Test of Morality

[MyztDream]

Here is a question that seems to have no direct answer.

You are with a group of refugees, say during WWII, in a boat on your way out of, say, Poland. You re being persued by German patrol. Hidden away below deck in a sympatizers fishing boat, there is no way to escape if they were to find you. And if they were to find you, they may or may not kill you. There is no way to be sure, they may even send you to a concentration camp rather than kill you. Suddenly, on deck you here the patrol board. They are searching the boat for you. Suddenly one of the babies amongst you begins to cry loudly. If the Germans hear you they will find your hiding space.
Do you smother the baby to hopefully save the rest of the refugees? (remember their is no guarentee they may not find you otherwise) Or do you let the baby cry and risk discovery to save the life of that child?

[DarkWolf]

I'd try to shush it - ya know stop it crying the NORMAL way.

Seriously, nothing has to be that extreme. The baby's probably crying for food or warmth or comfort. Give it all three and keep calm and it will probably stop crying. Then again, if you are below deck and the enemy just came on and patrolled - they're going to hear you anyway and will probably find you with or without noise. It's a fishing boat - there's not many places to hide especially during those times.

And do you honestly think the parents/guardians/family of the baby are going to let you smother it? It's not your decision to make.

I am not going to aid the killing of somebody when they did nothing wrong. I'd rather damn the entirety of Earth's creatures before I do anything of the sort - and it doesn't matter whether that "somebody" is human or other animal. In my eyes the other animals have as much right to live as I do - and if it is a baby animal then more so.

So my choice: Neither. I'd try to stop it crying by normal means. If that isn't enough then so be it. If I am there to kill a child when those looking for me may or may not kill me and probably won't kill the child - then killing that child would make me far FAR worse than them.

[LV426]

It's actually happened numerous times, people in life or death situations have smothered their own babies because their crying would reveal their position.

I don't know if I would. Probably. Babies Smell.

[DarkWolf]

It's actually happened numerous times, people in life or death situations have smothered their own babies because their crying would reveal their position.

I don't know if I would. Probably. Babies Smell.
I hope it failed so they were killed.

People capable of doing that do not deserve to be called human.

[LV426]

I hope it failed so they were killed.

People capable of doing that do not deserve to be called human.
Actually no they survived but usually ended up in therapy for it. There were cases of women in the 1800s that had smothered their babies when they were hiding from indians who had raided their farms, one of these examples was used in the movie Quigley Down Under and while that is fiction there are cases where it actually happened. There were also cases in the Korean and Vietnam wars where it happened. I don't know about WWII but I suppose that in any type of situation it can happen. It's survival of the many vs. survival of the one.

[Deeper Shade]

Me being a guy would probably pay the nearest girl to try and breast feed, there wont be anymilk unless she has a baby but it might shut it up.....you know like a passifier.

[RQ]

I think you're all forgetting something. When you deprive someone of air, they will eventually lose consciousness. Once they pass out, they'll breathe again if you just let them. In that situation, I would try to quiet the child using conventional methods, but if that didn't work almost immediately I would force him or her into unconsciousness and then let him or her resume breathing.

Under ideal circumstances, the child would live and I would not be found.

[Lycan_bites]

I'm with LH, babies really do smell.

[Faerie_flame]

I agree, babies do smell, however I dont know if I could bring myself to smother it. Though I would love to be the one who was brave and did the right thing who everyone loved and got the georgous guy :o I would probably end up freezing in that situation.

Besides, I might get baby spit on my hand.

[Hagakure]

Haven't you read the book?

XXXVII. Never attempt an escape with a baby on board.

[MyztDream]

I wouldn't smother the child myself. It is cruel, for one to die of not being able to breathe, (not all circumstances are ordeal...) I would rather die for the child then kill it to save my life. It is like that question you may see on military psyche evaluations to determine where your loyalites lie: If you were forced to kill someone, who would it be- your mother, your father, or yourself?

In answer to that, I would have to say, myself. I could not kill anyone who has done nothing wrong...

[LV426]

That one's easy, my mother.

[RQ]

I wouldn't smother the child myself. It is cruel, for one to die of not being able to breathe, (not all circumstances are ideal...) I would rather die for the child then kill it to save my life. It is like that question you may see on military psyche evaluations to determine where your loyalites lie: If you were forced to kill someone, who would it be- your mother, your father, or yourself?

