Morality/Ethics Question

[Bac]

Imagine the following scenario:
-You are given a choice or opportunity if you will to do something despicable to another life form- the example i will use will be a human baby- innocent,healthy,fully functional.
Your options are to either walk away(i.e. do nothing) or kill the baby(how you do it doesn't matter this isn't a snuff film questionnaire). If you decide to kill the baby you will receive a large sum of money(millions) of which you would immediately use to the best of your ability to save as many lives as possible- i.e. starving children, diseased children, orphaned children around the world.
-What is the correct decision?-- obviously that is an impossible question to answer- but first it is extremely important for people to not pick apart this scenario and look at it as purely hypothetical i.e. flawless- as in if you don't kill the baby- it will live a long and healthy life- if you do you will for sure receive the money and will for sure save many many lives. It is not important as to why this scenario has been placed in front of you or by whom- what is important is your decision. Some people will say "Thats ******** why think about stuff like this if it will never happen in the real world- has no impact on anything"- questions like "Why are we here" and so on and so forth are asked not for their impact on your life- but rather in an attempt to get people to think critically- which is always positive.
-I have always taken great pride in my principles and core values. I posed this question to my older brother a couple weeks ago and we had polar opposite views- he said he would never kill the baby no matter how many more lives he would save-which to be honest shocked me- i consider my brother one of the most intelligent, kind people i know, who values values above all else- while i said in essence i would smother a 100 babys if i could save 100,000,000 lives. In my brain if i DIDN'T kill the babys i would be going against my morals.
- I believe the scenario poses more then just a numbers game however- 1-10 lives saved or so on as so forth
-Hopefully this will not become a whether one way is "right" or "wrong" but rather a discussion on peoples personal choice and reasons for that choice
-In conclusion (i may edit this some, grammar ect... its late right now) this is a question that ive just been wanting to kind of "unleash" on the world, its just been nagging me as of late- Feedback welcome; 1st post in Hall

*edit* Ah, thanks to the first 2 posters in reminding me a part i left out. My brother also believed that words are strong however in the moment actually holding a pillow over a living beings mouth until it stops struggling would be nearly impossible to do for a right minded individual- no matter the consequences good or bad. I have always considered myself extremely strong-willed, or headstrong, and stubborn in my beliefs-and if i knew for sure what i was doing was wholesome and for good- I'm quite positive i would/could kill. Im guessing majority of posters will struggle more on the "actual killing physically concept" then the what to do one.

 

[Grandeza]

While you say now that you would kill a baby to save many lives, I can't help but believe if that situation ever came up, you'd find it very hard to take another humans life. While I would like to say I would kill the baby to save so many other lives, I would never be able to kill a defenseless baby. I just would never be able to bring myself to that.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Yeah, I very much doubt that you would actually be able to kill the baby. Human brains are hard-wired to consider what they can see real, and what they can't an afterthought. In the actual moment of the action, the fact that the baby is actually in front of you and those millions of people are only theoretical would prevent you from killing it.

 

[Bac]

Just wanted to make sure i butted in here to reiterate the importance of looking at this scenario as "flawless"- so you are GUARANTEED to save many lives- not theoretically save live- when you make the decision to kill- Of course this does nothing to change the natural human instinct to not harm another of the same species that Jam Stunna pointed out

*edit* ah just realized i misinterpreted your post Stunna my mistake

 

[Jam Stunna]

No problem. It's just that I recall reading an article that examined these types of hypotheticals, and the conclusion was that you would always spare the life you could see, even if it cost thousands that you couldn't.

 

[marthanoob]

I could do it, but I would not. It is not my place to make so powerful a judgement such as that and infringe the baby's rights however many people it would save.

 

[yossarian22]

I am wondering if I read your post right. The choice is to become a hitman who kills babies or not?

Well, that is a realtough choice now isn't it?

I'm guessing this is supposed to be the "Kill the baby or save 100 people" or "Kill the baby and have a chance at saving 1000 people who were sure to die".

I'm a utilitarian, so there is your answer.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

If one were to look at the situation logically, it would be completely selfish for one to choose their own morality over the lives of others.

However, the reward for killing the child is not really the lives of others, it is money. Lives cannot be saved with just money. You could attempt to save lives with the money but you may fail and then be responsible for the murder of a child.

 

[snex]

your scenario doesnt have enough information for me to make a decision.

will i be punished for killing the baby? if so, how? do i get to choose who gets saved from the reward? is the baby just some random stranger baby or the baby of somebody i know and like?

the answers to these questions (and probably many others i cant think of right now) would affect my decision.