In my philosophy class today the teacher posed a hypothetical situation in which a website was set up with two buttons. The first would kill the youngest person in the world, but would unlock the second which would end all global suffering. We were told to ignore the effects this would have on overpopulation, etc.
Within two minutes, the entire class was against me as I argued to push the buttons. I was told things like: "it's okay, you just have a less developed frontal lobe" and "you're a monster" and "I guess I'm just too good of a person to kill a child."
I wasn't given many convincing arguments, so I was wondering if the larger community agrees that I'm a monster / that I should kill myself.
-- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg
hahahah someone literally told you that you have a underdeveloped Frontal lobe? Marry that girl!
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?
you should've been the "this is a dumb question" side. because killing a baby won't ever save the world. there's no amount of murder you could do to end all suffering.
I wouldn't kill the child without proof that the second button actually does what it says it does. It could be a trick.
Not to mention, without explanation as to WHY killing this kid would end global suffering. Why is this kid the cause of it? Or if the kid isn't the cause, how is killing him the solution? I hate these type of questions.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?
OmarsComin posted... you should've been the "this is a dumb question" side. because killing a baby won't ever save the world. there's no amount of murder you could do to end all suffering.
Any person who does not do this is not only completely irrational, ignorant but also selfish because they cannot live with the guilt of murder weighing on them for ending GLOBAL SUFFERING
you're in the right here but this kind of illogical behavior is completely expected of a woman, it's much easier to make an emotional investment in a baby than something vague like "end world suffering", even though the latter has far far more wide reaching implications. there are millions of people who are going to die as a result of things that they are suffering through now, picking the first option is condemning millions if not billions of people to their eventual deaths as well. the only way to NOT be a murderer here is to simply not hit either button
From: OmarsComin | #010 you should've been the "this is a dumb question" side. because killing a baby won't ever save the world. there's no amount of murder you could do to end all suffering.
From: TheRock1525 | #011 I wouldn't kill the child without proof that the second button actually does what it says it does. It could be a trick.
Not to mention, without explanation as to WHY killing this kid would end global suffering. Why is this kid the cause of it? Or if the kid isn't the cause, how is killing him the solution? I hate these type of questions.
These posts kinda miss the point of thought experiments like this. The rules simply are as they are, use magic to explain it if you want. The point is to consider whether killing the kid would be worth the outcome promised.
From: OmarsComin | #010 you should've been the "this is a dumb question" side. because killing a baby won't ever save the world. there's no amount of murder you could do to end all suffering.
Philosophy/ethics classes are all about this.
I would push the button a thousand times if it fixed suffering.
oh no you caused a new born to die
good thing all the other new borns in the world will get to live now
To be fair, I think it'd be really f***ing hard to kill a kid regardless. Like, I'd have to summon all of my wits about me and I'd probably cry over it too, even if I was ending all of the world's suffering.
--
Xbox GT: PrivateBiscuit1 Down with Zhang. Let there be Biscuit!
From: OmarsComin | #010 you should've been the "this is a dumb question" side. because killing a baby won't ever save the world. there's no amount of murder you could do to end all suffering.
Yeah our teacher comes up with these pretty ridiculous hypothetical scenarios so I don't argue with them anymore. I guess I should've just dropped the class after seeing that I had this same teacher that I had before.
From: TheRock1525 | #011 I wouldn't kill the child without proof that the second button actually does what it says it does. It could be a trick.
(I would say that it the 1st button is equally likely to be fake)
-- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg
From: PrivateBiscuit1 | #020 To be fair, I think it'd be really f***ing hard to kill a kid regardless. Like, I'd have to summon all of my wits about me and I'd probably cry over it too, even if I was ending all of the world's suffering.
Yes, but you wouldn't not do it. Why would you not do it?
These posts kinda miss the point of thought experiments like this. The rules simply are as they are, use magic to explain it if you want. The point is to consider whether killing the kid would be worth the outcome promised.
Except this isn't an experiment. What real world application would this have? I know plenty of people that would act for the "greater good" in a certain situation, but this is basically taking it to illogical extremes.
In fairness, it is not "let one baby die", it is "kill one baby".