In answer to that, I would have to say, myself. I could not kill anyone who has done nothing wrong...I find it hypocritical that you wouldn't want to smother the child yourself. I think you should either support the action enough to carry it out on your own, or you oppose it entirely. Furthermore, you would not be "dying for the child." You would be dying right there with the child. Which is the lesser of the two?

I do, however, agree with your answer to the loyalty question - just not for the same reasons. It isn't that I couldn't kill them because they were innocent - I couldn't kill them simply because they were my parents.

[Wolf_Pup]

I wouldn't smother the child myself. It is cruel, for one to die of not being able to breathe, (not all circumstances are ordeal...) I would rather die for the child then kill it to save my life. It is like that question you may see on military psyche evaluations to determine where your loyalites lie: If you were forced to kill someone, who would it be- your mother, your father, or yourself?

In answer to that, I would have to say, myself. I could not kill anyone who has done nothing wrong...

Easy...My mother! I don't care for her much, and she never did act like a mother. She would be the one to smother her baby if it was crying...Hell, she had an abortion when she was 18! So yeah...My mother. Besides, my dad is awesome! I love the guy!

[LV426]

Easy...My mother! I don't care for her much, and she never did act like a mother. She would be the one to smother her baby if it was crying...Hell, she had an abortion when she was 18! So yeah...My mother. Besides, my dad is awesome! I love the guy!

I don't see how having an abortion makes one more likely to smother a baby. That's rather ridiculous.

[Wolf_Pup]

I don't see how having an abortion makes one more likely to smother a baby. That's rather ridiculous.
Because she didn't want the kid. She never wanted kids. But when her parents found out that she was gonna have one the 2nd time around (meaning me) they told her not to get one. That and some other shit went down as well that they made her not get one! ^_^;;

My mom is not a very good person. She doesn't care about anyone but herself. So yeah.

I have a very fucked up family! Although not as bad as some of my friends who still have their parents wanting to kill them now! And even tried...It's sad.

[GhostBat]

I dunno if I could smother the baby or not. If I did, I would have saved myself and others at the expense of a child. If I didn't, I would be sacrificing everyone, including the child, because I didn't want to feel guilty. Either way, the baby would die. *shrugs*

[chriz]

People capable of doing that do not deserve to be called human.

It's no more human to let the people around you die because you were selfish enough to "save" your baby (who would likely be killed anyway).

[DarkWolf]

It's no more human to let the people around you die because you were selfish enough to "save" your baby (who would likely be killed anyway).
My selfishness and strength of opinion shouldn't be a factor in saving or damning the others - they're old enough to make their own choices; I am not their God. The baby, however, isn't capable of making its choices and I fail to see why that means it must be killed just because the parents/whatever are too stupid to handle a baby. Keep the baby warm, try to be hopeful and as relaxed as possible, and feed it or give it a pacifier. Or cover yourselves and get those around you to huddle closer to you so the sounds are less likely to be heard.

I just think that there are less extreme ways than guaranteeing the death of a child because there's the possibility you may be found - and then calculate the possibility of dying. The scenario isn't that you will die on discovery, but that you may or may not die.

There are multiple ways, many ways in fact, of silencing a baby without the use of anything extreme like making it pass out or killing it. I know this for a fact because I have used these many ways on multiple babies and did so quietly. If a, then, 18 year old young adult who dislikes babies can do it then surely a bunch of people huddled together can do the same?

[Deeper Shade]

BRAVO DW!!! :notworthy :buttrock:

[DarkWolf]

BRAVO DW!!! :notworthy :buttrock:
Thanks. :)

[LV426]

Sure there are ways and I am sure that these methods would have been tried but in the event that the child can not be silenced by normal means then there would need to be an alternative. The child you say has no way to make a choice but this isn't factoring into the survival of the others. This is a case of the death of one to ensure that the others will live, some who may even give birth to their own kids later on. This one child could be condemning not just a party of 15 people to death but entire generations whereas the child's death would only end the baby and one generation and not 15 others and their generations.

It's always a hard decision to make but the same can apply in any situation, a man holding a gun is threatening a group of people, he might or might not kill you all, you can only stop him by killing him. Do you sit and wait to see if he kills you and the group or do you take him out now?

My life is too precious to me to waste it on a might be and if it comes down to me or them it's gonna be them. I protect me and mine, and I have no problems taking out a baby should it be neccesary to ensure my survival. I would probably be pretty upset about it, I don't kill people for fun and it would be a hard decision to have to make let alone carry through with. But again it comes down to my survival. Whether a baby or an adult the decision is the same, the person putting my life in danger needs to be removed from the equation.

[Lost_Soul]

I couldn't harm the baby.

