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

[John21652]

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.

Shooting the baby is wrong. It’s murder.
The Aliens demand is wrong. It is inciting murder.
The Aliens are an unethical miserable, bullying mob and not worth befriending.
If the Aliens demand is a “test” then to kill and eat the baby will be to fail that test and confirm to the Aliens we are a miserable, rotten bunch not worth befirending.

Tell 'em to go to hell and pick up some weapons and let’s see just what they are made of. I’d tip that universal human traits and moral beliefs would trump the Aliens and they’d get a hiding.
Such a miserable bunch of Aliens would have it confirnmed to them that Earthlings are an even more miserable bunch and not worth worrying over, befriending, or having any other type of relationship.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Pushing a fat man in front of the boulder to stop it from rolling would be evil and you’d be morally forbidden from doing it.

That would be very deep.

 

[sw85]

Failing to stop that boulder, when you could do it would be evil, if you foresaw that it will kill someone. That is the point I was making. Care to comment on it?

The point I was making is that is a false equivalency. There is nothing intrinsically evil about stopping a boulder from rolling down a hill. There is something intrinsically evil about infanticide and cannibalism.

Ah, now you change your tune again. You wish to speak of “murder” as a legal term, not as a philosophical question. In that case, of course, killing in a war in not a murder - because it is specifically exempted. But in this case abortion is also not a murder, where it is legally allowed. Are you willing to concede that? Or are you trying to argue both for and against the “legally defined” murder?

I said “legitimate” (i.e., morally permissible), not “legal.” Whether civil law accords with natural law is irrelevant here.

You do not have God’s explicit permission anywhere. That is as weak as it comes. God does nor allow or deny anything explicitly. I would argue: “since God did not explicitly forbid the act, we can use our common sense”.

Certainly not since the last apostle died. But there are plenty of instances in the Bible in which God’s command to do something that would normally be forbidden transforms what would’ve been an illegitimate act on its own into a licit one.

That is what true communism said (not the twisted version it was actualized). With the exception of God, of course. That is not how property rights are treated today.

So? Then the “true communists” got it right. And surprise! our modern apostate age gets at least one thing wrong. Color me shocked.

For a useful treatment of the natural law attitude toward property rights, see Edward Feser’s journal article “Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights, and Taxation.” It’s available on Google, although for some reason the link forces you to download the html file instead of just opening it up in a new window.

Oh yes, it simply is.

Oh, well then of course you’re right! I hadn’t considered that.

Interesting. So your definition of “intrinsically evil” cannot be separated from your concept of God.

Like the kids say, duh. Good is good by reference to God.

That is fine by me. Going back to original dilemma, since God did not explicitly forbid the killing of that “baybee”, there is no disobedience in the picture. As such that killing or any other killing is not “intrinsically evil”. I am happy with this conclusion.

Your ignorance of natural law is not a mark of sophistication.

God’s will for us is expressed through our natures, which He created. Our nature is such that murder is forbidden. God alone can “override” our nature because God alone created it. Sheesh.

 

[Joe_5859]

If that loaf of bread is the property of someone else, and you do not have permission to take it, then it is stealing. Rights are - of course - social constructs. In the tribal communities there are no “rights”, everyone owns the whole shebang and no one owns specific “things”.

Now, it just so happens that fundamentally I agree with you. Helping to prevent starvation superceeds the property rights. But that does not “redefine” the act to become “not stealing”. In a society where there are property rights, it will remain an act of stealing. But no decent judge of jury would condemn such and act - thus affirming that there are no “intrinsically evil” acts. Funny stuff that we agree on the principle to follow, but we disagree on the wording.

Yes, we are in agreement that a man can take a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. You seem to want to call it “justifiable stealing” or “non-intrinsically evil stealing” while I am saying it is not stealing at all.

I’m just taking my lead from the Catechism.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others. [Cf. GS 69 § 1.]

If you want to define things differently, that’s your prerogative. But that’s not the Catholic terminology.

