Suppose you've just found out that a revolutionary, miniature nuclear bomb about the size of a penny is about to go off in the middle of a crowded city. Your mission is to disarm the bomb. However, when you get to the bomb, you find that it has been planted inside a baby. It would be possible, with enough time, to perform surgery to get the bomb out of the baby's body without harming the baby. But you don't have this time. Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
A moral question
- Thread starter Lunar
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(Lunar;35408)
Suppose you've just found out that a revolutionary, miniature nuclear bomb about the size of a penny is about to go off in the middle of a crowded city. Your mission is to disarm the bomb. However, when you get to the bomb, you find that it has been planted inside a baby. It would be possible, with enough time, to perform surgery to get the bomb out of the baby's body without harming the baby. But you don't have this time. Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
My answer (as well as question) is what would YOU do?
Suppose you've just found out that a revolutionary, miniature nuclear bomb about the size of a penny is about to go off in the middle of a crowded city. Your mission is to disarm the bomb. However, when you get to the bomb, you find that it has been planted inside a baby. It would be possible, with enough time, to perform surgery to get the bomb out of the baby's body without harming the baby. But you don't have this time. Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
My answer (as well as question) is what would YOU do?
(Wakka;35410)
My answer (as well as question) is what would YOU do?
I'm inclined to say that unfortunately I need to kill the baby. It is going to die either way so I would want to save as many lives as I could.But I've heard this question posed before and some people had some interesting different views based on their own ideas about Christian ethics, so I was wondering what people here thought.
My answer (as well as question) is what would YOU do?
I'm inclined to say that unfortunately I need to kill the baby. It is going to die either way so I would want to save as many lives as I could.But I've heard this question posed before and some people had some interesting different views based on their own ideas about Christian ethics, so I was wondering what people here thought.
(DrBubbaLove;35413)
why couldn't i kill the baby as quickly and painlessly as possible?
You could, I suppose, kill it by snapping its neck or something and then rip it open to get the bomb, but the real question is whether his or her death will be on your hands.
why couldn't i kill the baby as quickly and painlessly as possible?
You could, I suppose, kill it by snapping its neck or something and then rip it open to get the bomb, but the real question is whether his or her death will be on your hands.
forgivenWretch
New Member
(Lunar;35415)
You could, I suppose, kill it by snapping its neck or something and then rip it open to get the bomb, but the real question is whether his or her death will be on your hands.
for the murder to be on my hands it must be my intent to kill the child, as my mission and intent is to prevent the bomb from killing many and the child is dead no matter what I do, the death of the child cannot be attributed to either my action or inaction. The act is terrible, my intention is good.IOW killing another is always wrong but can be justified - a soldier's duty is another example where a morally wrong act can be justified.
You could, I suppose, kill it by snapping its neck or something and then rip it open to get the bomb, but the real question is whether his or her death will be on your hands.
for the murder to be on my hands it must be my intent to kill the child, as my mission and intent is to prevent the bomb from killing many and the child is dead no matter what I do, the death of the child cannot be attributed to either my action or inaction. The act is terrible, my intention is good.IOW killing another is always wrong but can be justified - a soldier's duty is another example where a morally wrong act can be justified.
If I choose to disarm the bomb the child is sacraficed. If I do not choose to disarm the bomb then the child is executed along with many of others, including myself either way , this childs life has come to an unfortunate end so I must act on the later to save those I can and trust that Gods grace is truely sufficient. And relize that God himself has given me the wisdom on how to disarm this "revelutionary device" (and I use the term very loosely).
(Lunar;35408)
Suppose you've just found out that a revolutionary, miniature nuclear bomb about the size of a penny is about to go off in the middle of a crowded city. Your mission is to disarm the bomb. However, when you get to the bomb, you find that it has been planted inside a baby. It would be possible, with enough time, to perform surgery to get the bomb out of the baby's body without harming the baby. But you don't have this time. Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
The question itself is immoral!
Suppose you've just found out that a revolutionary, miniature nuclear bomb about the size of a penny is about to go off in the middle of a crowded city. Your mission is to disarm the bomb. However, when you get to the bomb, you find that it has been planted inside a baby. It would be possible, with enough time, to perform surgery to get the bomb out of the baby's body without harming the baby. But you don't have this time. Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
The question itself is immoral!
The only problem I see here is that the thought of killing the baby is explicit and visible. In fact we are all killing people all day everyday.Every time one buys a magazine, chocolate, DVD, etc with money that could otherwise have been used to feed a starving child, one contributes to the thousands of daily deaths by starvation around the globe.Every time we spend resources on pleasure we are killing people by diseases that medicines could have cured but are too expensive to receive.Every time we drive our cars we accept a mode of transport that we know kills thousands of people every year.Every time we use energy we are accepting a role in the pollution of our globe that is killing people and nature.Every time we turn our backs on the social problems in our society we are contributing to deaths from suicide, crime and sickness.The only moral issue I see here is whether visible death on my doorstep is more significant than invisible death somewhere else.I have seen somewhere a similar question which investigated the difference between letting someone die in order to save others and actually killing someone in order to save others. Most people are able to handle the first option, but the second is understandably a much higher threshold!