[Darth Cluich]

I would eat the baby.

[chriz]

Don't Kick The Baby!

[chriz]

My selfishness and strength of opinion shouldn't be a factor in saving or damning the others - they're old enough to make their own choices; I am not their God. The baby, however, isn't capable of making its choices and I fail to see why that means it must be killed just because the parents/whatever are too stupid to handle a baby. Keep the baby warm, try to be hopeful and as relaxed as possible, and feed it or give it a pacifier. Or cover yourselves and get those around you to huddle closer to you so the sounds are less likely to be heard.

Your experience with babies must be very limited if you think there's a single solution to all baby woes. And a baby's cry evolved specifically to be hard to ignore.

But this is beside the point. The question assumes that none of your normal methods of calming the baby works. Under normal circumstances, you're a whiz with the kid, but for whatever reason today he won't shut up. That's part of the equation. Obviously, if the answer was as simple as keeping the baby quiet, then we'd all choose that.

You can't keep the baby quiet no matter what you do. You, DW, not some "stupid" people you can pawn the problem off onto.

I just think that there are less extreme ways than guaranteeing the death of a child because there's the possibility you may be found - and then calculate the possibility of dying. The scenario isn't that you will die on discovery, but that you may or may not die.

Again, I think the question assumes you'll all be killed if found, otherwise what's the point? There's no way to save the baby's life. The question: Is it better to be the active agent in a baby's death in order to save the lives of other people, or is it better to avoid taking action even though you know such inaction will result in the death of the baby, as well as yourself and those around you?

This is why it's a test of morality, not a test of wits.

[DarkWolf]

Your experience with babies must be very limited if you think there's a single solution to all baby woesNo offense, but please go by what I actually post not what you possibly want to read. ;)

There are multiple ways, many ways in fact, of silencing a baby without the use of anything extreme like making it pass out or killing it. I know this for a fact because I have used these many ways on multiple babies and did so quietly

You can't keep the baby quiet no matter what you do. You, DW, not some "stupid" people you can pawn the problem off onto.I would not be pawning off anything. I made my decision - with all I know about my self, all my understanding of my own morality and everything I have come to regard as my heart. The baby would not be mine and the scenario does not suggest it would be. The others are adults and have free will. Why would I be the one to decide their fate? If they have a choice themselves about the child - so be it - but I am not dictator nor their god: it is NOT my place to tell them what to do or how to think.

This is why it's a test of morality, not a test of wits.I know - which is why I answered on morality:

I am not going to aid the killing of somebody when they did nothing wrong. I'd rather damn the entirety of Earth's creatures before I do anything of the sortI made my choice. Whether you agree or disagree with my choice is irrelevant.

*gives you a cookie*

*beeps your nose*

*runs*

:p :D

[chriz]

No offense, but please go by what I actually post not what you possibly want to read. ;)

You've silenced X babies, so therefore the question is invalid? Your magic method of silencing X babies will not hold up to all babies everywhere. The question assumes the baby will not be silenced short of death.

I just think you're sidestepping, or at least you were at that point in your response.

I made my choice. Whether you agree or disagree with my choice is irrelevant.

What choice?

So my choice: Neither.

You can see how that answer is slightly ambiguous. ;)

Of course, by answering "neither," you're saying you'd let the baby cry (no one cares if you try to silence it -- you can't, it's an absolute in the experiment).

Here's a variant on the scheme. Same scenario. Baby cries. You try to silence it but you can't. I reach over and smother it, thereby saving all our lives (except, of course, the baby's).

Am I evil?

[DarkWolf]

You've silenced X babies, so therefore the question is invalid? Your magic method of silencing X babies will not hold up to all babies everywhere. The question assumes the baby will not be silenced short of death.It didn't say that, and I am not one for intentionally assuming somebody is saying something when they haven't said it. I understand that I cannot guarantee to silence the baby - I said I'd try, there's a difference. Come on, I make these posts to be read, ya know. So maybe read them? :p *throws cookies at you*

I just think you're sidestepping, or at least you were at that point in your response.Matter of opinion. You are focusing on this silence-the-baby thing and I am responding to your words to correct or clarify - whatever the case may be. Or at the very least, try to.

