If you could save the world by killing someone, would you do it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

What's up arising? I'll not contribute my response as your meaning until you give me a little more, hopefully something that my mind can sink it's teeth into, without sensing some sort of demeaning insinuation on your part, as I really prefer that everyone gets along in their sharing of ideas. REALLY!!

What I highlighted in red above referred to what came before it, not after it, it was a comment on "reason," so I'm wondering why you started with that, not that my aim here is to negatively respond as to your comprehension ability. We just speak differently, obviously! My way, surely a product of isolation.

The point is that you cannot save the baby as if you don't shoot her she'll trigger a doomsday device that will kill her along with everyone else, which include billions of other toddlers. So what would you do?

And my point is, who would want to save a species, from themselves, that would build such a thing in the first place, surely devoid of any sound reasoning, then allowing a baby to take control of such a thing, again surely devoid of sound reasoning; then finally a third time, as the species sees that killing an innocent baby is a very good means of compensating for their unsound reasoning, as if the baby is in any way responsible, again unsound reasoning; as the doomsday device can only ever be used to kill innocent babies, and themselves, IT'S A DOOMSDAY DEVICE, FOR GODS SAKE!!!

Let the species cater to their very unsound reasoning a fourth and final time, the fearful idiots that they obviously are, so as to finally do something of sound reasoning, thus ending the rein of a species bound by their extremely unsound reasoning. And maybe if any of the other species survive the doomsdays device, a new species, finally not devoid of sound reasoning, might spring forth to finally shepherd the rest in a very sound reasonable way. Because to my way of thinking there's nothing worse for a once balanced symbiotic biosphere, the only one of it's kind as far as we know, than a species of lunatics running around building doomsday devices, as if to do anything else with them, other than creating a doomsday, is reasonable. Or do you really think my resolve illogical?

And don't be confused so as to believe for a moment, that one that would say such a thing is capable of building then using a doomsday device to destroy the stupid animals, surely another instance of UNSOUND REASONING, because remember that the entire point of their logic is that the only thing we ABSOLUTELY OWE ONE ANOTHER, is to LEAVE ONE ANOTHER ALONE, obviously meaning no doomsday devices or any other means of taking life away from one that is MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, tending to the DAILY CHORES OF MAINTAINING THEIR OWN VISION OF LIFE where they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT INTERFERE IN ANOTHER'S VISION OF LIFE. And that's the beauty of my fundamental social axiom, to simply live and let live. One that even thinks of building a doomsday device should be immediately thrown in a cage that an animal belongs in, as surely they are nothing more than an animal. Now to create a device that can certainly only ever help maintain balance amongst the biospheres life, such that 'all' thrive equally, is quite another story, don't you think? The antithesis of a doomsday device. That's my kind of device!!! And everyone else's, though they might be oblivious of it's truth, the selfish animals that they so obviously would certainly be in that case!

[Arising_uk]

And my point is, who would want to save a species, from themselves, that would build such a thing in the first place, surely devoid of any sound reasoning, then allowing a baby to take control of such a thing, again surely devoid of sound reasoning; then finally a third time, as the species sees that killing an innocent baby is a very good means of compensating for their unsound reasoning, as if the baby is in any way responsible, again unsound reasoning; as the doomsday device can only ever be used to kill innocent babies, and themselves, IT'S A DOOMSDAY DEVICE, FOR GODS SAKE!!!

So you'd let all the millions of other non-responsible innocent babies die as well as the errant button-pusher, fair enough that's what these thought experiments are about, to examine ones ethics and morals. Me, if there was clearly no way out I'd hopefully be able to shoot the baby but might or might not be able to live with the act.

Let the species cater to their very unsound reasoning a fourth and final time, the fearful idiots that they obviously are, so as to finally do something of sound reasoning, thus ending the rein of a species bound by their extremely unsound reasoning. And maybe if any of the other species survive the doomsdays device, a new species, finally not devoid of sound reasoning, might spring forth to finally shepherd the rest in a very sound reasonable way. Because to my way of thinking there's nothing worse for a once balanced symbiotic biosphere, the only one of it's kind as far as we know, than a species of lunatics running around building doomsday devices, as if to do anything else with them, other than creating a doomsday, is reasonable. Or do you really think my resolve illogical?]/quote]No, just naive.

