A moral dilemma | INFJ Forum

A moral dilemma

J

jimtaylor

On Holiday
May 19, 2010
1,801
447
636
MBTI
No Need
Enneagram
Yup
This is just a hypothetical situation that I would like to get the opinion of the board on. Ok suppose that you are either a mother/father of a new born baby. Your city/village/etc.. comes under attack and the attackers orders are to leave none alive. You and others have taken refuge in a home, when you hear the attackers walking outside the home. Your baby starts crying loudly and if not silenced will lead to the deaths of you and everybody else. To silence the baby you must smother your child to death but to do so will save you and all the other people hiding with you. I know that there might be other options but please consider only what is given here. Please post your decision and why?

This question is honestly a very hard question for most to answer because there is really no right answer. Is it morally or ethically right to sacrifice the lives of everybody because you cannot kill your child, despite the fact that the attackers will kill your baby anyways? This creates a moral dilemma because it is almost impossible to imagine killing your own child but logic brings up the point that your child is going to die either way, so why not save everybody else? It is a very difficult question and most have a quick response of either yes or no, but then when they consider it, they begin to question and then feel bad for even considering the other option.
 
In essence, there would be two possible outcomes:

Option 1: Killing your child and surviving, in which case your life would not be worth living due to the intense amount of guilt, regret, and general awfulness related to taking your own child's life for the rest of your life. Someone who could simply do it and then get over it is emotionally dull to the point of not having the human element.

Option 2: Not doing it and quite possibly getting found out, and subsequently killed.

Logic, devoid of emotions, should go for option 1. We are creatures of emotional needs though, and as such it is a strong factor in our lives. Otherwise, we would not ever eat anything unhealthy or do silly things like ride on rollercoasters or go see movies. We would work all day long and not do anything frivolous.

I think the only option is to try and quiet the baby and hope for the best. Or, for the more-coldhearted-than-average, to somehow knock the baby out temporarily... such as with a vulcan nerve pinch or a quick splash of chloroform on a handkerchief (like everyone carries that around though). Even death would be better than having to live with having killed your own child. The only way I would see infanticide as an option would be if you were trapped with, say, your 6 other children as well, and you might think that you killing the child and living with the regret - a life not worth living - would be better than the rest of your loved ones dying. You'd be a cold, wrecked mess for the rest of your material existence... but the others wouldn't, and that's what would matter (to some). I think that either answer would be fine in that case, as they'd be horrific in either case. It would simply be up to the parent to decide which would be more horrific!

PS: You're a total debbie downer. :O
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
DrShephard said:
In essence, there would be two possible outcomes:

Option 1: Killing your child and surviving, in which case your life would not be worth living due to the intense amount of guilt, regret, and general awfulness related to taking your own child's life for the rest of your life. Someone who could simply do it and then get over it is emotionally dull to the point of not having the human element.

Option 2: Not doing it and quite possibly getting found out, and subsequently killed.

Logic, devoid of emotions, should go for option 1. We are creatures of emotional needs though, and as such it is a strong factor in our lives. Otherwise, we would not ever eat anything unhealthy or do silly things like ride on rollercoasters or go see movies. We would work all day long and not do anything frivolous.

I think the only option is to try and quiet the baby and hope for the best. Or, for the more-coldhearted-than-average, to somehow knock the baby out temporarily... such as with a vulcan nerve pinch or a quick splash of chloroform on a handkerchief (like everyone carries that around though). Even death would be better than having to live with having killed your own child. The only way I would see infanticide as an option would be if you were trapped with, say, your 6 other children as well, and you might think that you killing the child and living with the regret - a life not worth living - would be better than the rest of your loved ones dying. You'd be a cold, wrecked mess for the rest of your material existence... but the others wouldn't, and that's what would matter (to some). I think that either answer would be fine in that case, as they'd be horrific in either case. It would simply be up to the parent to decide which would be more horrific!

PS: You're a total debbie downer. :O
Click to expand...