What choice?I can't believe you asked that. Please seek help with your reading skills. I shall put it for a third time and hopefully you'll read it this time :D

I am not going to aid the killing of somebody when they did nothing wrong. I'd rather damn the entirety of Earth's creatures before I do anything of the sort

Of course, by answering "neither," you're saying you'd let the baby cry (no one cares if you try to silence it -- you can't, it's an absolute in the experiment).No, by saying neither it means: I am not going to just let the baby cry and I am not going to kill it. I will try to silence it - yes this scenario may give it that such an action can be futile - however think of it subjectively: If I was in that position I'm not going to think "I possess magical knowledge that all attempts of shushing the baby will fail" - we're given the scenario but face facts: if you were in that position nothing is guaranteed. So care or not: I will try to quiet the baby. Even if I knew it was in vain: I'd still try. I am not letting it cry - I will be trying to stop it crying because I want to live - but I will not resort to killing it for that purpose.

Here's a variant on the scheme. Same scenario. Baby cries. You try to silence it but you can't. I reach over and smother it, thereby saving all our lives (except, of course, the baby's).

Am I evil?Like I am going to go by some pathetic and barely applicable false notion of morals set long ago by mindless gullible society and egotistical control freaks of the Religious in power? No. Evil has little meaning to me, if any at all.

I do not accept "good" and "evil" as valid concepts. So I will answer differently: I understand your decision and would not stop you. But I don't agree with your decision and will then refuse to ever acknowledge your existence as being worth my notice. Does that answer your question?

Spin the scenario however you wish - my opinions and actions regarding it would always be the same, regardless of whether people agreed or disagreed with such decisions.

It's quite simply who I am. :shrug:

[Darth Cluich]

Am I evil?

Yeah, but killing babies has nothing to do with it. :p

[LV426]

Well this just proves that DW will never survive in a war.

[Darth Cluich]

Nah, I might be nice and spare him when I invade Wales.

[LV426]

Why would anyone want to invade wales?

[Darth Cluich]

Strategic sheep purposes ;)

[chriz]

No, by saying neither it means: I am not going to just let the baby cry and I am not going to kill it.

You cannot silence the baby without killing it. Of course you're going to try to silence it without killing it. We all would (well, except LH). But you can't. Adding that to your answer is irrelevant. If you're not going to kill the baby, you're going to let it cry. Those are your only two options.

Saying you're going to "try" to silence the baby is beside the point, and in no way impacts the outcome of your decision.

if you were in that position nothing is guaranteed. So care or not: I will try to quiet the baby. Even if I knew it was in vain: I'd still try. I am not letting it cry - I will be trying to stop it crying because I want to live - but I will not resort to killing it for that purpose.

It's part of the thought experiment that if the baby makes noise, you'll all die. Guaranteed. It's also part of the thought experiment that the baby won't shut up short of being killed.

Sure, you'll try to quiet the baby non-lethally, but you'll fail. The laws of reality as they pertain to the situation dictate that. So by being unwilling to kill the baby in order to silence it, you're opting to let the baby die along with yourself and everyone else.

Which, by the way, isn't the wrong answer. But there are only two options and neither of them are pleasant.

[Tiamot]

Yeah I'd do it. As long as that kid's mom and dad are still around, he's replaceable.

[DarkWolf]

I cannot be bothered to go through and quote so I will just repeat myself, again, and that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned.

It is not guaranteed you will die - read the initial post.

Even if it was; I don't care. I will still try to silence the baby non-lethally.

Even if there was no way, at all, to silence that baby - I will still try.

I don't care if my failure to quiet that baby results in the death of that baby, me and everyone else. I don't care if the failure results in the end of the world. I don't care if it means eternity in punishment in he worst of all Hells. I don't care if it results in damning the world to Helling nightmares or nonexistence or whatever result of punishing death fate can possible throw at me.

I

still

refuse

to

kill

the

child.

For me it isn't a matter of who dies.

It's a matter of staying true to who I am to the end.

This decision may be wrong, dastardly, malicious, spiteful - whatever. But to me it is the only choice. Simple as that.

--

Note to others: Let's keep the off-topic conversations down, OK?

[chriz]

It is not guaranteed you will die - read the initial post.

Ah, ok. Then the question isn't one of morality. My mistake.

[Hellcat]

I wouldn't kill the baby, in fact the baby is mine. I recognise those screams that kept me awake all night every night for 3 solid months... maybe I should kill the baby? NO. If I ain't gonna kill the baby no buggar else is either. You wanna kill the baby? you've gotta get through me first and I'll create more noise than any baby in the process. Now, do we stick with the squarking brat and hope for the best, or do we fight it out here and now and make a hell of a noise as we do? (I pack a mean punch btw) Answers on a postcard.


Alternatively we could make a blood sacrifice to satan and hope he heeds our prayer for survival.