Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: June 14th, 2021, 11:50 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
I just started reading this thread today, so if this thought, or a similar one, has already been expressed, apologies if I missed it by not reading closely enough.
Since the question is submitted in the category of morals and ethics, I assume that the issue is really whether it would be moral to kill a child in such circumstances.
My answer is no.
Beyond that, I suggest that anyone who considers the question a serious one should really be asked to answer two questions: (1) would you murder a kid in order to cure cancer; and (2) would you kill yourself in order to achieve such a goal? If it takes the interviewee more than a nanosecond to concede that the answers have to be the same, I'd say that his "moral system" can't possibly be one with which I'd care to be associated.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
I get that the assumptions of the question would say 'put that aside' but it's something I think we have no need to worry about.
The question that's scarier, considering the possibility that sexuality and health / wellness might have some direct tie-in, is whether it would be ethical to sacrifice the sexual autonomy of a person to someone whose lets say doing really advanced work in telomere regulation and might not even just have the cure to cancer in their hands but even the cure to senescence and the telomere tradeoff, that they're the only person who can do it, but to keep them functional and up to capacity they need to get laid and they happen to be a pedophile or they happen to be highly unattractive to the opposite sex. One would hope in the later case at least that with such a prominent person that there's a consenting adult who'd know about the situation who'd voluntarily step up to the plate, the former situation's illegal and I'm not sure what a culture would decide on looking at that (they'd probably say 'yes' but get a bad case of the Black Mirror heebie-jeebies afterward for having done so).
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: July 10th, 2021, 5:46 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could cure cancer, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to murder an innocent child with your bare hands against the child's will while the child begs to live.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'murder' to simply mean intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing of another human being. Under that definition, even legal killing can be murder. (Under other primarily statist definitions, murder is defined in part by illegality, such that the Nazi government didn't murder any Jews since those vicious killings were legal, which is not how I would use the word.)
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to murder the child or to not murder the child, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from murdering an innocent child with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you murder the child?
More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.
It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.
I imagine for one who is willing to commit murder, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to murder. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about who to murder and not murder, and then you have to go tire yourself out murdering people, and then you have to wash the blood off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
This question is the exact reason why philosophy as practiced is so ridiculous. This kind of question is something that would never enter my mind. The kind of questions a person asks in this vein are generally indicative of a traumatised or a narcissist.
What is even worse is a lot of the replies to this thread!
People are that jammed full of absurd logic that they say they would do it!!!!!!
The concept "greater good" has been misused by evil people for time. Ditto,utilitarianism.
In examining these threads it's clear that philosophy really does boil down to psychology. And it's clear many peoples moral compass is severely messed up.
A thread that really drives home the phrase "educated idiots".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Would you ever invent a ficticous and absurd hypotheical scenario as some sort of inflammatory click bait, I wonder?Protagoras wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 5:04 pmScott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could cure cancer, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to murder an innocent child with your bare hands against the child's will while the child begs to live.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'murder' to simply mean intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing of another human being. Under that definition, even legal killing can be murder. (Under other primarily statist definitions, murder is defined in part by illegality, such that the Nazi government didn't murder any Jews since those vicious killings were legal, which is not how I would use the word.)
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to murder the child or to not murder the child, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from murdering an innocent child with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you murder the child?
More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.
It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.
I imagine for one who is willing to commit murder, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to murder. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about who to murder and not murder, and then you have to go tire yourself out murdering people, and then you have to wash the blood off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
This question is the exact reason why philosophy as practiced is so ridiculous. This kind of question is something that would never enter my mind. The kind of questions a person asks in this vein are generally indicative of a traumatised or a narcissist.
What is even worse is a lot of the replies to this thread!
People are that jammed full of absurd logic that they say they would do it!!!!!!
The concept "greater good" has been misused by evil people for time. Ditto,utilitarianism.
In examining these threads it's clear that philosophy really does boil down to psychology. And it's clear many peoples moral compass is severely messed up.
A thread that really drives home the phrase "educated idiots".
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Haven't you heard? Everyone is an idiot (except me of course, and maybe you).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 19th, 2021, 4:37 amWould you ever invent a ficticous and absurd hypotheical scenario as some sort of inflammatory click bait, I wonder?Protagoras wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 5:04 pmScott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could cure cancer, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to murder an innocent child with your bare hands against the child's will while the child begs to live.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'murder' to simply mean intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing of another human being. Under that definition, even legal killing can be murder. (Under other primarily statist definitions, murder is defined in part by illegality, such that the Nazi government didn't murder any Jews since those vicious killings were legal, which is not how I would use the word.)
