Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Would You Kill The Baby?

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 1:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A woman with her infant, and 6 other innocent people are running for their lives. A group of hostile men who are heavily armed and ruthless killers are chasing them for a mere joy of killing. The 8 individual being chased slip under an abandoned house and listen as a pursuer orders his companions to search the house.. Under the floor boards the mothers infant begins to shuffle and looks as if it will cry. Out of fear the mother covers the babes mouth to keep it quiet. Upon removing her hand the child will scream. The mother will have to smother her child or they all will surely die.

I made this a poll but it cut my question short and I had some misspelling. I wanted to repost it but decided to just fix and post it here.

http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 1:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

If the mother were to remove her hand to set the baby down, it would cry and they shot through the floor boards.

Also, the other 6 didn't notice the baby was going to cry. The mother has no hands to signal to them that they need to leave, and it's too dark to mouth to them what is happening.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 1:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 1:53:09 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

If the mother were to remove her hand to set the baby down, it would cry and they shot through the floor boards.

Also, the other 6 didn't notice the baby was going to cry. The mother has no hands to signal to them that they need to leave, and it's too dark to mouth to them what is happening.

Doesn't change anything I've said so far. More than likely, before they even ran into the house, either the mother would have abandoned the baby, or the 6 others would have abandoned both of them. Given the situation as it stands, the utilitarian solution is to smother the baby and hope it lives.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 4:46:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 1:33:46 PM, pozessed wrote:
A woman with her infant, and 6 other innocent people are running for their lives. A group of hostile men who are heavily armed and ruthless killers are chasing them for a mere joy of killing. The 8 individual being chased slip under an abandoned house and listen as a pursuer orders his companions to search the house.. Under the floor boards the mothers infant begins to shuffle and looks as if it will cry. Out of fear the mother covers the babes mouth to keep it quiet. Upon removing her hand the child will scream. The mother will have to smother her child or they all will surely die.

I made this a poll but it cut my question short and I had some misspelling. I wanted to repost it but decided to just fix and post it here.

http://www.debate.org...

Crying baby = certain death for everybody.

Smothered baby = probable death for baby.

There are other factors that would determine how long you had to cover the baby's mouth for, so you're better to smother the baby and hope that you can remove your hand before inflicting serious damage.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 4:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
While it's possible that the 6 others would have abandoned the mother and her infant, it's certainly not realistic that the mother would have abandoned her infant, especially given that she wouldn't have foreseen that the infant was dead either way.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 6:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 4:58:19 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
While it's possible that the 6 others would have abandoned the mother and her infant, it's certainly not realistic that the mother would have abandoned her infant, especially given that she wouldn't have foreseen that the infant was dead either way.

You can troll better than that bro.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.

The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.

Also, why do you assume leaving the baby was an available option? Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:28:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

'variant'...derp
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.

It would only be unclear for those unsure of what is being isolated. Fundamentally, the dilemma is just asking whether it would be justified to kill someone whose life, if maintained, would mean certain death for them and others.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:06:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:05:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.

It would only be unclear for those unsure of what is being isolated. Fundamentally, the dilemma is just asking whether it would be justified to kill someone whose life, if maintained, would mean certain death for them and others.

I do not think this is up to you to determine, but for the OP to determine.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:06:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:05:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.

It would only be unclear for those unsure of what is being isolated. Fundamentally, the dilemma is just asking whether it would be justified to kill someone whose life, if maintained, would mean certain death for them and others.

I do not think this is up to you to determine, but for the OP to determine.

What on earth do we gain when chance variables are calculated into the situation? They only modify that which we seek.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.


The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.

You're deciding the cause of its death. You consented to any harm brought onto you by the baby when it was taken into such an important situation. It's your responsibility, and you have to accept it.

"Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it."

By abandoning the baby, it has a chance to live. By smothering it, it has no chance.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:12:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:06:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:05:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.

It would only be unclear for those unsure of what is being isolated. Fundamentally, the dilemma is just asking whether it would be justified to kill someone whose life, if maintained, would mean certain death for them and others.

I do not think this is up to you to determine, but for the OP to determine.

What on earth do we gain when chance variables are calculated into the situation? They only modify that which we seek.

Not sure why you're being so argumentative about this.

You have your own interpretation, I have my own, and the OP has his own. The OP asked a question, I answered it. Frankly, your critique of my answer based upon what you believe to be the intention of the OP is somewhat ridiculous.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:17:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:12:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:06:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:05:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:46:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:44:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:36:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:27:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 1:40:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So this is a variant of the trolley dilemma, yes?

Utilitarian justification is that the baby be smothered.

What more than likely would have happened is that the mother would have abandoned the infant before it came to this. If not, then the other 6 people, cognizant of their situation, would have abandoned the mother and her infant before it came to this.

It's a bit different, because the baby will die either way while the trolley dilemma gives you the option of killing a man who wouldn't have died otherwise. Also, abandoning the infant would certainty kill it, so the choice merely becomes 'to abandon or not to abandon' vs to 'smother or not to smother,' which is fundamentally the same dilemma.

There is a chance the baby may survive being smothered. There is a chance that abandoning the infant would not kill it. The scenario is not specific as to whether or not there are others looking to kill this group of people, or whether or not the current threat is looking for the baby or for the 7 other people.

All that is irrelevant. The point of a moral dilemma is to create a situation which isolates ethical considerations for which 'chance' and 'likelihood' could apply, not to mix them into that process.

The point of clarity is to assure that variable interpretations are not possible, in which case, as I already said, the scenario is not specific, and thus is unclear.