I think things are changed considerably when one is given a responsibility for many lives and especially with the given that the one life is forfeit already, added with the thought that one choice forfeits not only many others that you have accepted a responsibility to protect, but also one's own life. It does not make the act less repulsive, but the alternative choice should still be more repulsive. Not being able to do what one knows must be done is a lack of courage, not a moral conviction.
(DrBubbaLove;35501)
Not being able to do what one knows must be done is a lack of courage, not a moral conviction.
Very good and valid point
It is easy to fabricate excuses and arguments for not acting when one should.
Not being able to do what one knows must be done is a lack of courage, not a moral conviction.
Very good and valid point
MickinEngland
New Member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 339
- 1
- 0
- 77
(Lunar;35408)
...Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
I'd do absolutely nothing rather than kill the baby, I'm not a murderer..Decisions (big or small) come up in our lives from time to time and we have to stick to our deepest convictions and not give an inch, even if it would mean the universe comes crashing down around us.For example when I was unemployed a few years ago, the Jobcentre ordered me to go on a 'work scheme' refurbishing a local Hindu temple, but I refused pointblank to go, and was punished by having my dole stopped for a while..I could have given in, but that'd have made me a lukewarm wimp, so I didn't give in..
...Your options are to either rip the baby open, killing it painfully and extremely violently, in order to get to the bomb in time, or to get out as fast as you can, letting the bomb go off.What do you do?
I'd do absolutely nothing rather than kill the baby, I'm not a murderer..Decisions (big or small) come up in our lives from time to time and we have to stick to our deepest convictions and not give an inch, even if it would mean the universe comes crashing down around us.For example when I was unemployed a few years ago, the Jobcentre ordered me to go on a 'work scheme' refurbishing a local Hindu temple, but I refused pointblank to go, and was punished by having my dole stopped for a while..I could have given in, but that'd have made me a lukewarm wimp, so I didn't give in..
(bytheway;35461)
The question itself is immoral!
Why is that? There are many situations in life in which you have to choose between two evils. I think it's helpful to think about them through examples like this, to give clarity to complicated decisions that come up in life.(DrBubbaLove)
I think things are changed considerably when one is given a responsibility for many lives and especially with the given that the one life is forfeit already, added with the thought that one choice forfeits not only many others that you have accepted a responsibility to protect, but also one's own life. It does not make the act less repulsive, but the alternative choice should still be more repulsive. Not being able to do what one knows must be done is a lack of courage, not a moral conviction.
Very nicely said.(MickinEngland)
I'd do absolutely nothing rather than kill the baby, I'm not a murderer..Decisions (big or small) come up in our lives from time to time and we have to stick to our deepest convictions and not give an inch, even if it would mean the universe comes crashing down around us.For example when I was unemployed a few years ago, the Jobcentre ordered me to go on a 'work scheme' refurbishing a local Hindu temple, but I refused pointblank to go, and was punished by having my dole stopped for a while..I could have given in, but that'd have made me a lukewarm wimp, so I didn't give in..
Of course you don't want to kill, but you wouldn't feel any responsibility for the millions of lives that you could have saved that you opted not to? Is saving lives not part of your convictions?
The question itself is immoral!
Why is that? There are many situations in life in which you have to choose between two evils. I think it's helpful to think about them through examples like this, to give clarity to complicated decisions that come up in life.(DrBubbaLove)
I think things are changed considerably when one is given a responsibility for many lives and especially with the given that the one life is forfeit already, added with the thought that one choice forfeits not only many others that you have accepted a responsibility to protect, but also one's own life. It does not make the act less repulsive, but the alternative choice should still be more repulsive. Not being able to do what one knows must be done is a lack of courage, not a moral conviction.
Very nicely said.(MickinEngland)
I'd do absolutely nothing rather than kill the baby, I'm not a murderer..Decisions (big or small) come up in our lives from time to time and we have to stick to our deepest convictions and not give an inch, even if it would mean the universe comes crashing down around us.For example when I was unemployed a few years ago, the Jobcentre ordered me to go on a 'work scheme' refurbishing a local Hindu temple, but I refused pointblank to go, and was punished by having my dole stopped for a while..I could have given in, but that'd have made me a lukewarm wimp, so I didn't give in..
Of course you don't want to kill, but you wouldn't feel any responsibility for the millions of lives that you could have saved that you opted not to? Is saving lives not part of your convictions?
Lunar: why is that? To think in those terms shows depravity.To use an example that most probably will never happen is not the way to gain clarity. The world's problems are not solved by human means. If someone solved this enigma wraped up in a riddle and did what you may think is the right thing to do it would be as it has been since the fall of mankind....over and over again until divine order is fully established.