And don't be confused so as to believe for a moment, that one that would say such a thing is capable of building then using a doomsday device to destroy the stupid animals, surely another instance of UNSOUND REASONING, because remember that the entire point of their logic is that the only thing we ABSOLUTELY OWE ONE ANOTHER, is to LEAVE ONE ANOTHER ALONE, obviously meaning no doomsday devices or any other means of taking life away from one that is MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, tending to the DAILY CHORES OF MAINTAINING THEIR OWN VISION OF LIFE where they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT INTERFERE IN ANOTHER'S VISION OF LIFE. And that's the beauty of my fundamental social axiom, to simply live and let live. One that even thinks of building a doomsday device should be immediately thrown in a cage that an animal belongs in, as surely they are nothing more than an animal. Now to create a device that can certainly only ever help maintain balance amongst the biospheres life, such that 'all' thrive equally, is quite another story, don't you think? The antithesis of a doomsday device. That's my kind of device!!! And everyone else's, though they might be oblivious of it's truth, the selfish animals that they so obviously would certainly be in that case!

You think your mini-gun is a device that only ever helps maintain balance amongst the biospheres of life?

[SpheresOfBalance]

And my point is, who would want to save a species, from themselves, that would build such a thing in the first place, surely devoid of any sound reasoning, then allowing a baby to take control of such a thing, again surely devoid of sound reasoning; then finally a third time, as the species sees that killing an innocent baby is a very good means of compensating for their unsound reasoning, as if the baby is in any way responsible, again unsound reasoning; as the doomsday device can only ever be used to kill innocent babies, and themselves, IT'S A DOOMSDAY DEVICE, FOR GODS SAKE!!!

So you'd let all the millions of other non-responsible innocent babies die as well as the errant button-pusher, fair enough that's what these thought experiments are about, to examine ones ethics and morals. Me, if there was clearly no way out I'd hopefully be able to shoot the baby but might or might not be able to live with the act.
Arising, in my mind it's not quantity that counts, it's quality! Those hypothetical being to which we refer might have quantity, but they surely have no quality, or else the situation would never present! They are a failed species, I say back to the drawing board.

Look at it this way it was illogical for them to build such a thing in the first place. A doomsday device implies total destruction, of what? Them? Some other group of beings? There is no other possibility! If it's to destroy them then they've achieved their goal, they are doomed, so what's the point of worrying about who pulls the trigger. If the doom is meant for another group, then it implies they fear their death and fear the others might take their lives, and in so creating the device they have become exactly that, which they fear. As if they have the only right to live, as I'm sure the others believe as well. Universally who has that right? The bigger, the stronger? And if the others are just as capable, then what?

What an appropriate acronym and phrase, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)! And it serves all those that would play such a game right, the idiotic illogical beings that they both certainly are! Not creatures of true intellect are either species, at least in my sense of reason.

Let the species cater to their very unsound reasoning a fourth and final time, the fearful idiots that they obviously are, so as to finally do something of sound reasoning, thus ending the rein of a species bound by their extremely unsound reasoning. And maybe if any of the other species survive the doomsdays device, a new species, finally not devoid of sound reasoning, might spring forth to finally shepherd the rest in a very sound reasonable way. Because to my way of thinking there's nothing worse for a once balanced symbiotic biosphere, the only one of it's kind as far as we know, than a species of lunatics running around building doomsday devices, as if to do anything else with them, other than creating a doomsday, is reasonable. Or do you really think my resolve illogical?]/quote]No, just naive.

And don't be confused so as to believe for a moment, that one that would say such a thing is capable of building then using a doomsday device to destroy the stupid animals, surely another instance of UNSOUND REASONING, because remember that the entire point of their logic is that the only thing we ABSOLUTELY OWE ONE ANOTHER, is to LEAVE ONE ANOTHER ALONE, obviously meaning no doomsday devices or any other means of taking life away from one that is MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, tending to the DAILY CHORES OF MAINTAINING THEIR OWN VISION OF LIFE where they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT INTERFERE IN ANOTHER'S VISION OF LIFE. And that's the beauty of my fundamental social axiom, to simply live and let live. One that even thinks of building a doomsday device should be immediately thrown in a cage that an animal belongs in, as surely they are nothing more than an animal. Now to create a device that can certainly only ever help maintain balance amongst the biospheres life, such that 'all' thrive equally, is quite another story, don't you think? The antithesis of a doomsday device. That's my kind of device!!! And everyone else's, though they might be oblivious of it's truth, the selfish animals that they so obviously would certainly be in that case!

