difficult dilemma?

Question

maybe asked before but I want to hear new opinions

If you could save thousands of thousands of people but you would just reach this goal by sacrificing the life of one, only one innocent child,
2 options: let the child live and go on with it's live,
OR sacrifice the innocent child and save thousands of thousands, maybe million people, what would you do? sacrifice it or let it live?

(maybe you could say that it would be for AIDS that they find a cure)

AND NO OTHER CHOICES THEN THIS 2

plz say why you choose this or that

Answer 1

First of all, anyone who says sacrifice the child obviously does not have children of their own, for no sane parent will allow their child to die no matter how many people it would save. This is simply our genetic predisposition.

Second, make the question more digestible and say PERSON, instead of child. The answer is still no, because human beings do not have the right to decide the fate of an innocent life. We may have the POWER, but not the RIGHT.

Now, make the question still more digestible and say a CONVICTED MURDERER. The answer, unfortunately, is still no, because in order to be a just society, we must see to it that the punishment fits the crime.

Now, take the ultimate absurdity and suppose that a person volunteers, in fact, insists to be sacrificed in order to save thousands or millions. Again, we must still object to this because there is no way to compare the value of a single human life to multitudes. Every human life is priceless, and therefore must be revered.

This is the problem when you compare what is ethically right to what is logically best. Generals must do this all the time to win battles.

Fortunately, (or unfortunately) we have plenty of people in the world who are capable of doing what NEEDS to be done no matter what the repercussions, but I truly feel sorry for these people (and I am one of them!)

Answer 2

Opinions - 'yes' or 'no' - are not reasoning, they are not philosophy.

According to one kind of moral reasoning, you would sacrifice the child because the right thing to do is to produce the best outcome for everyone involved.

According to another kind of moral reasoning, it would almost always be wrong to sacrifice an innocent child. But even this sort of morality would not sacrifice millions in favor of one.

Consider it this way: - suppose that among the 'thousands and thousands' at risk there were a thousand children - what would be the right thing to do then?

The moral idiocy displayed by some of the answers to your question frightens me - if it is meant seriously.

Answer 3

Let the child live.

There is a world of difference between failing to prevent a wrong/ill and actively doing something wrong.

You are not responsible for all the ills of the world and whilst its good to help you cannot be blamed if you do not. You ARE responsible for your own actions and should not violate the rights of others.

Whilst the question posed is very hypothetical the underpinning moral dilema isn't. Its very much akin to allowing "due process". It could quite easily be argued that if we just let the police execute criminals on-sight we'd massively reduce crime. This would prevent people from getting mugged, murdered, raped etc. The downside is this would mean murdering a few innocent people (as the police are not psychic and will get their targets wrong). As it is we accept that we cannot prevent all wrongdoing as we insist on not doing active wrong ourselves.

And I've just got to come back on idiot-features who asked "isn't that just what Jesus did?". NO IT ISN'T! Not in any shape or form. Jesus sacrificed HIMSELF not, as in the question, someone else. There are christians who actually try and think clearly about this issue - I know there is catholic teaching on, for example, what to do if you have to choose between the mother and baby during childbirth. Jesus tried to save your soul by death and teaching - not death and an instruction to shoehorn his name into every conversation. Jesus thought clearly, Jesus THOUGHT and he was particularly scathing about the Pharisees. The Pharisees were an overtly pious sect who followed the law in form rather than really trying. As above this is a big issue, it pertains to real life, real government and how we as a community and individuals should act. Do not misrepresent your God's teaching in some pahtetic attempt to proselatise.

Answer 4

Sacrifice the child. There could be many more innocent children in those thousands or millions that you saved. In situations like this you have to think logically instead of emotionally.

Answer 5

This is the typical question: does a good purpose justify bad means to reach it. There is not solution to that dilemma - it depends on your personal ethics. I guess I would sacrifice the child, even though that would be a tough choice to live with because every life is unpayable.

Answer 6

I would let the child live. And then work on a cure for those other people.

Answer 7

That depends on who that child is, and who the other people are. (By the way, thousands of thousands is millions, as a million is a thousand times thousand.)

Answer 8

Isn’t that what Jesus did?
Sacrificed him self so that all of us could live!

(1Cr 5:7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, (Sin) that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. (No Sin) For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
Sacrificed by whom you ask?
God the Father. He knew if his Law was not satisfied then he would have to destroy us all. Because of all the evil we were doing and so he would have to start all over. And so Jesus became the sacrifice allowing you to be born and live.

Answer 9

Let the child live.

Answer 10

I've always been afraid of this question and really don't have an answer, but I've heard that your suppose to save the few in order to save the many.