Very good points. Part of the point of this is to get people thinking critically and also morally. Logic would say the only option is to kill the child but emotion says otherwise. Despite the fact that by choosing not to kill the child will lead to your death, it is the option I believe most will choose and honestly the one I would. I could never harm a child, even if it wasn't my own. If anything I would rush out of the building and try to draw them away if I could but that's not the point of the exercise. Sadly this is one of those times where it is a lose lose situation, death is almost inevitable. Situations like this do though arise in the real world and you would be surprised by what people choose to preserve their own life. This is why I like the arguments you make. We are emotional beings and social beings, but also selfish beings. In this case, is it trully morally wrong to kill your own child to preserve the life of others with the possibility of some of those others being children themselves? Is the life of your child really worth the lives of lets say five other people, two of which are children? Most parents will answer without a doubt, yes but logic might tell them to consider the other option. Would they be wrong to consider this option? The point of this is not to find a way around this dilema but to decide where you stand.

Debbie downer??? lol. I guess this isn't the most light hearted subject but it does bring up interesting points in psychology especially in regards to decision making and morality. I didn't mean to be so negative, I just thought this was a rather interesting question. lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrShephard
I think I could not heart the child...
 
Jana said:
I think I could not heart the child...
Click to expand...

Most cannot until put into the real situation. I have known some companies, especially the military to pose such questions to get them thinking about things like this and inevitably make the logical choice. Others consider the alternative. Is it worse to give your child a quick death or to leave it up to the heartless man holding the gun outside? People will find ways to rationalize the way they act and to cope with the guilt of their actions. Does this make them a bad person, is the question.
 
jimtaylor said:
Most cannot until put into the real situation. I have known some companies, especially the military to pose such questions to get them thinking about things like this and inevitably make the logical choice. Others consider the alternative. Is it worse to give your child a quick death or to leave it up to the heartless man holding the gun outside? People will find ways to rationalize the way they act and to cope with the guilt of their actions. Does this make them a bad person, is the question.
Click to expand...
I understand, it is that old question abou "Should we let one person to die for nation?".
The problem is that if I make that choice, if I take someone's life, I am putting me in position of God. If I let things go as they go adn I don't heart child, I can hope or feel consequences. Something like that...Logical is one thing, but coul I do it. Actually I hope I could not...
 
Sorry for tipfellers...I wrote too quick.
 
The only reason why it is a dilemma is because you think selfishly. You are worried because you do not want to make an immoral action. There are two approaches: Existentialism or Hinduism.

The existentialist's approach would be to realize that there is no right or wrong action and that one may do whatever he wishes. The action with the most immediate control of events would be the most responsible, however(killing the baby).

The Hindu approach is to realize that you can only kill flesh, the soul does not die by mortal hands. Thus you would not be killing the baby, you would be killing its flesh.
 
Ahh don't worry. I am no grammar god. This is a forum, not an English class. I understand what you are saying, that is good enough by my book. Good points though. This is why this question is so hard. You can't answer with either complete emotion or complete logic, there are too many issues at stake that are both logical and emotional. It is good to think about these things though because if a situation where to ever arise and you found yourself having to make a choice like this, it would be good to have thought before hand of what you believe is the right choice. I would never wish that anybody where to come upon a choice like this but it happens in life and it never hurts to think about something like this. I really don't think it is wrong to argue that it would be right to go with the logical choice here because you are saving other peoples lives in the sacrifice of your child. You are not killing your child out of hate or anger, but to preserve life. It is hard to accept but the logical choice also has emotional reasons that can be argued for. This question really just forces you to consider all options because to rush in to either one could leave major consequences. There is no easy way out of this situation which is the path most people take. If the option was that if you killed yourself, than your baby would stop crying and everybody lives then I am sure many would opt to kill themselves because their death only effects them in that moment. We can talk the future consequences of the actions for years but in this case you have to consider only the now.
 
I should read Sophia's choice, novel. I think it is about similar choice. Have you read it?
 
EyeSeeCold said:
The only reason why it is a dilemma is because you think selfishly. You are worried because you do not want to make an immoral action. There are two approaches: Existentialism or Hinduism.

