Plain and simple, do you value the life of a child over the lives of two adults? Why or why not? Purely hypothetical, I know.
2006-09-29 16:38:07 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What about ten adults, with families that depend on them for support? Does that change anything?
2006-09-29 16:42:59 · update #1
This has nothing to do with abortion, or any specific child, adults, situation ect.
2006-09-29 16:48:38 · update #2
The answer to your question depends on what type of ethical system you are asking it in refrence to. There are many different types of ethical systems, I will give answers for a few of them.
Objective Egoism (As penned by Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness): It would depend on which person is more valuable to you. I.E. If the child is your child and the two adults are persons of less value to you, say two strangers you have never met or heard of, then the life of the child has value. If the two adults have more value to you then the child's life is less valuable.
Utilitaranism: Whichever is more benificial to society in the long term has more value. If the child is a genius and the two people are mentally retarded, the child has more value. If the child is a poor orphan of unknown descent and the two people are upper middle class citizens who are surgens at a local hospital, then the 2 adults have more value.
Psychological egosim: Free will is an illusion, you have no choice over which has more value, you will always answer what you have to answer and will always choose which you have to choose to value more.
Neitsche: The individual with the strongest will has the most value. How do you know which has the strongist will? They will demonstrate it by implementing their will on you to choose them.
2006-09-29 16:51:35 · answer #1 · answered by zatcsu 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It totally describes abortion, except I know of a case where killing a child to save the REPUTATION of 2 adults. Who 6 months later got married and had a hard time getting pregnant....go figure.
2006-09-29 16:50:36 · answer #2 · answered by megmom 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
dunno, it's a tough question. If it were something like saving a 10 month old or two 80 year olds, i'd save the child becuase the old men have already lived life and the child was only born ten months ago. But if it was somethign like saving a 12 year old as opposed to two 25 years old's; im sorry to say this but I'd have to say I'd keep the two 25 year olds.
2006-09-29 16:50:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
all of us would desire to bypass sometime, and that i might only as quickly meet the tip with a clean judgment of right and incorrect. infant lives. yet it is assuming that i understand the infant would be spared, as is asserted on your question. in fact, maximum human militaries do not spare toddlers and childrens, so one might assume that if this have been a real scenario, the infant might additionally be killed. and that i'm somewhat particular that we could provide the infant a much extra painless dying than what might take transport of would desire to the enemy squaddies locate us. If i don't understand if the infant could be spared or not, i might bypass forward and kill the infant. yet to not shop my own existence, yet to spare the infant some discomfort.
2016-10-18 05:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two for one is a good deal, however, this would all depend on the value of these people. Is this child retarded or maybe a genius prodigy? Are the adults useless bums, criminals, or maybe Nobel Prize winners?
2006-09-29 16:49:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I was forced to choose, in an instant, I would save a kid first.
They are innocent, they have their whole lives ahead of them. They have infinite potential and a child could become anything. They can change the world. A child should never be made to suffer and should be spared at all costs.
Also, in the event of a fire or an explosion, they're easier to carry.
2006-09-29 16:43:24 · answer #6 · answered by Rabid 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I value ALL life, so taking ANY life is unacceptable. How can killing a child save two adults?
2006-09-29 16:44:52 · answer #7 · answered by cj_justme 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why not?
Personally, I can't stand the little buggers.
It's always "I'm too little to do this" & "I need help to do that".
Tell me, what productive purpose does a stupid little runt serve in return for allowing him to live, when 2 productive grown adults are forced to die in order to save the little brat?
2006-09-29 17:27:42 · answer #8 · answered by Lauren C.: Led-head 4 (∞) 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's NEVER acceptable to sacrifice a child in order to save the adults. Not under any conceivable circumstance.
edit: I stand behind my original statement.
2006-09-29 16:40:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. The adults have lived longer than the child.
2006-09-29 16:41:40 · answer #10 · answered by vik 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