(bytheway;35543)
Lunar: why is that? To think in those terms shows depravity.To use an example that most probably will never happen is not the way to gain clarity. The world's problems are not solved by human means. If someone solved this enigma wraped up in a riddle and did what you may think is the right thing to do it would be as it has been since the fall of mankind....over and over again until divine order is fully established.
You seem to be posing the question in terms of killing the baby being wrong as a given. But that's what the question itself is: Is killing the baby wrong? And why?
Lunar: why is that? To think in those terms shows depravity.To use an example that most probably will never happen is not the way to gain clarity. The world's problems are not solved by human means. If someone solved this enigma wraped up in a riddle and did what you may think is the right thing to do it would be as it has been since the fall of mankind....over and over again until divine order is fully established.
You seem to be posing the question in terms of killing the baby being wrong as a given. But that's what the question itself is: Is killing the baby wrong? And why?
(Lunar;35573)
You seem to be posing the question in terms of killing the baby being wrong as a given. But that's what the question itself is: Is killing the baby wrong? And why?
One factor that causes some soul-searching here is that one could never be 100% sure that the situation was real and not just a cruel hoax. What, if having opened the baby, the bomb turned out to be just a bottle top...But I do think there IS a point to this question, albeit a rather rough question, because in life generally there tend to be few decision-making situations that are entirely good or entirely bad. So often we have to weigh up the good against the bad and decide what, on balance, is the right thing to do. e.g. does a company owner risk his business and other people's jobs by retaining an incompetent worker just because he has a big family to feed.The question here addresses the issue of whether murder is sometimes acceptable. Euthanasia is a similar situation.
You seem to be posing the question in terms of killing the baby being wrong as a given. But that's what the question itself is: Is killing the baby wrong? And why?
One factor that causes some soul-searching here is that one could never be 100% sure that the situation was real and not just a cruel hoax. What, if having opened the baby, the bomb turned out to be just a bottle top...But I do think there IS a point to this question, albeit a rather rough question, because in life generally there tend to be few decision-making situations that are entirely good or entirely bad. So often we have to weigh up the good against the bad and decide what, on balance, is the right thing to do. e.g. does a company owner risk his business and other people's jobs by retaining an incompetent worker just because he has a big family to feed.The question here addresses the issue of whether murder is sometimes acceptable. Euthanasia is a similar situation.
In order for an action to be a sin there must be three things present;the act is bad.the intent was to commit the act - intend to do a bad thing.the will is free in it's consent to commit the act - freely choose to do it.While the presence of any of the three can be a matter of degree, that goes only to the gravity of the sin and the degree to which the individual can be held accountable for it.No question that killing someone is bad, it is not a good thing. The baby in this scenario is about to die, no matter what is done (assuming the bomb is real). But whether killed by my hand or the bomb, the act of taking that life is bad.My intention in committing the bad act - kill the baby - is to save many people and consequently myself as well (yet I volunteered in this situation so we can forego considering any selfish desire). My intent in committing this bad act is therefore noble, a good thing, though it does not lesson the repulsion of what must be done; ie a bad thing.There is no indication in the given scenario that my will is not free to consent - am not being forced to volunteer for this mission. However, something could be said for being put in a position of causing the death of one to save many or even just oneself (though not the later case here). A person in such a position could be seen as being forced to do something that otherwise goes against their will. So the will in this scenario could be seen as not entirely free.Being accountable addresses whether or not an act, if bad, could be justified. Being justified in a bad action, here killing a baby, does not change that act from bad to good. It just means it is not a sin. It is not a sin because the second and third things required to make this act a sin are not met.As to murder being "acceptable", that depends on one's definition of murder. Also think "justified" is a better choice of words than acceptable. Normally for killing someone to be called "murder" the presence of both intent and full consent of the will are implied by the word.Euthanasia, often called mercy killing, is another topic. In the broader sense which people often use this word, the acts in question are bad, the intent is wrong and the will is fully consenting to the act. Some might say it is perhaps a matter of definition. Think it is a bad thing and a sin when we decided to take action, with the intent and consent to kill somebody. When I say a sin, am not speaking here of the decision to withdraw extra-ordinary means of keeping a body breathing or heart beating. Would not call that decision a matter of euthanasia myself or to relieve people from the pain of great suffering. In the latter case we are not speaking of fatal overdose so that death relieves the suffering. A doctor knows that a course of pain relief will often lead to other complications including probable death (IOW death but not from OD), but the decision is made to administer the meds for pain anyway to ease suffering. These are all very personal choices, and things that can be freely expressed and consented to by the ill before getting to the point where they are unable to express it themselves. I do not call such decisions euthanasia myself. People that wish to lump these actions into the idea of euthanasia;that it should be ok to kill anyone wanting to die or who is deemed by someone else to be "better off" dead; are only looking for justification by appealing to our sense of mercy. To me these are not the same issues.
Similar threads
