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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I would not indulge myself in the murder of an innocent child. First of all, the child is not in any way responsible for the existence of cancer.

I agree. This is a prefect summary of my own answer as well.

I am not a full-blown pacifist, in that I support the use of defensive force to defend against non-defensive violence. For example, I support the use of as much force as necessary, including lethal force if necessary, against a murderer to stop the murderer from committing murder.

The key difference between such defensive uses of force versus utilitarian violence is whether the victim of the force/violence is the one who initiated the non-defensive violence as opposed to being an innocent bystander.

Thus, for example, I would not intentionally murder an innocent child as a way to prevent other murders from occurring (nor to cure cancer).

Unfortunately, my view is not the norm. Most people do not oppose all forms of murder (i.e. intentional non-defensive killing) of living, breathing, brain-alive humans. That is, at least accord to my poll in the following in which 2/3rds of respondents answered that they do support murder (a.k.a. "intentional non-defensive killing") of living, breathing, brain-alive humans in some cases:

Intentional non-defensive killing [a.k.a. murder] - Do you always oppose it?

[ilze herholdt]

This is an interesting question to say the least. To sacrifice one life so that millions of others can continue to live seems like the ethical thing to do. On the other hand humans are all born with cancer cells and therefore cancer is a natural disease that can occur to any of us. So therefore, it is selfish to murder a baby with your bare hands to cure cancer.

[PuerAzaelis]

Isn't there something in The Brothers Karamazov like this - Ivan asks Alyosha whether the salvation of the world would be worth the torture of one little girl or some such?

EDIT

Here it is

"Tell me honestly, I challenge you – answer me: imagine that you are charged with building the edifice of human destiny, whose ultimate aim is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and unavoidable to torture just one little speck of creation, that same little child beating her breast with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has to be erected on her unexpiated tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those conditions? Tell me honestly!”

“No, I wouldn’t agree,” said Alyosha quietly.

[Samantha Barnes 3]

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.

[LuckyR]

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?

[Samantha Barnes 3]

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.

[LuckyR]

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.

[Samantha Barnes 3]

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 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.

[LuckyR]

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.

You are uncommonly honest.

[Amy Luman]

Nope. I couldn’t do it. There is no reason to even think of the other people. The real life that I can save is better than any number of hypothetical lives that might be saved. That’s all there is.

[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.
But don’t you think a question/answer that involves common behavior (abortion is the #1 cause of death) as more realistic than a hypothetical one that has never reportedly happened?

[Meghan Sica]

Wow! What a question. Really makes you ponder if you could do evil for the greater good. I could not do something that extreme. My conscience would suffer greatly. Even if many people were cured, there would be one child who had to suffer.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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.

[Carter Blunt]

Nope, I don't think anyone has a right to compel others to sacrifice. Fairness is the rules agreed on by all parties, and my core principle. I also reject the idea that anyone's happiness can make up for another person's suffering, unless of course that person consented to suffer. No kink shaming.

[Darshan]

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.