Again, Veritatis Splendor is a great encyclical.

 

[kama3]

Shooting the baby is wrong. It’s murder.
The Aliens demand is wrong. It is inciting murder.
The Aliens are an unethical miserable, bullying mob and not worth befriending.
If the Aliens demand is a “test” then to kill and eat the baby will be to fail that test and confirm to the Aliens we are a miserable, rotten bunch not worth befirending.

Exactly that. Ask yourself this: What will the aliens gain if we kill the child? Nothing! So why make the demand at all? The only logical solution is that this is a test.

 

[Serious]

The point I was making is that is a false equivalency. There is nothing intrinsically evil about stopping a boulder from rolling down a hill. There is something intrinsically evil about infanticide and cannibalism.

If you know that the boulder will kill someone, then it is unacceptable to fail to stop it. There is no true difference between guilt by comission and guild by omission.

Certainly not since the last apostle died. But there are plenty of instances in the Bible in which God’s command to do something that would normally be forbidden transforms what would’ve been an illegitimate act on its own into a licit one.

Sorry, the bible is not an authority.

Your ignorance of natural law is not a mark of sophistication.

I am not ignorant of the concept, I simply deny it as nonsense.

 

[Serious]

Yes, we are in agreement that a man can take a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. You seem to want to call it “justifiable stealing” or “non-intrinsically evil stealing” while I am saying it is not stealing at all.

We use different characterization for the same action. Who is doing the redefinition here? You say that I do, I say that you do. Impasse. There are other problems with your “diluting” the meanings of words. Where does the process stop? If you are in dire need to get some food, and there is no food around, but there are some valuables, which can be sold, are you “entitled” to take those valuables and “convert them” into food items? What about stealing some coal or wood to prevent freezing? In my view these are all “stealing”, but can be justified. Maybe you make these also instances of “not stealing”? Your (or the catholic) stance is unnecessary complicated. I call a spade a spade.

If you want to define things differently, that’s your prerogative. But that’s not the Catholic terminology.

I can’t help if the catholic terminology is different from the normal usage of the words. There are too many examples of “catho-speak”.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

We kill the baby knowing it is certain to die but we hope the driver will just be wounded…

 

[davidv]

We use different characterization for the same action. Who is doing the redefinition here? You say that I do, I say that you do. Impasse. There are other problems with your “diluting” the meanings of words. Where does the process stop? If you are in dire need to get some food, and there is no food around, but there are some valuables, which can be sold, are you “entitled” to take those valuables and “convert them” into food items? What about stealing some coal or wood to prevent freezing? In my view these are all “stealing”, but can be justified. Maybe you make these also instances of “not stealing”? Your (or the catholic) stance is unnecessary complicated. I call a spade a spade.

I can’t help if the catholic terminology is different from the normal usage of the words. There are too many examples of “catho-speak”.

There is a very good reason for “catho-speak”. Precision matters when our final destination is at stake.

It appears to me from the above that you, whether you agree with it or not, have not understood the principles involved in determining the morality of any particular act or inaction. The three fonts of morality have already been given in this thread.

 

[Serious]

There is a very good reason for “catho-speak”. Precision matters when our final destination is at stake.

I would most certainly agree with you if that were the case. But I don’t see it happening. I see “redefinitions” when the “going gets tough”. What is “stealing”? What is killing in self-defense? If you know that someone is determined to kill you and your loved ones, are you entitled to do a preemptive strike to prevent it? A preemptive strike is most certainly “premeditated”. Is that a “murder” then?

It appears to me from the above that you, whether you agree with it or not, have not understood the principles involved in determining the morality of any particular act or inaction. The three fonts of morality have already been given in this thread.

