Hypothetical Dilemma: 7 Billion People will die if you don't shoot the baby in the head and eat its Bodily-Remains

[Zundrah]

Nobody has rationally explained why killing the child to save the human race is wrong.

It’s murder.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A more likely scenario is whether we would be prepared to shoot at a lorry driver who is unaware that his cargo includes a nuclear weapon which will destroy a city like New York or London… assuming we have don’t have time for any alternative.

I believe we are justified in doing so because our intention is not to kill but to protect. We know he may be killed but that would be a lesser evil than doing nothing to save millions of people from death and suffering - and he would probably agree if he were in our position.

Would he?

Anyway, while i am not sure, i can see why he would be killed. The fact is, he was going to die anyway. There was no hope for the guy either way; while on the other hand there is hope for everybody else.

But the same is also true in my scenario with the killing of the child. So whats the difference Tony?

Are we not both murderers for killing both the people in question?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I thought so too.

Think about the question; kill the child and consume its flesh or the human world will perish.

God gave up His Son to save the world. As for the flesh, you can see the meaning.

Jaaanosik noticed the relation too. I didn’t vote.

Why. [edited]

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s murder.

Why is it wrong to kill a child in-order to save the human race?

 

[Zundrah]

Why. Are you to much of a snob to vote?

Are you unable to read something without leaving an offensive comment?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

7 Billion is the estimated number of People existing on the planet.

In the year 2015, first-contact is established with an alien race of unknown origins.

It is evident that these beings transcend our meagre technological advancements, and that it would be certain the human race would be wiped out within a mere second if war was to ensue.

A child is born.

The aliens leaders demand that we shoot the child in the head and eat its bodily-remains, otherwise they will wipe out the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet earth, putting an end to our miserable race.

The leaders of every country, in believing that the decision should not be the expression of any one person or individual, decide to hold a voting ballot, where you can vote for or against the death of the child.

Vote; and give the rational reasons why you voted for or against.

This is not so hypthetical,

It is the story of Jesus Christ; His life, passion and death on the cross for the salvation of all humanity. Even down to the Eucharist , where we recieve His body, blood, soul and divinity.

Except that yours is a rather crass; irreverent verbiage.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are you unable to read something without leaving an offensive comment?

I found the dismissive nature of both your comments offensive. If you don’t have time for these kinds of moral exercises, then please don’t comment at all.

Snob.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is not so hypthetical,

Except that yours is a rather crass; irreverent verbiage.

Maybe your just jealous that you couldn’t come up with something better yourself.

 

[Zundrah]

I found the dismissive nature of both your comments offensive. If you don’t have time for these kinds of moral exercises, then please don’t comment at all.

Snob.

You perceive something to be offensive so you right the wrong by saying something abusive? There is a lot more negativity (to put it lightly) in your messages towards me.

I’ll leave you to it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’ll leave you to it.

goodbye

 

[inocente]

Nobody has rationally explained why killing the child to save the human race is wrong.

The dilemma in the OP uses the scenario of an innocent baby, and that may have swayed some into thinking the choice is between good and evil when imho it’s between two evils.

For instance, if instead the scenario was that you must pull a trigger to kill yourself, and if you don’t within fifteen seconds then nuclear devices will detonate in every city in the world, it would sound a bit cowardly not to pull the trigger to save seven billion others.

(Or instead of yourself, if it were your own son, or your wife, etc.). I voted to pull the trigger.

 

[cjmclark]

This is not so hypthetical,

It is the story of Jesus Christ; His life, passion and death on the cross for the salvation of all humanity. Even down to the Eucharist , where we recieve His body, blood, soul and divinity.

Except that yours is a rather crass; irreverent verbiage.

Not quite - Jesus willingly sacrificed himself for all humanity. This would not be the case for the “innocent child” getting shot in the head.

Self-sacrifice is an act of great love and faith - see John 15:13:

13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Sacrificing another, on the other hand, is despicable and cowardly.

 

[Joe_5859]

Nobody has rationally explained why killing the child to save the human race is wrong.

I would encourage you to read Veritatis Splendor. The principle that it is never permissible to do evil that good may come of it is one of the foundational principles of morality and ethics.

Killing a baby is evil. It’s murder. The baby is innocent. It is not self-defense. All you have is the promise of extinction from an alien race (and if someone is capable of killing 7 billion people over something so arbitrary, I wouldn’t exactly trust anything they say).

Every act has three components: object, intent, and circumstances.

An intrisically evil object is always immoral regardless of intent and circumstances. Murder is an intrinsically evil act (the object chosen). Intentions and circumstances will never change it to make it anything other than an intrinsically evil act.

Again, if this scenario is causing you moral confusion, I highly recommend reading Veritatis Splendor to learn the basics of what makes an act moral or immoral.