You think your mini-gun is a device that only ever helps maintain balance amongst the biospheres of life?
Again you build a strawman. Context is everything! Any weapon that I might have, is only the case due to the arena in which I find myself. As I have said time and time again. If someone gives me the shirt off their back, I'll give them the shirt off mine, if they punch me in the eye, I'll do the same to them, if they try and kill me, I'll do my damnedest to ensure that it is they that receives exactly that which they've tried to deliver, I'll kill them instead. I have only ever been 'defensive' with violence. Obviously in my previous message above, I speak of how I wish it was, in my version of a perfect world where everyone is respectful of all life, the way it should be. In your comment one can surely see why here on this planet it shall probably never be the case.

Why build a doomsday device if you don't want to be doomed?

[SpheresOfBalance]

This reply of yours is not as morally superior as you would hope we'd believe. Let me break it down for you.

So you'd let...
With this first bit you try and take the blame from where it belongs, on all those that allowed such a device to be created in the first place, this includes you, I and everyone that was 'aware' such a thing was being developed, and place it on my shoulders alone.

...all the millions of other non-responsible innocent babies die...
Here you have rationalized, after the fact that you have realized, that you shall probably die, in order to save face.
In Other Words (IOW), in that 'instant' that you saw the toddler pushing the button, all you could think about, 'in that instant,' was that you would probably die. The thought of others, including innocent babies dying, is the cover story to make your decision to kill the toddler seem less offensive in the face of your peers, that you know shall surely judge your actions, after the fact. Those two thoughts were born solely of self preservation and nothing more, the cover story was either after the fact, of those two instants (highly doubtful) or a rehearsed excuse, formulated well in advance of the actual event (probably the case). Especially since this is a thought experiment, you've had ample time to formulate the cover story for the sake of your peers, as indeed it surely was, after the fact of the dilemma being initially presented.

...as well as the errant button-pusher,...
Here you actually place the blame on the toddler. Because you attribute error on their part. They did not err, in there mind. In their ignorance, they were simply fascinated with the pretty shiny red button. It was from your selfish perspective that the toddler erred, that you attributed to their action. As a student of philosophy you are well aware that universally there is no necessary good, evil, or errors. It was from your fearful perspective alone. Though you are not alone in such a situation. The majority of humanity would be the same as you demonstrate, under those circumstances.

..fair enough that's what these thought experiments are about,...
They are not always simply thought experiments, they are often ill conceived rationalizations created to to try and compensate for what is believed is ones own folly. This one was created to try and rationalize the 'error' of creating/allowing for the creation of such an illogical device. To have ones cake and eat it too.

...to examine ones ethics and morals.
Of course this 'can' also be the case, but it usually fails to do so, generally speaking, unless of course like I have done, one breaks it down with an understanding of human psychology.

Me, if there was clearly no way out
If 'you' had no way out, yes a bit of honesty peeks through the smoke.

I'd hopefully be able to shoot the baby
And some more, but with that 'buffering' word 'hopefully!'

...but might...
Honesty, though 'might' is also a buffer! "Would," would be to harsh

...or might not be able to live with the act.
This part is purely part of the cover story, the rationalization used to cover ones tracks of guilt for the sake of peers. as you shall live just fine, which is the only reason you pulled that rifles trigger in that 'instant.'

To be very fair with both your words and mine, in truth, no one necessarily knows what they might actually do in some hypothetical future event. There is a very big difference between playing with something contained in ones imagination, and something that is 'really' happening in 'real' time. Both you and I have flavored our response in such a situation, with much forethought, which may or may not flavor an actual event like the one that's been presented. I just hope neither of us ever has the opportunity to find out.

[Arising_uk]

Arising, in my mind it's not quantity that counts, it's quality! Those hypothetical being to which we refer might have quantity, but they surely have no quality, or else the situation would never present! They are a failed species, I say back to the drawing board. ...

Right, so all those babies you condemn to death by not killing this one that you say is innocent are guilty by association and lack the requisite 'quality' you desire then?

Look at it this way it was illogical for them to build such a thing in the first place. A doomsday device implies total destruction, of what? Them? Some other group of beings? There is no other possibility! If it's to destroy them then they've achieved their goal, they are doomed, so what's the point of worrying about who pulls the trigger. If the doom is meant for another group, then it implies they fear their death and fear the others might take their lives, and in so creating the device they have become exactly that, which they fear. As if they have the only right to live, as I'm sure the others believe as well. Universally who has that right? The bigger, the stronger? And if the others are just as capable, then what?

