Interesting Question...

Shane

I seen the film "Swordfish" over the weekend. Not too good, but this question was asked...

"If you could bring an end to all the diseases in the world by killing just one innocent child, would you do it?"

Standing by for the results...

Mark

By god thats gonna keep me up tonight. Maybe if the kid was really really ugly

Mills

I don't think I'd be able to kill an innocent child in cold blood.

Sand

On a practical level it seems a no brainer - 1 death as opposed to the millions who would die otherwise. On a personal level I wouldnt be able to do it. Those millions who would die wouldnt be my fault (except perhaps as an act of negligence? ), the innocent kids death definitly would be.

chernobyl

I would easily kill the kid without hesitation.

JustHalf

Yes. I'm an evil bastard.

Drunk pirate

Children anoy me so......yes

[CALIBUR]

thats good one. i said yes because if i say no i'll have the blood of 1,000 kids on my hands. but it be vary hard to do it...

Xterminator

I found it easy to answer.

I dont belive the end justifies the means.

Simple philosophy.

I believe killing is wrong, ergo i would not kill a child. I know you are saying it might be to test a serum that could save 1000's etc. but to me how we behave is as important as what we achieve.

Just my personal belief, and I'd like to think i'd stick to it, evn if you upped the ante very high.

X

seamus

Originally posted by #MEAT#
i said yes because if i say no i'll have the blood of 1,000 kids on my hands.

As someone said earlier - it's not your fault that they're all sick. Fine you're letting them die, but if you never had the chance to save them, they were dead anyway, so no loss. It's the equivalent of going on a gameshow and losing all of your winnings - you won't come out any worse than you went in. Same with this. If they put you in a room with a child, give you a gun, and the above choice - when you leave without killing the kid, no-one is any worse off when you come out. Makes sense to me anyway......

swiss

I don't think you can seriously equate losing some 'winnings' on a game show to effectively condemning thousands if not millions of children who are equally innocent to death.

On a personal level I don't know if I could have the courage of my convictions to carry out such a heinous act, but I do think that it would be for the greater good. No, it is not my fault they are sick, but by ignoring a chance to save them, I am in a way guilty of their deaths.

This kinda reminds me of an Ali G sketch where he told a vegetarian in jest "Here's a chicken. You eat this, or we kill another one". Pragmatism must prevail, IMO, to preserve the greater good.

azezil

I voted no, but can i kill the child anyway?? :P

Death disease war plagues, its all necessary to maintain a supportable population level in the world.

four_star

of course yes. you'd save the life of millions in the long run. lucky i don't have that option if it was someone you knew

Shinji

No. There's always another way, and you can't balance out life in a weighing scales.

four_star

what about the term an eye for an eye used in the bible then?

SheroN

the bible also talks about a man rising from the dead....what about that then?

four_star

if you believe you believe. your catholic SheroN so you can hardly talk. sure, there has been proof of miracles throughout history, why not rising from the dead?

SheroN

well im catholic on paper....it'd kill my poor mother if she thought otherwise......

Kappar

what about the term an eye for an eye used in the bible then?

in the words of Ghandi "an eye for an eye would mean the whole worlds blind" however he has hindu (I think)

Shad0r

Those millions who would die wouldnt be my fault (except perhaps as an act of negligence? ), the innocent kids death definitly would be.

I think it _would_ be your fault. In this particular example the end does justify the means in my book. You kill the child, millions are saved, you dont then millions die.

You can cloud the issue with as much philosophy or pyshcobabel as you like but in the end for me its that simple.

I am assuming that there is no room for being lied to on the question....if there was even the remotest possibility that millions wouldnt be saved with the death of the child, my answer would be very different...

Gordon

And to those that said yes...

what if that child was you?

Clintons Cat

what if your an adult?

Paddy20

Ask the "Children"?. This is NOT a question that - Grown ups - can logically answer.

The only people who can decide the "Fate" of one of their peers -
Are other - children, and their decision should not be taken lightly?...

Yours, paddy20:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Looking at the current tally of the poll, I suspect that kid is toast...

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Sand
On a personal level I wouldnt be able to do it. Those millions who would die wouldnt be my fault (except perhaps as an act of negligence? ), the innocent kids death definitly would be.

That's why we all hide behind institutions and bureaucracies! "I didn't kill the child, the government did." Wipes us clean of responsibility in our minds, but not in action.