 

[fred_conty]

I have seen many hypothetical questions. Some are possible, some are probable, and some are impossible. This one is impossible and it only serves to create misconceptions about life and religions issues. It is like asking how many angels can
stand on the point of a pin. To me it is energy that could be directed to address more productive issues.

Just a thought.

 

[sw85]

7 Billion is the estimated number of People existing on the planet.

In the year 2015, first-contact is established with an alien race of unknown origins.

It is evident that these beings transcend our meagre technological advancements, and that it would be certain the human race would be wiped out within a mere second if war was to ensue.

A child is born.

The aliens leaders demand that we shoot the child in the head and eat its bodily-remains, otherwise they will wipe out the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet earth, putting an end to our miserable race.

The leaders of every country, in believing that the decision should not be the expression of any one person or individual, decide to hold a voting ballot, where you can vote for or against the death of the child.

Vote; and give the rational reasons why you voted for or against.

Not a “dilemma” at all. Good is to be done, evil avoided. Murder and cannibalism are evil. End of discussion.

 

[vz71]

So an alien is going to kill me if I do not disobey God’s commandments…
Suits me just fine.

I can only die once.
And after that I will be judged in part based upon that decision.

Not a bad position to be in.

 

[Serious]

If one strips all the unnecessary “fluff” (aliens?) and the appeal to emotions (eating a baybee?) the dilemma is very simple:

you are confronted with a choice of not your doing, yet you are forced to make a selection between two possible courses of action. The two courses of action both carry negative results, but one is “worse” than the other (the harm caused by choice “A” is more than the harm caused by choice “B”). The possible choice of “non-action” carries the same consequence as the “worse” one (choice “A”). Which choice should one take? (It is funny that so many people try to “wiggle out” from such dilemmas, by stating that the problem is far-fetched, or improbable. We are faced with such choices all the time.)

The answer is obvious: choose whichever causes less harm. The Hyppocratic oath is very wise: “first, do no harm”. It should be continued with: “if you must cause harm, cause as little as possible”.

 

[Joe_5859]

If one strips all the unnecessary “fluff” (aliens?) and the appeal to emotions (eating a baybee?) the dilemma is very simple:

you are confronted with a choice of not your doing, yet you are forced to make a selection between two possible courses of action. The two courses of action both carry negative results, but one is “worse” than the other (the harm caused by choice “A” is more than the harm caused by choice “B”). The possible choice of “non-action” carries the same consequence as the “worse” one (choice “A”). Which choice should one take? (It is funny that so many people try to “wiggle out” from such dilemmas, by stating that the problem is far-fetched, or improbable. We are faced with such choices all the time.)

The answer is obvious: choose whichever causes less harm. The Hyppocratic oath is very wise: “first, do no harm”. It should be continued with: “if you must cause harm, cause as little as possible”.

I agree with your stripping down the hypothetical scenario to what the underlying moral quandary is. That’s the only reason I don’t immediately dismiss these types of threads.

However you left out one very important part of the equation. One course of action requires committing an intrisically evil act. The other does not.

This is not a small thing. Catholic morality is not utilitarian. It’s not all about calculating which set of consequences will be the least harmful. Catholic morality evaluates the morality of the act through looking at the object chosen, the intention, and the circumstances. But an evil object always renders the act immoral regardless of intent and circumstances. The ends does not justify the means. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

 

[Serious]

I agree with your stripping down the hypothetical scenario to what the underlying moral quandary is. That’s the only reason I don’t immediately dismiss these types of threads.

However you left out one very important part of the equation. One course of action requires committing an intrisically evil act. The other does not.

This is not a small thing. Catholic morality is not utilitarian. It’s not all about calculating which set of consequences will be the least harmful. Catholic morality evaluates the morality of the act through looking at the object chosen, the intention, and the circumstances. But an evil object always renders the act immoral regardless of intent and circumstances. The ends does not justify the means. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

No action ever takes place in isolation. The circumstances cannot be “glossed over” - that would be an error. And the concept of “intrinsically evil” is incorrect, precisely because it does attempt to evaluate an act as if it happened in isolation.

Just one example: many say that “stealing” is intrinsically wrong or “evil” - no if’s and’s and but’s. Of course these people will change their tune when one asks a specific question: “is it intrinsically evil to steal a piece of bread to avoid stavation?”. Surpise, surprise… All of a sudden, “stealing” is not intrinsically evil. You said in the highlighted text that everything needs to be taken into consideration - and, of course I agree. But that immediately excludes the blanket condemnation of “act X is intrinsically evil, under any and all circumstances”.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Originally Posted by Jaaanosik View Post
Veritatis Splendor defines cutting a limb with bad intentions as an intrinsically evil act.

Veritatis Splendor 80

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.132

What is mutilation?
MW dictionary:

2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

It’s being discussed here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8984043&postcount=28