Is this Good?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you shoot the kid?

Is it the morally correct choice to shoot the kid?

And would your answer change if you were another passenger with the opportunity to stop the person with the gun from shooting the kid. ie would you let him shoot the kid or intervene?
This type of moral question usually gets different answers depending on whether you take an active role or a passive role in the death - even though the outcome appears to be the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If the child had not started crying--- an otherwise innocent act by any measure--- death was not necessary.

Her crying becomes the issue if the crying (and in this case it does) can only be stopped with her death.

I don't see the relevance. No-one is suggesting that the child deserved to die, or was in any way at fault.

It is just a question of whether the child dies being smothered by someone who will no doubt try and make it as brief and painless as possible, or is left to people who might stick a knife in him/her and let him/her die in agony bleeding to death on the ground.

If your objective is to minimise the suffering to the child, then the odds are stacked that the moral answer is to kill the child. Of course, the Nazis might choose to smother the baby in the same way, in which case the decision is neutral as far as the baby is concerned. But no worse.

By contrast, by failing to act, you risk prolonging the child's suffering unnecessarily. As well as condemning other people to death.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think good is the wrong word.

It is of course possible to come up with scenarios in which killing a person [of any age]
is the 'best' moral choice to make.

However in such scenarios it is typically a choice of the least bad option and not of a
good option.

Such scenarios usually go out of their way to remove the good options from the table ...[text shortened]... y armour.[/i]

Do you shoot the kid?

Is it the morally correct choice to shoot the kid?[/b]

I think good is the wrong word.
Actions can be neutral, but most are going to fall into one of the two categories in varying degrees.
However, in this case, we are talking about murder, or--- at the very least--- killing for cause.
The act is definitely not neutral even if it is necessary... or seemingly so.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I don't see the relevance. No-one is suggesting that the child deserved to die, or was in any way at fault.

It is just a question of whether the child dies being smothered by someone who will no doubt try and make it as brief and painless as possible, or is left to people who might stick a knife in him/her and let him/her die in agony bleeding to de ...[text shortened]... sk prolonging the child's suffering unnecessarily. As well as condemning other people to death.

No fault was intended.
I was merely pointing out that it was her cry that produced the decision.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No fault was intended.
I was merely pointing out that it was her cry that produced the decision.

Are you going anywhere with this? I have offered an answer. If you agree with it, fine. If not, why?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Are you going anywhere with this? I have offered an answer. If you agree with it, fine. If not, why?

Well, you said it would be the moral thing to kill the baby.

Is it a good thing?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, you said it would be the moral thing to kill the baby.

Is it a good thing?

Depends what you mean by good. In the context you used it in the OP, I would say yes. However, I would have preferred the term "least worst". And I generally consider that people acting in a way which minimises suffering is a good thing.

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.

I keep the kid alive and silent by means of closing firmly her nose with two fingers and pushing hard my mouth on her mouth; when she cries, I "shallow" her cry; then I exhale in her mouth and I breath normally, and I keep up doing it; she stays alive, she probably calms down and we all stay undetected and thus alive; if the Nazis are alerted, tough luck -we will fight back but they will probably kill us all. No big deal, I don't want to live for ever;

Originally posted by black beetle
I keep the kid alive and silent by means of closing firmly her nose with two fingers and pushing hard my mouth on her mouth; when she cries, I "shallow" her cry; then I exhale in her mouth and I breath normally, and I keep up doing it; she stays alive, she probably calms down and we all stay undetected and thus alive; if the Nazis are alerted, tough luc ...[text shortened]... will fight back but they will probably kill us all. No big deal, I don't want to live for ever;

So the four people who are instrumental in bringing an end to the war by virtue of their survival are allowed to die?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So the four people who are instrumental in bringing an end to the war by virtue of their survival are allowed to die?

If the Nazis get somehow alerted and manage to kill them, yes😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If the Nazis get somehow alerted and manage to kill them, yes😵

Why is this the preferable state, given the amount of lives which are stake?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Why is this the preferable state, given the amount of lives which are stake?

There is often a difference between what 'simple moral arithmetic' says and
what people are actually prepared to do.

Take the classic example of the runaway train heading down a track towards
a large group of people.

In scenario one, there is a set of points which will divert the train onto a different
track with only one person on it instead of many. You have a switch which will
divert the train onto the other track, saving the many and sacrificing the one.

In scenario two, you can stop the train by pushing a person off a bridge onto the
tracks in front of the train which will cause it to stop and save the many while sacrificing
the one.

According to simple moral accounting the two scenarios are functionally identical in that
you can make choice to act and kill the one [who would otherwise live] to save the
many.

However people overwhelmingly opt to flip the switch in scenario one, but refuse to
throw the person off the bridge in scenario two.


This is often put down to people not being able to be rational and correctly reason things
through... But an alternative suggestion which I believe has merit is that there is a
fundamental difference between the two scenarios from the perspective of the person
being asked the question. Flicking a switch and throwing a person off a bridge are entirely
different acts on an emotional level.


It's easy to do moral calculus and decide that the greater good, in lives saved is served by
an act... It's another altogether to actually do it.



In Isaac Asimov's I Robot series, a character discusses the fact that a 3 laws robot would kill
a rampaging murderer if that was the only way to save other people from being killed.
But that the conflict in the robots mind that would result would cause it to cease to function
after it had saved the people in danger.

It might be the optimum choice from a simple 'probable numbers saved' perspective to kill the
baby... But it might very well destroy the person that did it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is often a difference between what 'simple moral arithmetic' says and
what people are actually prepared to do.

Take the classic example of the runaway train heading down a track towards
a large group of people.

In scenario one, there is a set of points which will divert the train onto a different
track with only one person on it instead ...[text shortened]... saved' perspective to kill the
baby... But it might very well destroy the person that did it.

So, your answer is...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, your answer is...

To what question?

Originally posted by googlefudge
To what question?

The two in OP.