ...[text shortened]... by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.

The baby starts to cry.

Any sound from the basement will surely initiate a search by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.

The baby starts to cry.

Your hypothetical already seems to entail that a search by the soldiers initiates and results in the death of the 7 (that's assuming that a cry from the baby constitutes a sound from the basement). That's unfortunate....

Your hypothetical also does not seem to make much sense: it clearly states that the band of Nazis are intent on killing 4 within the group. So why would a sound from the basement which tips off these Nazis guarantee the death of 7?

I think you should try revising. You also provide no explicit information regarding what is known to the adults in the basement. But shouldn't that be relevant?

Originally posted by LemonJello

Any sound from the basement will surely initiate a search by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.

The baby starts to cry.

Your hypothetical already seems to entail that a search by the soldiers initiates and results in the death of the 7 (that's assuming that a cry from the baby constitutes a sound from t ...[text shortened]... ormation regarding what is known to the adults in the basement. But shouldn't that be relevant?

Don't be coy; you're merely forestalling the inevitable.

The discovery of the four results in the death of all surrounding.
Re-stating what has already been stated doesn't change a thing.

The sound of the baby's cry would alert the Nazi's of their targets, thereby bringing those in hiding to the forefront, and to their assured death.

Again, answer the dilemma without the stall tactics.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No worries.
Is the kid dead or not?

The kid's definitely dead. That much is self evident.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Don't be coy; you're merely forestalling the inevitable.

The discovery of the four results in the death of all surrounding.
Re-stating what has already been stated doesn't change a thing.

The sound of the baby's cry would alert the Nazi's of their targets, thereby bringing those in hiding to the forefront, and to their assured death.

Again, answer the dilemma without the stall tactics.

So pointing out that the information within your hypothetical shows dissonance is being coy?

Your hypothetical does not internally make sense. Furthermore, it is underdescribed with respect to what the adults in the basement actually know and what information is at their disposal. So, I do not know what to do with this hypothetical of yours. I would be interested to hear a revised version, if you are going to offer one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Play the ball where it lies.
Is the kid dead?

I answered it conditional on the facts on the ground, basically, the people's degree of certainty. The way you phrased it is with certainty as to the outcome of discovery, so the killing is morally justifiable. There can be no alternative to the baby's death, the alternative is a chance of survival of the rest.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So pointing out that the information within your hypothetical shows dissonance is being coy?

Your hypothetical does not internally make sense. Furthermore, it is underdescribed with respect to what the adults in the basement actually know and what information is at their disposal. So, I do not know what to do with this hypothetical of yours. I would be interested to hear a revised version, if you are going to offer one.

How is it that everyone else gets it but you don't?
Answer the question!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Is it ever a good thing to knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy six-month old infant?

Is it ever a moral thing?

Seven people have been on the run from a band of Nazi soldiers, intent on hunting them down and killing four within the group.
The four in question are responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of relayi ...[text shortened]... by the soldiers, which would guarantee the death of all seven people.

The baby starts to cry.

To be absolutely honest - if I were to find myself in that situation I expect I would be so paralysed with fear I would not have the capability to rationally override any biological instinct in me to preserve the life of a defenceless child implicitly relying upon us adults to keep it safe. Furthermore, as Swissgambit suggests, it isn't really feasible to expect that the first thing we would think of when the baby starts crying is to kill it!

Exterior to the situation one could discuss the merits of 6 lives and losing 1 when weighed against the alternative of losing 7 lifes; but again, if I was in that situation I am quite sure I wouldn't kill the baby - and that "choice" would have little to do with morality.

Originally posted by Agerg
To be absolutely honest - if I were to find myself in that situation I expect I would be so paralysed with fear I would not have the capability to rationally override any biological instinct in me to preserve the life of a defenceless child implicitly relying upon us adults to keep it safe. Furthermore, as Swissgambit suggests, it isn't really feasible to expe ...[text shortened]... m quite sure I wouldn't kill the baby - and that "choice" would have little to do with morality.

But in the depths of your fear, could you be certain that you wouldn't cover the baby's mouth to silence it and inadvertently suffocate it? I'm not even talking consciously trying to kill it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But in the depths of your fear, could you be certain that you wouldn't cover the baby's mouth to silence it and inadvertently suffocate it? I'm not even talking consciously trying to kill it.

No, you are correct; I cannot be certain of that. However it's still the case that I would not be making any moral judgement call in that situation. What's more, supposing it had been the case that I did suffocate the child and the rest of us were not discovered by the nazis, I doubt I would be fit to evaluate the virtue of what I had just "accomplished".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How is it that everyone else gets it but you don't?
Answer the question!

I cannot speak on behalf of the others. But, I have this weird thing about not knowing what to do with hypotheticals that appear to be internally inconsistent in the information they provide. A similar thing occurred during your sunlight hypothetical.

What is "the question" anyway? Are you referring to these below?

Is it ever a good thing to knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy six-month old infant?

Is it ever a moral thing?

I would think there shoud be conceivable circumstances under which the answers are yes. Your Nazi hypothetical does not provide such circumstances, though.

Here is a similar moral dilemma from the web** that is somewhat better than yours, though I think still underdescribed with respect to what the hypothetical subject knows:

Enemy soldiers have taken over your village. They have orders to kill all remaining civilians. You and some of your townspeople have sought refuge in the cellar of a large house. Outside you hear the voices of soldiers who have come to search the house for valuables. Your baby begins to cry loudly. You cover his mouth to block the sound. If you remove your hand from his mouth his crying will summon the attention of the soldiers who will kill you, your child, and the others hiding out in the cellar. To save yourself and the others you must smother your child to death. Would you smother your child in order to save yourself and the other townspeople?

However, this does not in my opinion represent an instance of "knowingly, purposely cause the death of a viable, healthy...infant". What you are talking about involves the actual intention to bring about the death, whereas this dilemma scenario, as far as I can tell, is still consistent with the intention being something else (like just achieving silencing of the baby) and the baby's death occurring as a sort of collateral damage. I think, again, this is a failing on the part of the dilemma's author, in underdescribing what is actually known by the hypothetical subject. But, perhaps it could be revised to get around this. So, I would suggest starting with something like this and revising the hypothetical according to your objectives. Maybe it will be more successful.

----------
**http://philosopherinthemirror.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/helping-through-harming-%E2%80%94-when-is-it-acceptable-part-i/