I do understand the what the catholic stance is, I just happen to disagree with it. I also wholeheartedly agree that the “end (in and by itself) cannot justify the means”. But I state that some ends, achieved by certain means can be justfied, while others cannot. Just one hypothetical example: I would say that if we could eliminate all the poverty (or sickness) by forcing everyone to contribute one cent, that end and those means would form a justifyable sequence. And I would also say that killing one person (suppose that the person would carry a deadly virus) to save everyone else would be justfied. Life is not black and white. There are grades and nuances, there are scales of grays. According to my observation most (maybe not all) catholics see the world as “black and white”, either “good or evil”. They refuse to see that there are neutral actions. And they are the ones who engage in “catho-speak”. Who are trying to blow both hot and clod from their mouth.

 

[SonCatcher]

I would most certainly agree with you if that were the case. But I don’t see it happening. I see “redefinitions” when the “going gets tough”.

Many of the words in “catho-speak” are static where the vernacular language is constantly evolving. So if there has been redefinition, it has been by secular society, not the Catholics.

What is “stealing”? What is killing in self-defense? If you know that someone is determined to kill you and your loved ones, are you entitled to do a preemptive strike to prevent it? A preemptive strike is most certainly “premeditated”. Is that a “murder” then?

Yes. Therefore, it is not permitted.

I do understand the what the catholic stance is, I just happen to disagree with it. I also wholeheartedly agree that the “end (in and by itself) cannot justify the means”. But I state that some ends, achieved by certain means can be justfied, while others cannot. Just one hypothetical example: I would say that if we could eliminate all the poverty (or sickness) by forcing everyone to contribute one cent, that end and those means would form a justifyable sequence. And I would also say that killing one person (suppose that the person would carry a deadly virus) to save everyone else would be justfied. Life is not black and white. There are grades and nuances, there are scales of grays. According to my observation most (maybe not all) catholics see the world as “black and white”, either “good or evil”. They refuse to see that there are neutral actions. And they are the ones who engage in “catho-speak”. Who are trying to blow both hot and clod from their mouth.

You have been unobservant, then. Catholics do understand neutral actions. They play prominently in the principle of double effect.

 

[davidv]

I would most certainly agree with you if that were the case. But I don’t see it happening. I see “redefinitions” when the “going gets tough”. What is “stealing”? What is killing in self-defense? If you know that someone is determined to kill you and your loved ones, are you entitled to do a preemptive strike to prevent it? A preemptive strike is most certainly “premeditated”. Is that a “murder” then?

What I see happening is your deliberate twisting of the information provided. Without redefining the words that Church uses to define sinful killing, your argument does not stand. You have presented us with a logical falacy, thinking that it is a rational rebuttal. All of your examples that are different from the OP topic are red herrings. The clear application of Catholic moral principles shows that deliberately killing baby in the OP scenario is unjustified and is the grave sin of murder.

I do understand the what the catholic stance is, I just happen to disagree with it. I also wholeheartedly agree that the “end (in and by itself) cannot justify the means”. But I state that some ends, achieved by certain means can be justfied, while others cannot. Just one hypothetical example: I would say that if we could eliminate all the poverty (or sickness) by forcing everyone to contribute one cent, that end and those means would form a justifyable sequence. And I would also say that killing one person (suppose that the person would carry a deadly virus) to save everyone else would be justfied. Life is not black and white. There are grades and nuances, there are scales of grays. According to my observation most (maybe not all) catholics see the world as “black and white”, either “good or evil”. They refuse to see that there are neutral actions. And they are the ones who engage in “catho-speak”. Who are trying to blow both hot and clod from their mouth.

It appears that your disagreement is not based on a rational argument. Some means cannot be justified by any ends. One of these “means” is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Your generalization “black and white”, either “good or evil” is not supported by the evidence you provided.

 

[Serious]

What I see happening is your deliberate twisting of the information provided. Without redefining the words that Church uses to define sinful killing, your argument does not stand. You have presented us with a logical falacy, thinking that it is a rational rebuttal. All of your examples that are different from the OP topic are red herrings. The clear application of Catholic moral principles shows that deliberately killing baby in the OP scenario is unjustified and is the grave sin of murder.