I don't know, the scenario is that someone has built one and it looks like it's going to be triggered accidentally by a toddler and you are the only one around but you are to far away to stop them but have a rifle so could shoot the baby, do you do so. Your answer is no and fair enough but all the rest of your stuff is just your justification as effectively you are firing this doomsday device and killing millions of other innocent babies.

What an appropriate acronym and phrase, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)! And it serves all those that would play such a game right, the idiotic illogical beings that they both certainly are! Not creatures of true intellect are either species, at least in my sense of reason.

Personally I think you a bit hypocritical here as in the past you have proudly stated that you've played with nukes.

Again you build a strawman. Context is everything! Any weapon that I might have, is only the case due to the arena in which I find myself. ...

And yet you fail to extend this courtesy to those who build a doomsday device? Why would someone build such a thing? We have an example from the Soviets, thye reasoned that when faced with the prospect of a first strike by a superior nuclear power, America, that they should build a dead-man switch to ensure that their nukes went off, they also reasoned that they should have a massive cobalt bomb tied to it that would definitely wipe-out everyone if they were first-struck, this way, they reasoned, no-one would be stupid enough to fire at them first. Context you see.

As I have said time and time again. If someone gives me the shirt off their back, I'll give them the shirt off mine, if they punch me in the eye, I'll do the same to them, if they try and kill me, I'll do my damnedest to ensure that it is they that receives exactly that which they've tried to deliver, I'll kill them instead.

In other words exactly the policy of M.A.D. and the reasoning behind a doomsday device.

I have only ever been 'defensive' with violence. Obviously in my previous message above, I speak of how I wish it was, in my version of a perfect world where everyone is respectful of all life, the way it should be. In your comment one can surely see why here on this planet it shall probably never be the case.

And in yours we can see the death of everyone. You may have been defensive with personal violence but according to you you have been involved in processes to kill thousands of others and, who knows, maybe have?

Why build a doomsday device if you don't want to be doomed?

Because you are already dead. Because your opponent has given you the impression that they are going to fire first and you hope that this might cause them to think twice.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Arising, in my mind it's not quantity that counts, it's quality! Those hypothetical being to which we refer might have quantity, but they surely have no quality, or else the situation would never present! They are a failed species, I say back to the drawing board. ...

Right, so all those babies you condemn to death by not killing this one that you say is innocent are guilty by association and lack the requisite 'quality' you desire then?

Look at it this way it was illogical for them to build such a thing in the first place. A doomsday device implies total destruction, of what? Them? Some other group of beings? There is no other possibility! If it's to destroy them then they've achieved their goal, they are doomed, so what's the point of worrying about who pulls the trigger. If the doom is meant for another group, then it implies they fear their death and fear the others might take their lives, and in so creating the device they have become exactly that, which they fear. As if they have the only right to live, as I'm sure the others believe as well. Universally who has that right? The bigger, the stronger? And if the others are just as capable, then what?

I don't know, the scenario is that someone has built one and it looks like it's going to be triggered accidentally by a toddler and you are the only one around but you are to far away to stop them but have a rifle so could shoot the baby, do you do so. Your answer is no and fair enough but all the rest of your stuff is just your justification as effectively you are firing this doomsday device and killing millions of other innocent babies.

What an appropriate acronym and phrase, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)! And it serves all those that would play such a game right, the idiotic illogical beings that they both certainly are! Not creatures of true intellect are either species, at least in my sense of reason.

Personally I think you a bit hypocritical here as in the past you have proudly stated that you've played with nukes.

Again you build a strawman. Context is everything! Any weapon that I might have, is only the case due to the arena in which I find myself. ...

And yet you fail to extend this courtesy to those who build a doomsday device? Why would someone build such a thing? We have an example from the Soviets, thye reasoned that when faced with the prospect of a first strike by a superior nuclear power, America, that they should build a dead-man switch to ensure that their nukes went off, they also reasoned that they should have a massive cobalt bomb tied to it that would definitely wipe-out everyone if they were first-struck, this way, they reasoned, no-one would be stupid enough to fire at them first. Context you see.

As I have said time and time again. If someone gives me the shirt off their back, I'll give them the shirt off mine, if they punch me in the eye, I'll do the same to them, if they try and kill me, I'll do my damnedest to ensure that it is they that receives exactly that which they've tried to deliver, I'll kill them instead.