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to murder the child or to not murder the child, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from murdering an innocent child with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you murder the child?
More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.
It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.
I imagine for one who is willing to commit murder, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to murder. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about who to murder and not murder, and then you have to go tire yourself out murdering people, and then you have to wash the blood off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
This question is the exact reason why philosophy as practiced is so ridiculous. This kind of question is something that would never enter my mind. The kind of questions a person asks in this vein are generally indicative of a traumatised or a narcissist.
What is even worse is a lot of the replies to this thread!
People are that jammed full of absurd logic that they say they would do it!!!!!!
The concept "greater good" has been misused by evil people for time. Ditto,utilitarianism.
In examining these threads it's clear that philosophy really does boil down to psychology. And it's clear many peoples moral compass is severely messed up.
A thread that really drives home the phrase "educated idiots".
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
People keep saying that, but I feel the need to wonder that it might not actually be the caseLuckyR wrote: ↑July 22nd, 2021, 1:39 amHaven't you heard? Everyone is an idiot (except me of course, and maybe you).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 19th, 2021, 4:37 amWould you ever invent a ficticous and absurd hypotheical scenario as some sort of inflammatory click bait, I wonder?Protagoras wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 5:04 pmScott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could cure cancer, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to murder an innocent child with your bare hands against the child's will while the child begs to live.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'murder' to simply mean intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing of another human being. Under that definition, even legal killing can be murder. (Under other primarily statist definitions, murder is defined in part by illegality, such that the Nazi government didn't murder any Jews since those vicious killings were legal, which is not how I would use the word.)
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to murder the child or to not murder the child, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from murdering an innocent child with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you murder the child?
More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.
It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.
I imagine for one who is willing to commit murder, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to murder. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about who to murder and not murder, and then you have to go tire yourself out murdering people, and then you have to wash the blood off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
This question is the exact reason why philosophy as practiced is so ridiculous. This kind of question is something that would never enter my mind. The kind of questions a person asks in this vein are generally indicative of a traumatised or a narcissist.
What is even worse is a lot of the replies to this thread!
People are that jammed full of absurd logic that they say they would do it!!!!!!
The concept "greater good" has been misused by evil people for time. Ditto,utilitarianism.
In examining these threads it's clear that philosophy really does boil down to psychology. And it's clear many peoples moral compass is severely messed up.
A thread that really drives home the phrase "educated idiots".
- Papus79
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
The problem with the dilemna is that it lacks a causal probability to apply any kind of calculus to. There is no indication why murdering a child would cure cancer.Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could cure cancer, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to murder an innocent child with your bare hands against the child's will while the child begs to live.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'murder' to simply mean intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing of another human being. Under that definition, even legal killing can be murder. (Under other primarily statist definitions, murder is defined in part by illegality, such that the Nazi government didn't murder any Jews since those vicious killings were legal, which is not how I would use the word.)
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to murder the child or to not murder the child, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from murdering an innocent child with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to murder the child with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would murder the child with your bare hands while the child begs to live.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you murder the child?
More simply, would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
My answer is clarified in detail in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man. But the short version is this: I strictly choose to not engage in non-defensive non-consensual violence against my fellow human being, such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thus, I would not murder the child.
It's so simple for me, actually. No moral dilemma at all. No anxiety. No complex math. No shoulds. No oughts. No try. In that way, it's so easy to have inner peace. As long as I'm not murdering someone or such, I have inner peace. I could spot an asteroid flying towards the Earth about to kill us all with no hope of rescue for us, but as long as I know I am playing my cards the best I can (according to my simple easy-to-follow self-chosen rules such as no murdering), then I have inner peace. It's so simple, so easy, and so enjoyable to live like this.
I imagine for one who is willing to commit murder, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to murder. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about who to murder and not murder, and then you have to go tire yourself out murdering people, and then you have to wash the blood off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
Hence you could say "Would you crush a grape to avoid a supernova"
A better formulation is the classic "would you push someone over railway bridge to stop a train about to crash into some unseen boulders in the tunnel"
There is a causal connection "The driver would see the falling body, and slam on the brakes before hitting the unseen boulder and hence potentially save the lives of the many over the few." Then you could begin to try and apply a morality calculus.