That said, ending global suffering (and saving uncountably many babies, in addition to nontrivial quality of life improvements and suchlike) is clearly the superior position from a rational perspective.
-- I don't like this duchy. Now, it's an adventurer.
These posts kinda miss the point of thought experiments like this. The rules simply are as they are, use magic to explain it if you want. The point is to consider whether killing the kid would be worth the outcome promised.
I just have a hard time caring about a question like that. more interesting questions are ones like "would you pay more money for everything if it ended child labor in China" or something because at least that's sort of possible.
Philosophy 101 all up in here. It's a dumb question that is phrased poorly.
anyway, I wouldn't kill the kid, because life is suffering. Killing the kid is equatable to killing all humanity. It is impossible to live as a society without suffering at some point. If there's no suffering, we are essentially just sitting around in mindless bliss, and that's no way to live.
If it were more specific, like, if you kill this kid, you end the genocide in Sudan, THAT is a much more compelling debate, to me.
From: TheRock1525 | #023 Except this isn't an experiment. What real world application would this have? I know plenty of people that would act for the "greater good" in a certain situation, but this is basically taking it to illogical extremes.
I agree. This hypothetical situation is a really bad example.
The better question is if you'd kill one innocent to save the lives of two.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
JaKyL25 posted... Even if you kill the baby, you'll never feel guilty about it and the parents won't care, because all suffering in the world is magically gone.
this is an interesting loophole, even if the second button is more logical I'd imagine most people would have difficulty actually hitting it, but this technically negates some of that...
From: WalrusJump | #026 you go to evanston don't you? who's your teacher?
Nah, I live there but I left to go to boarding school after freshman year Which makes me sad that my parents pay money so that I can be told I have a less developed frontal lobe.
I mean, the class merely expressed confusion when I said that I would absolutely sacrifice myself to save the world. Like, "Wait... You can't just totally change your moral position! Then you would have to suffer!" "Yeah, but I'm not killing the kid so I don't suffer, I'm killing it so nobody suffers"
-- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg
From: colliding | #028 If it were more specific, like, if you kill this kid, you end the genocide in Sudan, THAT is a much more compelling debate, to me.
From: DeepsPraw | #030 The better question is if you'd kill one innocent to save the lives of two.
Well, the original question was "would you kill one to save 5?" and when I got TOTALLY destroyed for wanting to kill there, the teacher broadened it a little
To no effect.
-- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg
Incidentally, if button 2 would end all suffering, wouldn't it also end the suffering caused by your guilt from pushing button 1? And any suffering caused by people who didn't like you pushing button 1? Wow... it's a mindrape button.
--
There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover, God himself, be your hope. You have to be your own hope.
oh i was going to ask if you go to IMSA but that's free, i believe. where do you go?
also the people grilling you for it are ridiculous, so much so that i'm not sure i believe this story. most people i've talked to say they'd kill one person to save the lives of five, for example.
From: WalrusJump | #039 also the people grilling you for it are ridiculous, so much so that i'm not sure i believe this story. most people i've talked to say they'd kill one person to save the lives of five, for example.
The thing is, it's a class of 8, and it really became just 2-3 people who were grilling me. Everyone else just got quiet, probably afraid to incur the wrath of Jennifer.
-- Me_Pie_Three wants a SuperNiceDog for Christmas http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/special-sauce-is-my-friend.jpg
A much more interesting version of the typical "kill one to save many" question is the one about the perfect society. Imagine that there's a perfect society. They want for nothing, and everyone lives in absolute physical and mental bliss. However, to accomplish this marvel of civilization, they must make one child's life an unending hell. Aside from this kid's life being miserable, everything else is absolutely perfect. Would such a thing be worth it?
From: special_sauce | #045 The thing is, it's a class of 8, and it really became just 2-3 people who were grilling me. Everyone else just got quiet, probably afraid to incur the wrath of Jennifer.
... an 8 person philosophy class? The hell is that?
From: TheRock1525 | #044 Wait, what's to prevent me from just finding someone else who is OK with it?
Someone else pushes the button, I don't have to kill a baby, and we end world suffering.
It's win-win.
I assume baby still dies, though.
--
There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover, God himself, be your hope. You have to be your own hope.