Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
- frza45
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 31st, 2022, 6:25 am
Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
So a few years ago back in a philosophy class I took for college we got asked (As best I remember it): "There is a bomb in the mall of America and you have the person who placed it's baby, but he will not say where the bomb is. What do you do?" So one of the possibilities was to torture the baby and hope that the bad bomber guy gives up the location of the bomb. - Without much thought I blurted out that that was the option I would go with. Everyone looks at me like I have 3 heads. - I mean the baby did nothing wrong and in hindsight I feel like such an a**. I also added that I did not believe the baby would even remember that happening to him/her. (I cannot remember being a baby myself) I think now that if the baby did remember it it would likely make for a much more dangerous situation because that baby would have that type of trauma and may end up a serial killer or a sociopath or something. The other students in the class really did not give their point of view and just kind of judged me.
This has been back on my mind a lot lately for some reason. I'm thinking that it may go back to that philosophical question of "would you kill baby Hitler"? - Would one life justify possibly saving thousands or millions of lives? Thinking of something else I learned from that class, is the best thing always the thing that helps as many people as possible?
To further this question a bit, what if Hitler definitely had a child and the allies were able to get ahold of him? IMHO I'm not even sure if killing Hitler himself at the height of the war would have ended the war. Nazi Germany had so many complicit people in it.
I really am not sure what I would do now thinking about all of this. I can assure you I don't have the intention or desire to go around harming babies(or anyone for that matter). Like I said with further thought and insight, I feel that it's obvious that torturing a baby could turn them into a monster later in life and you are a bad person if you do that. But I feel potentially saving thousands of lives might outweigh that for me.
On another note: if you don't remember something at all did you really experience it? (I have a very bad memory.)
This is a hard thing for me to fully wrap my head around and I don't want to feel like a d*** for saying what I said. - What would some other people do? To me, this is not just black and white, there is a large grey area there.
Thanks - I am mainly asking because I would like differing points of view.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
Grammatically, your original question is not quite fully intelligible, but I assume you are saying that the person who placed the bomb has placed it with her or his baby. Your problem now is to decide which ethical system you subscribe to. If you are a Utilitarian, you will decide to torture the baby (as indeed you did), because (assuming the bomber caves) this is likely to involve the smallest amount of suffering among all of the people involved in this context. On the other hand, if you are a Kantian, your first priority might be to save the baby, because your immediate priority will be the "duty of care"; other bystanders can run away if you warn them, but the baby can't. If you are a Christian, of course, you will decide to place your own body between the bomb, the baby, and everybody else.
- frza45
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 31st, 2022, 6:25 am
Re: Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
What school do you personally belong to on this and why?
What do you think about the memory theory? If you don't remember an event at all and nobody else does did it really happen? If it happened does it even matter now?
- psycho
- Posts: 132
- Joined: January 23rd, 2021, 5:33 pm
Re: Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
Interesting. What would be the limit?frza45 wrote: ↑December 31st, 2022, 6:31 am This is kind of a ridiculous question we got asked, but I agree it has some merit:
So a few years ago back in a philosophy class I took for college we got asked (As best I remember it): "There is a bomb in the mall of America and you have the person who placed it's baby, but he will not say where the bomb is. What do you do?" So one of the possibilities was to torture the baby and hope that the bad bomber guy gives up the location of the bomb. - Without much thought I blurted out that that was the option I would go with. Everyone looks at me like I have 3 heads. - I mean the baby did nothing wrong and in hindsight I feel like such an a**. I also added that I did not believe the baby would even remember that happening to him/her. (I cannot remember being a baby myself) I think now that if the baby did remember it it would likely make for a much more dangerous situation because that baby would have that type of trauma and may end up a serial killer or a sociopath or something. The other students in the class really did not give their point of view and just kind of judged me.
This has been back on my mind a lot lately for some reason. I'm thinking that it may go back to that philosophical question of "would you kill baby Hitler"? - Would one life justify possibly saving thousands or millions of lives? Thinking of something else I learned from that class, is the best thing always the thing that helps as many people as possible?
To further this question a bit, what if Hitler definitely had a child and the allies were able to get ahold of him? IMHO I'm not even sure if killing Hitler himself at the height of the war would have ended the war. Nazi Germany had so many complicit people in it.
I really am not sure what I would do now thinking about all of this. I can assure you I don't have the intention or desire to go around harming babies(or anyone for that matter). Like I said with further thought and insight, I feel that it's obvious that torturing a baby could turn them into a monster later in life and you are a bad person if you do that. But I feel potentially saving thousands of lives might outweigh that for me.
On another note: if you don't remember something at all did you really experience it? (I have a very bad memory.)
This is a hard thing for me to fully wrap my head around and I don't want to feel like a d*** for saying what I said. - What would some other people do? To me, this is not just black and white, there is a large grey area there.
Thanks - I am mainly asking because I would like differing points of view.
What would humans not do even if it meant the survival of our species?
My intuition is that humans do not have a moral limit that prevents them from doing what is necessary to survive as a species.
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: October 2nd, 2022, 1:19 am
Re: Hypothetically, would you torture a baby as a means to attempt to save many people?
2023/2024 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