I voted 'yes'. Of course, going down the utilitarian line and saying the ends justifies the means can't stop turning people themselves into means, rather than ends in themselves. Human beings are either seen as human beings or as instruments. So some people say. So either you believe in intrinsic good (which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist) or the pragmatic good (which is the most realistic option in the real world).

I think that if the decision was made all things considered and pragmatics found the action to be justified and fair, with the preservation of the child's own dignity and of the collective's, the action would be justified.

what if that child was you?

Once again, this totally depends on your moral stance. But it's a nice point . Either you respect the individual or you respect the collective - both lose out to the other view.

Zyox

id do it, but could i choose what weapon to use?

Moriarty

Id kill them, but i'd prolly end up topping myself later due to not being able to live with it on my conscience.

conZ

was just watching the film bout an hour ago and when that Q came up i said to myself "fvck, ya i would"

CocoLevinas

This sort of problem raises lots of philosophical questions: such as whether one life is any greater than another, or whether it is ever justifiable to take a life?
As usual in philosophy, a question for ever answer.

kitton

Originally posted by Gordon
And to those that said yes...

what if that child was you?

good question.would you kill yourself for world peace?
you wouldn't get to enjoy the peace but it would be the most selfless act.
i said yes,only theoretically though,in killing the child your disallowing the ability for world peace to exist.

Jelvon

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

so yeah kill the child to save millions

Mr.Applepie

Originally posted by azezorlilil
Death disease war plagues, its all necessary to maintain a supportable population level in the world.

You make a good point surely without disease etc. the worlds population would skyrocket!

Saruman

You make a good point surely without disease etc. the worlds population would skyrocket!

Then some muppet comes up with Viagra... nice one! more people in the world!!

back on topic the child is toast!! of course is hypothetical and killing a child is unlikely to cure all diseases on the planet so its fairly pointles... in fact the only serious thing about the original post seems the be the swordfish bit... i enjoyed it first time.. second time i fell asleep and could not watch it,.. utter crap!!

SYL

Well, scientists kill enough innocent animals every year to research diseases that kill us, so I reckon a few kids could take the bullet too. So YES, I think the kid should go for the sake of others. Feck it, I'd do it for a good cause

Paddy20

All human life is God given.

I appreciate that this thread started out in relation to a fictitious film plot and a problem/question posed therein.

However, I believe that the questions and answers on this thread show an extremely worrying human failing.

That of the "I am all right jack so f*** the kid" attitude.

Little, wonder that the world is full of wars, where real people are killing other people, including men, women, AND CHILDEN. Right NOW.

So, maybe a little less frivolity, when referring to the taking of a human life, might be more appropriate.

Thats, my 2cs worth of lecturing on this subject for today.

Yours, paddy20.

PHB

I think its scary when paddy20 is right but I really have to agree with him.

I dont think I would be able to bring myself to do it. If it was killing yourself to do it I would have no problem doing it but I dont think you claim that the end justifys the means.

Manach

From a purely practical level I shouldn't have a problem, but probably wouldn't, thinking that the child's life is not mine to take, and perhaps he/she when they grows up could save 10s of millions.

Side issue which shows up my own hypocritacy. If I image myself to be a tank commander and I see a "terrorist" run into a house, would I fire into it and risk destroying anyone else present there. Sure.

neuro-praxis

My philosophy in life is generally not to kill babies.

Kraken

no one can really say for sure if they would or wouldnt unless faced with that situation you can imagine what you would do and you may be right but when you have to look at the child in order to see where to aim before you shut your eyes you may not be able to go through with it. so i ab stain from answering this question. though it is a good question i just dont think i could answer it not with out actually having to go through it i mean.

It is a bitter outcome no matte what you choose. you can lie to other people but you cant lie to yourself.

seamus

Originally posted by Manach
Side issue which shows up my own hypocritacy. If I image myself to be a tank commander and I see a "terrorist" run into a house, would I fire into it and risk destroying anyone else present there. Sure.

Lets hope we never have to employ conscription. :eek:

Thomas from Presence

Do we want a disease free world?

Paddy20

Originally posted by Thomas from Presence
Do we want a disease free world?

Not if it is one run by a bunch of "Kid" killing sickos, or should that be "Psychos"!!..

Paddy:(