It would only be unclear for those unsure of what is being isolated. Fundamentally, the dilemma is just asking whether it would be justified to kill someone whose life, if maintained, would mean certain death for them and others.

I do not think this is up to you to determine, but for the OP to determine.

What on earth do we gain when chance variables are calculated into the situation? They only modify that which we seek.

Not sure why you're being so argumentative about this.

Not sure why you're unsure. This is, after all, a debate site :)


You have your own interpretation, I have my own, and the OP has his own. The OP asked a question, I answered it. Frankly, your critique of my answer based upon what you believe to be the intention of the OP is somewhat ridiculous.

I'm critiquing your analysis for being shallow.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:32:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:17:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.


The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.

You're deciding the cause of its death. You consented to any harm brought onto you by the baby when it was taken into such an important situation. It's your responsibility, and you have to accept it.


And what about the others? They affirmed no such "consent."

"Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it."

By abandoning the baby, it has a chance to live. By smothering it, it has no chance.

She couldn't have known that she would be in such a predicament. Do you honestly believe she should have estimated that abandoning her baby on the side of the road would be for the best, when 'best' is something barely above CERTAIN death? She shouldn't be held responsible for the circumstances forced upon her.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:44:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:32:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:17:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.


The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.

You're deciding the cause of its death. You consented to any harm brought onto you by the baby when it was taken into such an important situation. It's your responsibility, and you have to accept it.


And what about the others? They affirmed no such "consent."

Then the mother has already violated their rights.


"Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it."

By abandoning the baby, it has a chance to live. By smothering it, it has no chance.

She couldn't have known that she would be in such a predicament. Do you honestly believe she should have estimated that abandoning her baby on the side of the road would be for the best, when 'best' is something barely above CERTAIN death? She shouldn't be held responsible for the circumstances forced upon her.

If she didn't know what was going to happen (which seems kind of unlikely, but whatever), she shouldn't have abandoned the baby. I agree with that. She did, however, know that there was a possibility that it was going to happen, and, since she can't negotiate the terms of a relationship with the baby, she has to do whatever she can to not violate its rights (the baby can't consent to being killed).
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:22:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:17:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Not sure why you're being so argumentative about this.

Not sure why you're unsure. This is, after all, a debate site :)


You have your own interpretation, I have my own, and the OP has his own. The OP asked a question, I answered it. Frankly, your critique of my answer based upon what you believe to be the intention of the OP is somewhat ridiculous.

I'm critiquing your analysis for being shallow.

That's not a critique, that's an insult, and an unwarranted one at that.

As it is, you're debating something the knowledge of which you don't know, and I strongly suggest you stop this line of argumentation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 8:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:44:52 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:32:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:17:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.


The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.

You're deciding the cause of its death. You consented to any harm brought onto you by the baby when it was taken into such an important situation. It's your responsibility, and you have to accept it.


And what about the others? They affirmed no such "consent."

Then the mother has already violated their rights.


"Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it."

By abandoning the baby, it has a chance to live. By smothering it, it has no chance.

She couldn't have known that she would be in such a predicament. Do you honestly believe she should have estimated that abandoning her baby on the side of the road would be for the best, when 'best' is something barely above CERTAIN death? She shouldn't be held responsible for the circumstances forced upon her.

If she didn't know what was going to happen (which seems kind of unlikely, but whatever), she shouldn't have abandoned the baby. I agree with that. She did, however, know that there was a possibility that it was going to happen, and, since she can't negotiate the terms of a relationship with the baby, she has to do whatever she can to not violate its rights (the baby can't consent to being killed).

Ok, new scenario. You and your family are being held hostage (by no fault of your own) and could be killed at any moment. You devise a fail-safe plan to break free, but in order to escape, an innocent person must die in the process. Would your escape be justifiable?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 9:02:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2013 8:57:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:44:52 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:32:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 8:17:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/7/2013 7:09:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/7/2013 6:42:11 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Was that a scene from The Pianist?
On topic, you have no right to decide if the baby lives or dies. If anything, you should have left the baby beforehand. You didn't, so you have to face the consequences.


The baby WILL die one way or the other. You aren't deciding anything.

You're deciding the cause of its death. You consented to any harm brought onto you by the baby when it was taken into such an important situation. It's your responsibility, and you have to accept it.


And what about the others? They affirmed no such "consent."

Then the mother has already violated their rights.


"Abandoning the baby would be no more justified than smothering it."

By abandoning the baby, it has a chance to live. By smothering it, it has no chance.

She couldn't have known that she would be in such a predicament. Do you honestly believe she should have estimated that abandoning her baby on the side of the road would be for the best, when 'best' is something barely above CERTAIN death? She shouldn't be held responsible for the circumstances forced upon her.

If she didn't know what was going to happen (which seems kind of unlikely, but whatever), she shouldn't have abandoned the baby. I agree with that. She did, however, know that there was a possibility that it was going to happen, and, since she can't negotiate the terms of a relationship with the baby, she has to do whatever she can to not violate its rights (the baby can't consent to being killed).

Ok, new scenario. You and your family are being held hostage (by no fault of your own) and could be killed at any moment. You devise a fail-safe plan to break free, but in order to escape, an innocent person must die in the process. Would your escape be justifiable?

Follow up question:

- would your stance be different if you were the one who would actually kill the person?
Niwsa
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2013 9:13:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that it's too easy to say yes or no since we're not in the situation. I think a better question to be answered while we're removed is: "Is it morally permissible to kill the person".
http://debate.org... <--- please vote!