In other words exactly the policy of M.A.D. and the reasoning behind a doomsday device.

I have only ever been 'defensive' with violence. Obviously in my previous message above, I speak of how I wish it was, in my version of a perfect world where everyone is respectful of all life, the way it should be. In your comment one can surely see why here on this planet it shall probably never be the case.

And in yours we can see the death of everyone. You may have been defensive with personal violence but according to you you have been involved in processes to kill thousands of others and, who knows, maybe have?

Why build a doomsday device if you don't want to be doomed?

Because you are already dead. Because your opponent has given you the impression that they are going to fire first and you hope that this might cause them to think twice.

Still a victim of your failed, 'Us and Them' philosophy, contained within a singular species, I see.

In all this, you've ignored the irrationality of a species, that has taken such a gift as life, and turned it into so much selfish BS.

Better is a species that holds one another's hands as they harmonize in the singing of the song of life! Cooperation!

I say let the doomsday species blow themselves to hell and back, It'll teach them a lesson, they'll never forget, as they'll never remember.

[Arising_uk]

reply of yours is not as morally superior as you would hope we'd believe. ...

You mistake me for you as so far everything about your post has you shouting your moral superiority.

Let me break it down for you.

Feel free.

With this first bit you try and take the blame from where it belongs, on all those that allowed such a device to be created in the first place, this includes you, I and everyone that was 'aware' such a thing was being developed, and place it on my shoulders alone.

Dur! Because the scenario is that you are the one who has to take the moral decision. That you've taken the one that kills everyone is why you spend all your time rationalising away your choice by trying to lump all the innocents in with the 'guilty' ones who built the device.

Here you have rationalized, after the fact that you have realized, that you shall probably die, in order to save face. ...

No, as whilst it would be a bonus that I survive if the scenario was that the only one who would die would be me I'd like to think that I'd not shoot. Why? Because I've had my own toddlers and I'd like to think others would extend the same courtesy to my child.

Other Words (IOW), in that 'instant' that you saw the toddler pushing the button, all you could think about, 'in that instant,' was that you would probably die. ...

Like I say, because of my kids I'd like to think I'd not do this and because I've had kids I'm slightly less bothered about the thought of death, although they would be a factor in my decision.

thought of others, including innocent babies dying, is the cover story to make your decision to kill the toddler seem less offensive in the face of your peers, that you know shall surely judge your actions, after the fact.

Not really as, apart from the parents, I reckon the judgement would obviously be in my favour. Could I live with such an act, I don't know but I'm pretty sure that I would make it as the stakes are in the extreme.

two thoughts were born solely of self preservation and nothing more, the cover story was either after the fact, of those two instants (highly doubtful) or a rehearsed excuse, formulated well in advance of the actual event (probably the case). Especially since this is a thought experiment, you've had ample time to formulate the cover story for the sake of your peers, as indeed it surely was, after the fact of the dilemma being initially presented.

I think you slightly insane, as one, you are willing to exterminate the human race on your moral judgement and two, appear to think a cover-story would be needed.

Here you actually place the blame on the toddler. Because you attribute error on their part. They did not err, in there mind. In their ignorance, they were simply fascinated with the pretty shiny red button. It was from your selfish perspective that the toddler erred, that you attributed to their action. As a student of philosophy you are well aware that universally there is no necessary good, evil, or errors. It was from your fearful perspective alone. Though you are not alone in such a situation. The majority of humanity would be the same as you demonstrate, under those circumstances.

Fair point and a poor choice of words upon my part. I assign no blame upon the toddler but think I would still shoot as the stakes are so extreme. There might not be necessary good or evil but there are errors in the world and since this toddler appears to be about to exterminate the human race I'd say a catalogue of them have been in evidence.

They are not always simply thought experiments, they are often ill conceived rationalizations created to to try and compensate for what is believed is ones own folly. This one was created to try and rationalize the 'error' of creating/allowing for the creation of such an illogical device. To have ones cake and eat it too.

Is your mini-gun illogical? If you open up with it and kill some bystanders a mile away will you say there was no error? That you are guilty? The thought experiment was to test the idea of whether one should die to save a world. I say yes, you say no but you don't say no because its wrong to kill the innocent toddler as by your judgement the toddler is as guilty as all the rest whom you would morally condemn, you don't because you morally condemn everyone even those in no possible way could be attributed as complicit in building this device, i.e. all the other babies and toddlers out there.

