Would You Torture a Baby to End World Suffering?

[Hermit]

The underlying principal has to do with two things. First, it has to do with discussing whether or not the ends justifies the means.

Sure. We must be ever so greatful to the Aztecs for ripping the hearts out of living humans, thus ensuring that life on earth could continue. I'd do the exact same thing. In fact, I'll torture a dozen babies to death because I believe, nay, know that this action will result in the world becoming a perfect place of harmony and tranquility, where all the hunger, all the wars, all the violence, and all the poverty are just dim memories.

[AshtonBlack]

Torturing a baby will end world suffering? Anyone gullible enough to be talked into such a proposition should be locked away for society's protection, not allowed to act for society's 'salvation'.



Why stop at one infant? Why not end suffering by removing all those who suffer? So much quicker than, say, waiting for cures, tolerance, equality, more pragmatic than expecting all of physics/nature/humanity to respond to the tortured suffering of one little infant.

Oh yes, the world without the suffering: how much better off we'd all be

... let's start putting people out of their misery now ...

Wow.... where did THAT come from? It's a thought experiment is all. No-one, at least here, could think this situation would ever happen!

[charlou]

The sarcasm? It came from impatience with nonsensical hypotheticals, AB.

The underlying principal has to do with two things. First, it has to do with discussing whether or not the ends justifies the means.

"... the ends justify the means"

"... the ends"

In this hypothetical scenario "the ends" is total nonsense so, no, it would not justify the means.

A thinking exercise means thinking, ie considering a scenario from all angles, including whether or not it even makes logical sense.

[AshtonBlack]

The sarcasm? It came from impatience with nonsensical hypotheticals, AB.

Ahh my bad, didn't see the sarcy tags.

[Foxy13]

The sarcasm? It came from impatience with nonsensical hypotheticals, AB.

The underlying principal has to do with two things. First, it has to do with discussing whether or not the ends justifies the means.

"... the ends justify the means"

"... the ends"

In this hypothetical scenario "the ends" is total nonsense so, no, it would not justify the means.

A thinking exercise means thinking, ie considering a scenario from all angles, including whether or not it even makes logical sense.

You are quite free to take issue with the premise in an argument. However, in this particular scenario, we are assuming that the premise is true. This is a "what if" scenario. It's like saying, "What if God exists?" You can't just say that God doesn't exist, which therefore means that nothing happens if he exists.

This is much like algebra in a way. x^7y^9 / x^5y^3 is an algebraic statement that has no actual meaning. The answer, x^2y^6, is equally meaningless. Yet somehow, we know that algebra is useful. That is because it is the process by which we logically come to the answer, not the answer itself, that is important. It's the same with moral dilemmas and nonsensical hypotheticals. It is the logic that we use to come to an answer, not necessarily the answer, that is important.

[charlou]

The sarcasm? It came from impatience with nonsensical hypotheticals, AB.

The underlying principal has to do with two things. First, it has to do with discussing whether or not the ends justifies the means.

"... the ends justify the means"

"... the ends"

In this hypothetical scenario "the ends" is total nonsense so, no, it would not justify the means.

A thinking exercise means thinking, ie considering a scenario from all angles, including whether or not it even makes logical sense.

You are quite free to take issue with the premise in an argument. However, in this particular scenario, we are assuming that the premise is true. This is a "what if" scenario. It's like saying, "What if God exists?" You can't just say that God doesn't exist, which therefore means that nothing happens if he exists.

This is much like algebra in a way. x^7y^9 / x^5y^3 is an algebraic statement that has no actual meaning. The answer, x^2y^6, is equally meaningless. Yet somehow, we know that algebra is useful. That is because it is the process by which we logically come to the answer, not the answer itself, that is important. It's the same with moral dilemmas and nonsensical hypotheticals. It is the logic that we use to come to an answer, not necessarily the answer, that is important.

So your idea of a useful hypothetical is to discover whether people think the ends justify the means, while at the same time you expect them to consider the ends unimportant?

[Foxy13]

So your idea of a useful hypothetical is to discover whether people think the ends justify the means, while at the same time you expect them to consider the ends unimportant?

In a way, yes. It's the thought process that counts.

[Hermit]

So your idea of a useful hypothetical is to discover whether people think the ends justify the means, while at the same time you expect them to consider the ends unimportant?

In a way, yes. It's the thought process that counts.

If a greater good will certainly result from committing a lesser evil, one could conceivably vote yes, but I refuse to play that game for the exact reason that we cannot ascertain if the ends that the means are supposed to achieve are either attainable that way or even desirable. The Aztecs ripped the hearts out of living human beings in order to ensure the survival of humankind. Hitler sought the extinction of all Jews in order to preserve civilisation as he understood it to be. Some men have been reported to rape babies because they believed having sex with a virgin will get rid of their AIDS.

In real life some of us may be placed in a situation where we must choose between one evil or another, and where we have no way of opting out of making that choice, but I really don't think this amounts to a categorical decision whether ends justify the means any more so than any other decision we make. That is to say, we muddle through as best as we can.