Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

[CIN]

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.

Happens all the time with non-human animals in cancer research labs. We're all apparently comfortable with that, so what's the problem?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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.

What about pulling the plug on a braindead stroke victim? What about a cute puppy? What is your borderline between what you would and wouldn't kill to cure cancer?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head for me. My borderline area--or gray area--would be roughly somewhere between a cute brainalive puppy and a permanently braindead human body.

However, to get back to the topic at hand, let's focus on brainalive humans, particularly children.

Would you murder one of those with your bare hands to save multiple other brainalive humans?

I guess I am unclear on whether you would rank the brain dead person higher or lower than the puppy.

It's a gray area for me, and not one-dimensional, especially considering the unresolved hard problem of consciousness.

For instance, if solipsism was proven to be true, meaning it was proven that this guy we call Scott is the only one who is really conscious, then I would change my answer in the OP. Generally speaking, the reason I don't murder other brain-alive humans is because I believe them to be spiritually conscious like me, even when their bodies are physically asleep. I am not really opposed to murdering philosophical zombies. Who is more zombie-like, a brain-alive puppy or a medically allegedly brain-dead human coma patient; I don't know. I would typically err on the safe side and murder neither. Very roughly and generously speaking, I err on the side of treating zombies as non-zombies rather than vice versa, when it comes to murdering and such.

Would any of this change if your kid had cancer (that would be cured)?

In theory, ideally, no, or at least I hope not. But that may be like saying in theory ideally I will not eat any cupcakes tomorrow, or saying that if given the opportunity I wouldn't greedily rob ten million dollars from a bank. This guy we call Scott is human, and humans are irrational, hypocritical, and selfish, and their willpower seems to be very finite and limited. As I wrote in the OP of my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake".

Sometimes it's eating a cupcake; sometimes it's committing murder. Humans are prone to both.

However, to get back to the topic at hand, let's focus on brainalive humans, particularly children.

Would you murder one of those with your bare hands to save multiple other brainalive humans?

As for me, barehandedness vs wearing gloves vs using remote killing machines don't enter into my decision making. Similarly, the age of the victim is also of so little consequence to barely impact my final decision.

Fair enough, but what is your final decision? Would you murder the child?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is another version of the trolley problem. I have always said the trolley problem is a pseudo-problem, not very useful to elucidate matters of moral reasoning. How does one get to the circumstance of a major benefit to mankind being dependent on one particular act of yours? Who put you in that position? Why does it have to be with your bare hands and not with a painless lethal injection? What is at stake from a moral perspective, the death of the child or the method of execution? Too many what ifs...

I am not asking what is morally good or right and what is immoral or sinful.

I don't believe in morality.

With that noted, what is your answer? Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

"Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?"

Yes, without the slightest hesitation.

Interesting. What about if instead of curing cancer, you would only save five innocent people.

Would you murder one innocent child with your bare hands to save the lives of five innocent people?

It would depend on facts about the five people--their age, how long they're likely to live, etc.

Fair enough. Let's imagine the five people saved by the murder you commit are the same age etc. as the innocent victim you are murdering with your bare hands against that victim's will.

(And again "innocence" has nothing to do with it, unless we're talking about whether they're literally guilty of some crime or other.)

In this context, I am simply using the word 'innocent' to reflect the fact that the killing of the victim is non-defensive. In other words, the victim is not a murderer themselves and also the victim is not responsible for creating the situation in which other people's lives are at risk.

That could be contrasted--for example--to using lethal defense to stop someone attempting to commit murder. In that case the killed person is not "innocent".

If a fat man tied 5 people to a train track, I would be willing to push that man in front of the train to save his five victims.

However, if the fat man is "innocent", then I would not murder the fat man to save others. Likewise, I wouldn't murder my neighbor's "innocent" kids to harvest their organs to save other lives--even if was legal to do so and I was certain I would get away with it without repercussion.

The word innocent may be equivocal, though, so feel free to replace my usage of phrases like 'innocent person' with 'person who does not ever commit non-consensual non-defensive violence' if that is more clear.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Indirectly this type of question was what happened in Nazi Germany in the last century. Hitler used this type of question to justify a genocide. The answer to that question is no because only a demonic creature (not God) would put someone in that position.
Hitler used a similar analog but instead of curing cancer, Hitler substituted save Germany or Europe or the human race.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps Hitler is the most famous utilitarian of all time. Stalin and various violent communist governments through history have a claim to the title too.

In my opinion, they are also great examples of the absurd arrogance that kind of violence-justifying philosophy requires to be put into practice. But despite those who arrogantly think themselves fit to govern man, let alone fit to do ridiculously complex utilitarian calculations, I say Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

That's a question that is a step down a road towards total irrational ends. I mean why not 10 babies? Or why not a hundred? Or a thousand? What's the forecast of cancer deaths for the next ten years?

I don't know if irrational is the best word for it, but regardless I agree with the sentiment.

Generally speaking, if a person will have one illicit affair behind their spouse's back, that cheater will have more than one affair, and do many other dishonest things. If someone will commit one murder, one could likely commit thousands of murders, or do other similar acts of non-defensive violence. It's almost true simply by tautology: Those who lie, cheat, murder, and steal will lie, cheat, murder, and steal.

Do I believe in human sacrifice?
That's what you're really asking. [...]

Do I believe in any sacrifice? No.