Ah, so if one cannot answer a rebuttal, let’s redefine it a “red herring”, and all will be well? I don’t think so.

The deliberate killing is a serious matter. What is the allowing the death of everyone, including that “baby”? Do you say that simply allowing something to happen, (which you could prevent) is hunky-dorey, just because you did not actually do it? This is at the heart of the dilemma presented.

By stripping away the unnecessary “fluff” (space aliens and baybees) the problem can be stated as this: "you are confronted with a problem, which is not your making. It was the result of circumstances beyond your control. Yet, you must make a selection. Either you commit an act, or you choose not to act. The consequences are very serious in both cases, but the results of the inaction are far more serious.

You cannot justify the inaction by saying that “guilt by omission” is different from “guilt by comission”. They are equally serious. If murdering someone is wrong, then allowing everyone to die is much worse. In such cases the rational person will choose the lesser of two evils, while the irrational one will say: “I did not do it, don’t blame me”.

 

[davidv]

Ah, so if one cannot answer a rebuttal, let’s redefine it a “red herring”, and all will be well? I don’t think so.

Unsubstantiated

The deliberate killing is a serious matter. What is the allowing the death of everyone, including that “baby”? Do you say that simply allowing something to happen, (which you could prevent) is hunky-dorey, just because you did not actually do it? This is at the heart of the dilemma presented.

Since I am not in control of the antagonist, I am am not responsible for their choices. I am only responsible for my choice. In the case presented the immoral choice is to kill the baby.

By stripping away the unnecessary “fluff” (space aliens and baybees) the problem can be stated as this: "you are confronted with a problem, which is not your making. It was the result of circumstances beyond your control. Yet, you must make a selection. Either you commit an act, or you choose not to act. The consequences are very serious in both cases, but the results of the inaction are far more serious.

On what basis is the result of inaction “far more serious”. Loss of phyical life is far less serious than the loss of eternal life.

You cannot justify the inaction by saying that “guilt by omission” is different from “guilt by comission”.

This is not the argument. Strawman.

They are equally serious. If murdering someone is wrong, then allowing everyone to die is much worse.

Why?

In such cases the rational person will choose the lesser of two evils, while the irrational one will say: “I did not do it, don’t blame me”.

Proving to me that you haven’t properly evaluated which is the lesser of two evils.
A. Comment a grievous offense as an accomplice to murder, or
B. Do what you can short of immorality to stop the evil

B is the lesser because it doesn’t put your enternal life at risk.

 

[Serious]

Since I am not in control of the antagonist, I am am not responsible for their choices. I am only responsible for my choice. In the case presented the immoral choice is to kill the baby.

You are responsible for your inaction, which will result in the death of everyone. It was Pilate, who attempted to “wash his hands” of the responsibility. It does not work.

On what basis is the result of inaction “far more serious”. Loss of phyical life is far less serious than the loss of eternal life.

This is where you fly off into la-la land. We are only sure of this life. The “eternal” life is just wishful thinking. As such the severity of an action (or inaction) can ONLY be decided based upon that we KNOW, not what people wish for. Rational thinking cannot be based upon “hoping for something”. That is the surefire sign of irrationality.

This is not the argument. Strawman.

Nonsense. To actively commit an act and to passively “allow” an act (when you have the knowledge and you have the power to prevent it) are equally despicable. And this is what you try to avoid to address. Of course I understand your reluctance. To accept this simple principle would be a condemnation of God for his obvious inactions. Can’t have that, can we?

Proving to me that you haven’t properly evaluated which is the lesser of two evils.
A. Comment a grievous offense as an accomplice to murder, or
B. Do what you can short of immorality to stop the evil

B is the lesser because it doesn’t put your enternal life at risk.

By the way it is selfish to put your “eternal life” in front of the well-being of everyone else. Even if that “eternal life” would be certain and not just something you hope for.

 

[davidv]

You are responsible for your inaction, which will result in the death of everyone. It was Pilate, who attempted to “wash his hands” of the responsibility. It does not work.