Of course this 'can' also be the case, but it usually fails to do so, generally speaking, unless of course like I have done, one breaks it down with an understanding of human psychology.

Not an understanding of human psychology but your personal pet-psychology that you apply to pretty much every scenario.

If 'you' had no way out, yes a bit of honesty peeks through the smoke.

See the 'if'? If it was the case that it was only me then I'd like to think the baby lives for the reasons I gave earlier. And given what you've said I also now think I couldn't face my kids if I killed a child to save myself.

And some more, but with that 'buffering' word 'hopefully!'

Of course!! You think I should have no qualms?

Honesty, though 'might' is also a buffer! "Would," would be to harsh

Because I also have kids to live for.

This part is purely part of the cover story, the rationalization used to cover ones tracks of guilt for the sake of peers. as you shall live just fine, which is the only reason you pulled that rifles trigger in that 'instant.'

Again, I think you slightly psychotic as my peers would understand I think and you think a person could live just fine with such act. So no, this is not the reason why I would pull that trigger. This is just your pet-psychology coming to the fore once more.

To be very fair with both your words and mine, in truth, no one necessarily knows what they might actually do in some hypothetical future event. There is a very big difference between playing with something contained in ones imagination, and something that is 'really' happening in 'real' time. Both you and I have flavored our response in such a situation, with much forethought, which may or may not flavor an actual event like the one that's been presented. I just hope neither of us ever has the opportunity to find out.

Agreed and for the sake of the rest of us I hope never in your case.

[Arising_uk]

Still a victim of your failed, 'Us and Them' philosophy, contained within a singular species, I see.

Not really as I think I can see the others point of view. Whereas you appear not to be able to understand anothers logic?

In all this, you've ignored the irrationality of a species, that has taken such a gift as life, and turned it into so much selfish BS.

Personally given the circumstances I think we're making a remarkably good job of it.

Better is a species that holds one another's hands as they harmonize in the singing of the song of life! Cooperation!

Break out the coca-cola!! In case it's skipped your notice the history of the human race has by and large been one of co-operation, that only competition has been written about is because bad news sells better is my opinion.

I say let the doomsday species blow themselves to hell and back, It'll teach them a lesson, they'll never forget, as they'll never remember.

Not a lesson then.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry if I seem to get a little "in your face" at times, but I tend to get emotional about some things, but then you already know that!

reply of yours is not as morally superior as you would hope we'd believe. ...

You mistake me for you as so far everything about your post has you shouting your moral superiority.
If you can quote where I've said I have moral superiority, it's only once or twice in all these years, you can't count your characterization of my meaning, as if I necessarily believe such. What I say I honestly believe is right, whatever anyones characterization.

Let me break it down for you.

Feel free.
I do, which is why I do!

With this first bit you try and take the blame from where it belongs, on all those that allowed such a device to be created in the first place, this includes you, I and everyone that was 'aware' such a thing was being developed, and place it on my shoulders alone.

Dur! Because the scenario is that you are the one who has to take the moral decision.
Don't you get it, I would never take on such a responsibility, I would never be there to pull the trigger in the first place, once it was explained to me what I had to do. I would take my family and move as far away from ground zero as possible and try and calm my family members saying, "they have been such fools, they do not know what they've done. We shall go back to being the star dust that we've borrowed from, possibly traveling through eons of time to be reassembled into another life." As we watch you shit coming our way on the horizon.

That you've taken the one that kills everyone is why you spend all your time rationalising away your choice by trying to lump all the innocents in with the 'guilty' ones who built the device.
No idiot, that's not my choice to make, heap your shit upon yourself where it belongs! I shall not kill a baby for any idiotic race. Let them do it themselves. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." --Rush--

Here you have rationalized, after the fact that you have realized, that you shall probably die, in order to save face. ...

No, as whilst it would be a bonus that I survive if the scenario was that the only one who would die would be me I'd like to think that I'd not shoot. Why? Because I've had my own toddlers and I'd like to think others would extend the same courtesy to my child.
Afterthought, afterthought, afterthought!! In that INSTANT, you would only be caring for yourself, PERIOD! Actually you'd take the job for the very same reason, primarily for self. Your kind doesn't know what self sacrifice truly is.

Other Words (IOW), in that 'instant' that you saw the toddler pushing the button, all you could think about, 'in that instant,' was that you would probably die. ...