The existentialist's approach would be to realize that there is no right or wrong action and that one may do whatever he wishes. The action with the most immediate control of events would be the most responsible, however(killing the baby).

The Hindu approach is to realize that you can only kill flesh, the soul does not die by mortal hands. Thus you would not be killing the baby, you would be killing its flesh.
Click to expand...

Bravo! Indeed. Either way it is selfish thought in all decisions. By killing the baby, you are selfishly saving your own life but as a coping mechanism most would point to the fact that they saved x amount of others in their action.

To not kill the baby, would be selfish because you can't comprehend doing such a thing. Humans are naturally selfish even in some of the most selfless acts but again is that wrong? From either one of the idea's you have posted, there would be no wrong or right, just logic.
 
I wouldn't be able to do it but i want to point out some of the things we are not considering within the realm of these two possibilities. If you do not kill the baby, it is likely that you will be found out. Just because you are found out does not mean that you will automatically be killed. If a soldier enters the premises he may be empathetic and let you escape, possibly even help you when seeing that you are the protector of an innocent child. This is not overly likely but still within the realm of possibility. I think the point that i am trying to get at is that you are not the only person that has to make a decision to kill here. Just because it is probable that you will die at the hand of another does not justify taking a life to ensure that you do not die at that hand. That "hand" also has a moral choice to make.

Note: If you are mad at me for manipulating the premises a little bit in order to fit reality more than the intended purpose of the question did, i am a bit mad at me too. I hate those people that are given a situation with two choices andtry to weasel their way out of hypothetically killing people with their own third choice (i.e. why can't i just stop the train?)
 
I wouldn't smother the child. It's the parents sole duty to protect their child.. so the obligation is to keep the child alive rather than the neighbors.

The neighbors can go hide someplace else if they don't like it. I'd rather die fighting to live rather than survive by having to murder those I'm supposed to protect.
 
bickelz said:
. I think the point that i am trying to get at is that you are not the only person that has to make a decision to kill here.
Click to expand...

Yes, case in point:) Just like that.
 
I am not going to be angry. It is natural response to want to find a way to escape the negative outcomes. It is just natural and I cannot blame you. Of course in a real situation all people would be variables. One of the other people in the house could easily take your child from your arms and kill it, to save their own life or their own child. The reason you limit this down to two options is because of course in any situation there is always so much to consider, but it still almost always comes down to the same two outcomes with maybe a third anomaly like the soldiers having a heart and letting you live.
 
You know, interesting questions...
 
jimtaylor said:
I am not going to be angry. It is natural response to want to find a way to escape the negative outcomes. It is just natural and I cannot blame you. Of course in a real situation all people would be variables. One of the other people in the house could easily take your child from your arms and kill it, to save their own life or their own child. The reason you limit this down to two options is because of course in any situation there is always so much to consider, but it still almost always comes down to the same two outcomes with maybe a third anomaly like the soldiers having a heart and letting you live.
Click to expand...

I know nobody was actually going to get angry at me but i was also just trying to outline that i was being one of those people who don't get the point of limiting the answer to 2 possibilities. These questions are great ways of finding about someone's morals, thinking process and values. If only this were an acceptable first date question...

But to actually answer the intended question, i wouldn't be able to kill the baby because i would rather die fighting than live by killing my own kid. The latter is cowardly.
 
I would hope there was a pacifier around to shove it into the baby's mouth.
But seriously, I would not harm the baby. I don't have the right to decide whether the baby should live or die and neither do the other people. There is a reason why the baby chose to cry. Religious stuff, but makes sense to me.
Anyway, the attackers might not be too bothered if they think there is the only one baby in the house.
 
I would set the infant in the far side of what ever your using as a shelter and have the myself and every one else hide behind cover after arming themselves with what ever makeshift weapons they could find. When the attacker enter the building and curiously ponder who would leave a child unattended on the floor of what ever room the child is left in, I would scream kick something over ans lead a charge to kill the invaders with my surprise attack. Sure we may loose any where between no one and every one, but at least we died fighting and the child came to no harm(from my hands).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back