Yes I am responsible for my inaction. It this case it is the moral choice. The responsiblity for the evil is on someone else.

This is where you fly off into la-la land.

So you say. What is your authority to say so?

We are only sure of this life.

Based on what? Can you prove this claim?

The “eternal” life is just wishful thinking.

Any backup to this assertion?

As such the severity of an action (or inaction) can ONLY be decided based upon that we KNOW, not what people wish for.

What if I know more that you about the situation?

Rational thinking cannot be based upon “hoping for something”. That is the surefire sign of irrationality.

Strawman. This is a surer sign of irrationality.

Nonsense. To actively commit an act and to passively “allow” an act (when you have the knowledge and you have the power to prevent it) are equally despicable.

So you say. Make your case.

And this is what you try to avoid to address. Of course I understand your reluctance. To accept this simple principle would be a condemnation of God for his obvious inactions. Can’t have that, can we?

I have not avoided the issue. Since God is, by definition, all good and deserve no condemnation. Strawman.

By the way it is selfish to put your “eternal life” in front of the well-being of everyone else.

Based on what?

Even if that “eternal life” would be certain and not just something you hope for.

B

 

[Serious]

Yes I am responsible for my inaction. It this case it is the moral choice. The responsiblity for the evil is on someone else.

Ever heard of an accomplice to the act, and that the responsibility is shared by the actual perpetrator and the accomplice? I guess not. Time to read up on the subject. It is a simple concept, used by the judicial system all the time.

What if I know more that you about the situation?

Then prove it. If you have actual proof that there is an “eternal” life, bring it forth. We are all ears. Of course I mean real proof not just some hearsay testimonials.

It is pretty sad that we cannot have a constructive conversation when you keep denying obvious principles, and keep avoiding addressing the issues.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Instead of me trying to answer such an absurd question and “rationalize” my answer, why don’t you rationalize why this was even put up for question? I’m actually shocked that people are entertaining this.

My rationalization would be that it is an useful thought-experiment and example of an exercise of our powers of moral reasoning and decision making, designed to bring to light how we make decisions that touch on our behavior as believers. Admittedly it is an extreme example, but sometimes you need that extreme of an example to put choices and reasonings in focus

 

[davidv]

Ever heard of an accomplice to the act, and that the responsibility is shared by the actual perpetrator and the accomplice? I guess not. Time to read up on the subject. It is a simple concept, used by the judicial system all the time.

Then prove it. If you have actual proof that there is an “eternal” life, bring it forth. We are all ears. Of course I mean real proof not just some hearsay testimonials.

It is pretty sad that we cannot have a constructive conversation when you keep denying obvious principles, and keep avoiding addressing the issues.

Please kindly refrain from telling me what I have heard or read.

My proof of the after life is the testimony of Jesus, that has been preserved in the teaching of the Church he founded nearly two milenia ago. Please support your veiled claim that heasay is automatically false. Now it is your turn to prove there isn’t an afterlife - which was your initial assertion.

I have not denied any obvious principles. Please back up your claim.

The appropriate principles for defining the morality of an action, or inaction are (Reference CCC Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1 Article 4):

1. Morality of the Object (action)
2. Morality of the Intent
3. Morality of the Circumstances (including consequences
4. An immoral object cannot be made moral by moral intent nor moral circumstance
5. A moral object can be made immoral by immoral intent or immoral circumstance

 

[Serious]

Please kindly refrain from telling me what I have heard or read.

Then come clean. The simple principle which you denied is that the accomplice (who know about the act, and who had the power to stop it) is not equally responsible as the actual perpetrator. You keep on dancing around this question. I don’t really care if you wish to avoid the answer, but at least be honest about it, and don’t waste my time.

My proof of the after life is the testimony of Jesus, that has been preserved in the teaching of the Church he founded nearly two milenia ago.

Oh, well. I should have known better than to hope for a rational answer.