Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Carter Blunt]

Earthellism deals with such difficult questions. These type of questions can be seen as the work of the Devil. God is Love and Love is God and here on earthell (hell on earth) and Love and Karma is present but God is in Heaven. Love and Karma rules here and God would never ask a human being to make an impossible decision. The only real answer to this impossible question is that I would call out the Devil for this question and offer my own life and save the an innocent child but the Devil would not accept that altruistic sacrifice. This how human devils here on earthell operate. Hitler and Osama bin Laden and now Putin start a genocide this way in Poland and on 911 and now in Ukraine. Putin wants to destroy Ukraine to save Russia but he is a human devil asking soldiers to kill innocent men, women and children to save Russia. Putin like Hitler is the cancer destroying the world and either he dies or we all die. Putin cannot live in a World where Russia is not a new USSR so either we destroy the World to satisfy Putin or we kill Putin to save this World.

Yakvek was a shapeshifting reptilian who wanted to gaslight and enslave us. So was the serpent, but he changed his mind in the end... apparently paid a heavy price for it. The serpent gave us the capacity to judge whether an idea is good or bad, the basis for what we call free will. He mainly did it to troll Yakvek, but still. Nothing besides that separates us from the rest of the animals. The serpent didn't care about sacrifices or worship, or even followers. He just didn't like Yakvek not sharing any of the power with his people, and chose to defy. Yakvek is the one who enslaved us, tortured us, genocided us, and set us against each other. He is the real devil. He is the one the "elites" make sacrifices to. He is the one dividing all the major religions, which all worship him. He is the one who has promised to destroy us "soon", the apocalypse that the New World Order cult intends to bring. Don't be STUPID. Use the serpent's gift.

[Vagueabsolute]

In short, yes of course i would kill the child.

I am confident in this choice for a multitude of reasons, one of which i wish to discuss here.
To me, refraining from killing the child, is the same as murdering every future cancer victim, many of which undoubtedly children. The difference between these methods of murder is the weight on the killer, in this scenario, me. So, do i value these potential cancer victims enough to suffer the strain of claiming a life with my bare hands? Yes i do.

[Carter Blunt]

That kid doesn't owe cancer victims s***. Lettem croak! Lol.

Anyway, there probably already is a cure for cancer. They just won't give it to the peasants.

[LuckyR]

That kid doesn't owe cancer victims s***. Lettem croak! Lol.

Anyway, there probably already is a cure for cancer. They just won't give it to the peasants.

Part of the error of this thread is the simple-minded assumption that "cancer" is a simple problem with a single solution. Lots of cancer is curable right now. I bring that up to combat the conspiracy theory that there isn't a financial incentive to bring medical cures to market.

[Carter Blunt]

Part of the error of this thread is the simple-minded assumption that "cancer" is a simple problem with a single solution. Lots of cancer is curable right now. I bring that up to combat the conspiracy theory that there isn't a financial incentive to bring medical cures to market.

If they're better "incentivized" to watch you slowly waste away, I'm sure they'll opt for that route. Not like they're forced to publish study results. I'm derailing the thread again, but come on... even marijuana has been shown to cure cancer. I'm betting there's heaps of research they buried. A guy had to get the news to come film him illegally smoking out his handicapped daughter to prove the medical benefits on parkinsons or something. Even during covid outbreak, all they would tell you was to get an experimental vaccine and wear a mask. Nothing about monoclonals, vitamin d, or cannabis, and called ivermectin horse dewormer. Its obvious they favor certain treatments over others: the ones they have patents on. It's not an accident.

The "different types of cancer" response makes sense in some of these "simple-minded" situations, but keeping it simple is probably better for a discussion like this. So, let's just say the tortured toddler carcass contains all the relevant data for each form of cancer, and no one is gonna suppress it. Lol. The "conspiracy theory" is pretty obvious though, buddy. Almost like you would have to be trying hard not to see it.

[LuckyR]

Part of the error of this thread is the simple-minded assumption that "cancer" is a simple problem with a single solution. Lots of cancer is curable right now. I bring that up to combat the conspiracy theory that there isn't a financial incentive to bring medical cures to market.

If they're better "incentivized" to watch you slowly waste away, I'm sure they'll opt for that route. Not like they're forced to publish study results. I'm derailing the thread again, but come on... even marijuana has been shown to cure cancer. I'm betting there's heaps of research they buried. A guy had to get the news to come film him illegally smoking out his handicapped daughter to prove the medical benefits on parkinsons or something. Even during covid outbreak, all they would tell you was to get an experimental vaccine and wear a mask. Nothing about monoclonals, vitamin d, or cannabis, and called ivermectin horse dewormer. Its obvious they favor certain treatments over others: the ones they have patents on. It's not an accident.