I agree.

No, I would not commit the act of murder on an innocent child, of any age by any means.

I agree.

Everyone dies; not everyone kills. The Christians have this one right, however misguided their premises. Murdering a child involves the corruption of one's soul, and that's more important than all the deaths in history.

Well said!

Would I torture a man who knew how to stop the bomb that is set to kill millions, yes of course.

What if the only way to torture him successfully was to murder some of his innocent young child? In other words, imagine you knew he was tough enough that torturing him with bodily harm against himself would not get him to talk, but you were sure that if you killed his 1-year-old child in front of him and then began torturing his other 2-year-old child threatening to murder that child too, then he would speak?

What if instead of saving millions by murdering the innocent little child, you only saved about three lives? Would you murder one innocent person to save three?

[Count Lucanor]

This is another version of the trolley problem. I have always said the trolley problem is a pseudo-problem, not very useful to elucidate matters of moral reasoning. How does one get to the circumstance of a major benefit to mankind being dependent on one particular act of yours? Who put you in that position? Why does it have to be with your bare hands and not with a painless lethal injection? What is at stake from a moral perspective, the death of the child or the method of execution? Too many what ifs...

I am not asking what is morally good or right and what is immoral or sinful.

I don't believe in morality.

With that noted, what is your answer? Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Of course one could just give a straight answer, yes or no, but other than satisfying your curiosity, I cannot see what's the point. If this is not a thought experiment about moral reasoning, then what is it?

[CIN]

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?

The problem I have here is that I just can't buy into the scenario. There just isn't a way in which killing one child could cure cancer. So if I was told that I had to kill a child to cure cancer, I would simply say, 'I don't believe you.' And then I would report the person who had told me to kill the child to the authorities, as a dangerous lunatic.

[mystery]

A version of this occurs often. Military commanders have this skill to triage. The ability to do this is screened for in some leadership positions. One of the reasons that stop conversions from follower to leader is the ability for this question.

And no.. I don't like the idea of killing an innocent, but such is the responsibility of the leaders. Leadership is a job that comes with pain and suffering of its own due to these sorts of things.

The OP made clear the terms of the situation to consider. Obviously, the situation has to be authentic and other options already considered.

[Sy Borg]

Out out, damn Spot!

[LuckyR]

The crux of this thought experiment and offshoots that get brought up is: would you actually believe the premise?

Namely, if Scott walked up to you on the street corner with this story and a kid, no one would strangle the kid because no one believes Scott can cure cancer.

To put it another way, what if the OP was: would you murder an innocent child on the remote possibility of curing cancer?

Or if the Trolley problem was: if you pull the switch the trolley has a small chance of running into 5 people.

[Sy Borg]

The crux of this thought experiment and offshoots that get brought up is: would you actually believe the premise?

Namely, if Scott walked up to you on the street corner with this story and a kid, no one would strangle the kid because no one believes Scott can cure cancer.

To put it another way, what if the OP was: would you murder an innocent child on the remote possibility of curing cancer?

Or if the Trolley problem was: if you pull the switch the trolley has a small chance of running into 5 people.

A child has genetics that strongly predisposes him or her to deadly cancers. Dr Lucky says that there is a possible breakthrough treatment. It might kill the child, but if it works it could save many lives.

That's as close as I can come to it. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from strangling a sprog, unless it's a Bart Simpson clone :)

[Robert66]

Cancer? As in all cancers? Hmmm ...

But I'd have to kill a kid? Hmmm ...

With my bare hands? Hmmm ...

Let me think ...

...

Sure, why not?

Wait, could I wear a single glove, a la Michael Jackson?

[LuckyR]

The crux of this thought experiment and offshoots that get brought up is: would you actually believe the premise?

Namely, if Scott walked up to you on the street corner with this story and a kid, no one would strangle the kid because no one believes Scott can cure cancer.

To put it another way, what if the OP was: would you murder an innocent child on the remote possibility of curing cancer?

Or if the Trolley problem was: if you pull the switch the trolley has a small chance of running into 5 people.

A child has genetics that strongly predisposes him or her to deadly cancers. Dr Lucky says that there is a possible breakthrough treatment. It might kill the child, but if it works it could save many lives.

That's as close as I can come to it. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from strangling a sprog, unless it's a Bart Simpson clone

Philosophy is known for creating unrealistic thought experiments to try to address various interesting facets of broader issues. Unfortunately, the technique of using such ridiculous scenarios either leads to an unrealistic straight answer or a convoluted answer that tries to taking into account the various rules that the OP applies to try to address their subject.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is another version of the trolley problem. I have always said the trolley problem is a pseudo-problem, not very useful to elucidate matters of moral reasoning. How does one get to the circumstance of a major benefit to mankind being dependent on one particular act of yours? Who put you in that position? Why does it have to be with your bare hands and not with a painless lethal injection? What is at stake from a moral perspective, the death of the child or the method of execution? Too many what ifs...

I am not asking what is morally good or right and what is immoral or sinful.

I don't believe in morality.

With that noted, what is your answer? Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

Of course one could just give a straight answer, yes or no, but other than satisfying your curiosity, I cannot see what's the point.

It's not necessary to see the point of the question, nor is it necessary for there to be a point to the question. The question doesn't need to rhetorical.

What is your answer? Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?

If this is not a thought experiment about moral reasoning, then what is it?

It's a question.