Would You Torture a Baby to End World Suffering?

[Pappa]

I wouldn't and couldn't, on the 'non-consent' grounds already mentioned. Plus the concept of 'first do no harm' embodied in the Hippocratic oath.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The OP says "a baby".

Are we given a specific baby? Or do we get to choose?

Shall we say that, for the sake of argument, it is a baby with severe physical and mental disabilities that is unlikely to survive to its first birthday and incapable of understanding on any level what is being done to it, for good or for ill. Shall we then add the fact that the child's father is a taleban warlord that considers the child's condition a punishment from allah on his wife's infidelity and is about to throw it on a fire just as it is stolen away for use in this hypothetical experiment.

Now would you do it?

[eXcommunicate]

I think Kant says that it's immoral to involve a third party against their will or without their consent. However, I don't know if I fully agree with Kant. I'd probably do it, yeah.

Even if it was immoral, would you make the immoral choice and take the guilt upon yourself if the outcome of ending world suffering was assured? I think there are two arguments to be had on this subject: a.) Would it be immoral to torture the baby to death if it saved 6 billion? b.) Would you do it anyway, even if it was immoral? To simply say it is "immoral" is not enough. Personally, yes, I think it would be immoral to sacrifice an unwilling participant, but I think I would do it (with extreme difficulty) anyway.

[charlou]

Torturing a baby will end world suffering? Anyone gullible enough to be talked into such a proposition should be locked away for society's protection, not allowed to act for society's 'salvation'.



Why stop at one infant? Why not end suffering by removing all those who suffer? So much quicker than, say, waiting for cures, tolerance, equality, more pragmatic than expecting all of physics/nature/humanity to respond to the tortured suffering of one little infant.

Oh yes, the world without the suffering: how much better off we'd all be

... let's start putting people out of their misery now ...

[charlou]

And for a completely rational perspective:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... 9#p2128329

[Animavore]

Great answer.

I was just going to completely ignore it as a stupid question but, this woman (I think woman) illustrated why it was so.

[Animavore]

Had to quickly scan through the thread and make sure I didn't actually answer it last night with a few pints on me

[Foxy13]

Hello everyone. This is my first post here. I just signed up today after discovering that my OP had been posted from RichardDawkins.net by pawiz. Here is how I answered the allegations against my question on the original thread.

To all of those that have said that the question was stupid and unrealistic, yes, of course it is. It was never intended to be a real-life scenario. Any sane human being would know that you don't really torture a baby to end world suffering. This is simply a philosophical exercise, and nothing more. It was intended to be, in a way, fun. I use the word fun because we are just discussing why or why not we think the ends justifies the means and nothing more. No one here is seriously considering tutoring a live baby. If you keep on insisting that the question is stupid, and thus you refuse to answer it, then just don't contribute to the thread. Everyone knows it's hypothetical, as are many philosophical questions.

Let me point out, though, that although this is indeed an unrealistic scenario, it does have many similarities to real-life situations. Think, for instance, of the torture of Guantanamo detainees and abortion.

[charlou]

Hello, Foxy13, and welcome.

[charlou]

Let me point out, though, that although this is indeed an unrealistic scenario, it does have many similarities to real-life situations. Think, for instance, of the torture of Guantanamo detainees and abortion.

How so?

[Foxy13]

Let me point out, though, that although this is indeed an unrealistic scenario, it does have many similarities to real-life situations. Think, for instance, of the torture of Guantanamo detainees and abortion.

How so?

Well, Charlou, both situations deal with the question of whether or not the ends justify the means. Does torturing a suspected terrorist lead to valuable information that could keep terrorist attacks at bay, and thus saving innocent lives? Is it worth it to torture a terrorist? Is it better for a woman to have an abortion than to raise her child in poverty, while at the same time risking world overpopulation? In both these cases, there is no clear-cut answer because both options are bad. The question, however, is about which option is worse. Do you see what I am saying?

It is the general underlying principal, not the specific question, that is important in this discussion.

[cowiz]

Sorry Foxy13, I should have PM'd you to let you know I'd done that, my apologies.

[charlou]

Let me point out, though, that although this is indeed an unrealistic scenario, it does have many similarities to real-life situations. Think, for instance, of the torture of Guantanamo detainees and abortion.

How so?

Well, Charlou, both situations deal with the question of whether or not the ends justify the means. Does torturing a suspected terrorist lead to valuable information that could keep terrorist attacks at bay, and thus saving innocent lives? Is it worth it to torture a terrorist? Is it better for a woman to have an abortion than to raise her child in poverty, while at the same time risking world overpopulation? In both these cases, there is no clear-cut answer because both options are bad. The question, however, is about which option is worse. Do you see what I am saying?

In the 'torture a baby to end world suffering' scenario, the hypothetical end is not even going to happen, so the comparison doesn't work on that level. With regard to abortion, there's no torture involved, only the extinguishing of life and, depending on the timing, most often the extinguishing of a non-cognizant life and, again, there's no nonsensical hypothetical 'end world suffering' scenarion attached. The results are far more pragmatic and the discussion more valuable, even necessary.

It is the general underlying principal, not the specific question, that is important in this discussion.

The general underlying principal being? People are asked to choose an option and admonished not to question the rationale of the premise. Okay, but what value is gained from such an exercise in deliberate ignorance?

[Foxy13]

In the 'torture a baby to end world suffering' scenario, the hypothetical end is not even going to happen, so the comparison doesn't work on that level. With regard to abortion, there's no torture involved, only the extinguishing of life and, depending on the timing, most often the extinguishing of a non-cognizant life and, again, there's no nonsensical hypothetical 'end world suffering' scenarion attached. The results are far more pragmatic and the discussion more valuable, even necessary.

Of course there is no fair comparison between these situations. The comparison has to do with the underlying principal rather than the specific situations themselves.

The general underlying principal being? People are asked to choose an option and admonished not to question the rationale of the premise. Okay, but what value is gained from such an exercise in deliberate ignorance?

The underlying principal has to do with two things. First, it has to do with discussing whether or not the ends justifies the means. There are many of these sorts of situations in real life that many of us will confront. Secondly, the underlying principal has to do with understanding absolutism and relativism. The absolutist would most likely say that torturing anyone is wrong no matter what, while a relativist is likely to say that torturing someone is excusable under certain circumstances.

[Foxy13]

Sorry Foxy13, I should have PM'd you to let you know I'd done that, my apologies.

No problem. In fact, I'm rather glad you did.