The "different types of cancer" response makes sense in some of these "simple-minded" situations, but keeping it simple is probably better for a discussion like this. So, let's just say the tortured toddler carcass contains all the relevant data for each form of cancer, and no one is gonna suppress it. Lol. The "conspiracy theory" is pretty obvious though, buddy. Almost like you would have to be trying hard not to see it.

There's a reason one needs a license to practice medicine on patients but only a phone to "practice medicine" on the Internet.

[Newme]

Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.

However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.

So would you murder the child?

More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?

My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.

It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.

Many already do for much less.

That's off-topic. I'm not asking you if others do it. I am asking if you would do it.

So I ask again, would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?

No I wouldn’t.

Neither would I. We agree.

don’t you think a question/answer that involves common behavior [...] as more realistic than a hypothetical one

Yes, of course. Non-hypothetical questions are more realistic than hypothetical ones.

Thank you.

[Pattern-chaser]

99.31% of Abortions Done for Convenience

The convenience of not burdening the world with an unwanted child, in the context of a world with 8,000,000,000 humans in it. And maybe it's also avoiding the birth of a child whose parents cannot afford to care properly for it. Convenient, indeed.

[psycho]

No, I would not murder an innocent child to cure cancer. My reason is selfish, though: I would not be able to live with the guilt. Even if I were blamed for letting countless others die, the guilt of taking another life with my bare hands would be significantly worse.

Would you support a sociopath doing the murder so you and your family can avoid cancer?

As long as I did not have to kill the child with my hands, then yes, I could support a sociopath doing the murder. It would be easier to distance myself from the thought of committing murder if the child was not killed by my hands.

So you embrace the concept morally.

I don't get the impression that her answer has anything to do with morality.

She fights between scenarios that make her feel bad and then chooses the one that hurts her the least.

If the basis of morality is to avoid feeling bad then that response would be moral. That is the basis of morality?

[psycho]

Would you support a sociopath doing the murder so you and your family can avoid cancer?

As long as I did not have to kill the child with my hands, then yes, I could support a sociopath doing the murder. It would be easier to distance myself from the thought of committing murder if the child was not killed by my hands.

So you embrace the concept morally.

I may not have been certain at the start, but after this discussion, I believe I do. Even though I would still feel uneasy, it would be possible to embrace the concept as long as it was someone else.

Given a scenario where a hundred men hold a hundred live babies by their necks with the threat that unless you strangle a baby, unknown to you, with your bare hands, they will strangle every one of those hundred babies. Would you be willing to strangle that unknown baby with your bare hands to save a hundred babies from being strangled?

Which of the two circumstances is more bearable? Your sacrifice of becoming a baby strangler in exchange for saving one hundred innocent babies or avoiding being a baby strangler at the cost of one hundred innocent lives?

[Sy Borg]

LOL I am not sure this conversation is healthy. I don't want to think about strangling babies. Heck, strangling a dog or a cat would break me, let alone a bub.

I once tried to imagine being eaten by a crocodile, just as a test of my imagination. A part of my mind (superego?) acted as a censor and simply refused to go there. It all just blacked out. The situation is much the same in these scenarios, where one's mind refuses to accept the visceral reality of the situation and abstractifies it to ensure a comfortable distance. However, that comfortable distance is misleading.

[Hall]

Cancer is in your genetic code, in your DNA and RnA there is a time clock and as it nears dead materials appear and this is the cause of cancer which ultimately everyone gets my terminology could perhaps use some work but this is the basic understanding as I remember and so curing cancer isn't worth squat in my opinion because you'd just end up like someone with leprosy and your aged and your flesh fell from your body except this is probably gonna and leprosy doesn't so no I wouldn't kill anyone to cure cancer even if I thought it would work.

However would I kill a child with my bare hands to control and understand everything about DNA and RNA
Better start digging a hole is my philosophical answer.

[Hall]

It's just a cell without information and the clump forming cancer something like this and it can be caused by other things chemical and such basically you double helix get old and stop printing information or prints it in non sensible way and the dead cells pile up forming a tumour and it spreads kill things around it like rot I believe so eventually its going get you in you manage to live that long.

[LuckyR]

Cancer is in your genetic code, in your DNA and RnA there is a time clock and as it nears dead materials appear and this is the cause of cancer which ultimately everyone gets my terminology could perhaps use some work but this is the basic understanding as I remember and so curing cancer isn't worth squat in my opinion because you'd just end up like someone with leprosy and your aged and your flesh fell from your body except this is probably gonna and leprosy doesn't so no I wouldn't kill anyone to cure cancer even if I thought it would work.

However would I kill a child with my bare hands to control and understand everything about DNA and RNA
Better start digging a hole is my philosophical answer.

Several things.

First, "cancer" isn't a single thing, it's numerous problems with very different prognoses, treatments and causes.

Second, numerous of these cancers are completely curable right now.

[Damian Keyes]

I would not because I would be too in my head about my decision. Plus, there are many current ways to cure cancer, instead of me making a life-altering decision that this person could've benefited from.