In my opinion the anthropomorphic morality calculus is simply a heuristic that evolved out of the African Plains. It is a course of actions that "generally speaking" lead to the preservation of the species. The morality calculus starts to break down when applied to outlier situations, such as situations mentioned. With an ever complex civilisation there may be situations to which our existing morality laws simply are not up to the task.
The morality rules as I see it tend towards preservation of the species and minimising of suffering with some additional emotional and cognitive blurriness that is used to tailor the heuristic to an ever changing evolving situation.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Finally something we can all agree on.Neil Wallace wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 8:03 amThe problem with the dilemna is that it lacks a causal probability to apply any kind of calculus to. There is no indication why crushing a grape would stop a supernova.Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could stop a supernova, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to crush a grape with your bare hands.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'crush' to simply mean squash. Under that definition, even legal squashing can be crushing.
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to crush the grape or to not crush the grape, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from crushing an innocent grape with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to crush the grape with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would crush the grape with your bare hands while the grape begs to remain un-crushed.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you crush the grape?
More simply, would you crush one grape with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
I imagine for one who is willing to crush grapes, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to crush grapes. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about which grapes to crush and not crush, and then you have to go tire yourself out crushing grapes, and then you have to wash the juice off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
Hence you could say "Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?"
- Theoryst
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: January 6th, 2021, 5:59 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Good point, many are not cut out to make difficult and/or controversial decisions. Kudos for stepping aside and letting others step forward.
As to the idea of considering detestable theoretical situations, better to do it theoretically than in reality, right?
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
I'm afraid my grape example has led to un needed complications.Robert66 wrote: ↑August 6th, 2021, 5:44 pmFinally something we can all agree on.Neil Wallace wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 8:03 amThe problem with the dilemna is that it lacks a causal probability to apply any kind of calculus to. There is no indication why crushing a grape would stop a supernova.Scott wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 5:14 pm Assume that you could stop a supernova, thereby saving many innocent lives, but to do so you had to crush a grape with your bare hands.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's define the word 'crush' to simply mean squash. Under that definition, even legal squashing can be crushing.
Imagine for whatever reason that it would be legal for you to crush the grape or to not crush the grape, and thus you do not need to worry about legal or other repercussions such as someone trying to kill you in revenge, regardless of what you choose.
In this hypothetical, essentially, the only thing that might stop you from crushing an innocent grape with your bare hands is your human kindness, compassion, sympathy, and/or personal code of conduct (and/or your moral or religious beliefs if you have any).
Ex hypothesi, the utilitarian thing to do is to crush the grape with your bare hands. If you are a utilitarian, and not a hypocrite, then it seems the answer is simple: You would crush the grape with your bare hands while the grape begs to remain un-crushed.
However, if, like me, you are not a utilitarian, then your answer is likely different.
So would you crush the grape?
More simply, would you crush one grape with your bare hands to save multiple other innocent people?
I imagine for one who is willing to crush grapes, it must be such an anxiety-ridden way to live--to entrust oneself with such a violent domineering responsibility, especially considering how humans like us can rarely even stick to a simple food diet. If you cannot trust yourself not to eat a cupcake, imagine trusting yourself with the power to crush grapes. Yikes, sounds like an unpleasant way to live to me, but to each his own, I suppose. You would have to constantly worry about which grapes to crush and not crush, and then you have to go tire yourself out crushing grapes, and then you have to wash the juice off your hands. To me, violent utilitarianism sounds so needlessly spiritually exhausting and worry-ridden. I don't know how one could maintain their inner peace while even partly implementing such an exhaustingly violent philosophy. One man's trash is another man's treasure, I suppose.
I prefer the beautiful modest simplicity that is being a man of peace. What about you?
Hence you could say "Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?"
Better to formulate the dilemma as Would you do X to stop Y, with no causal evidence of outcomes for good or bad is given.
If evidence comes to light that crushing grapes and murdering babies may have good and bad outcomes then you can get to work trying to establish some kind of probability to base a decision on, usually involving notions of minimising suffering and justice.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
Answer: No.
Also, I'm under the impression that viruses may be used to treat cancer, such as lupus; I'm also under the impression that steroids, which seem to have an influence on aiding the development of cancer, may be used to treat viral infections.
Additional reading:
1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5546099/
2) https://www.thebodypro.com/article/trea ... ednisolone
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: February 7th, 2021, 7:46 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin; U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?
- DFBIII
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023