Like I say, because of my kids I'd like to think I'd not do this and because I've had kids I'm slightly less bothered about the thought of death, although they would be a factor in my decision.
So if one of them were the toddler in question, you'd shoot? Yeah I thought so!

thought of others, including innocent babies dying, is the cover story to make your decision to kill the toddler seem less offensive in the face of your peers, that you know shall surely judge your actions, after the fact.

Not really as, apart from the parents, I reckon the judgement would obviously be in my favour.
Yep, there you go, that's what I'm talking about, a member of group think you are, "ARISING UK!" Strength in numbers, a mob you are a member of, makes you feel fine, in whatever your choice, as long as they agree!

Could I live with such an act, I don't know but I'm pretty sure that I would make it as the stakes are in the extreme.
That's all that matters isn't it, that you and your kind survive, even the idiotic decisions of your kind. How warped that is! Shit you can do anything can't you, as long as her majesty says it OK! You, the pawn!

two thoughts were born solely of self preservation and nothing more, the cover story was either after the fact, of those two instants (highly doubtful) or a rehearsed excuse, formulated well in advance of the actual event (probably the case). Especially since this is a thought experiment, you've had ample time to formulate the cover story for the sake of your peers, as indeed it surely was, after the fact of the dilemma being initially presented.

I think you slightly insane, as one, you are willing to exterminate the human race on your moral judgement and two, appear to think a cover-story would be needed.
Arising, that you don't get it, is your problem, not mine. So you can throw rocks at one that won't 'kill a baby', for mankind's folly, while I'll laugh at one that thinks it's OK! As if there is any real kind of reason in such a case. It's the species that would be a party to such a scenario that is quite insane. And I mean all of it, from the start of the fear that fueled their selfishness, that they just wouldn't let go of, (me, me, me, me), as if it shall actually somehow allow them to cheat their death, to the doomsday device, and finally a dead baby.

Here you actually place the blame on the toddler. Because you attribute error on their part. They did not err, in there mind. In their ignorance, they were simply fascinated with the pretty shiny red button. It was from your selfish perspective that the toddler erred, that you attributed to their action. As a student of philosophy you are well aware that universally there is no necessary good, evil, or errors. It was from your fearful perspective alone. Though you are not alone in such a situation. The majority of humanity would be the same as you demonstrate, under those circumstances.

Fair point and a poor choice of words upon my part. I assign no blame upon the toddler but think I would still shoot as the stakes are so extreme. There might not be necessary good or evil but there are errors in the world and since this toddler appears to be about to exterminate the human race I'd say a catalogue of them have been in evidence.
Which is why when it comes to something so distasteful, it should be back to the drawing board, they're not worth saving, as surely they shall warp all those millions of babies minds to be just as insane as they are! A new generation of baby killers, oh, all for the right rationalized reasons of course! The group shall be proud!

They are not always simply thought experiments, they are often ill conceived rationalizations created to to try and compensate for what is believed is ones own folly. This one was created to try and rationalize the 'error' of creating/allowing for the creation of such an illogical device. To have ones cake and eat it too.

Is your mini-gun illogical?
Any weapon I have, could never be called a doomsday device. There you go again trying to take things out of context, as if you can and make any sense. A baby could never push any of my weapons triggers/buttons and annihilate the world. In fact their natural state is disarmed, and removed from that which makes them dangerous, such that there is no instant danger, except for maybe a pinched finger, that the baby might suffer, and luckily, learn it's lesson to not touch such a pain producing thing. You think me a moron like you. Remember I worked for the DOD for 16 years, and was actually a Nuclear Weapons Loading Team Member, do you really think I didn't take their safety procedures away with me? Obviously you know only books, but surprisingly it surely seems as though you only read cheap war novels, and other outlandish fictions. Working for the DOD was very SERIOUS business, not to be taken lightly, like it is apparently in your mind.

If you open up with it and kill some bystanders a mile away will you say there was no error?
Take: if, woulda, coulda, and shoulda, and place them in one hand, and shit in the other hand, to see which one fills up first! Here you speak of yourself and your lameness, brought about by your fear of that which you do not understand. And so your fear projects extreme unlikelihoods into my life, as if you can know it! But in fact, you don't have a clue!

That you are guilty? The thought experiment was to test the idea of whether one should die to save a world. I say yes, you say no but you don't say no because its wrong to kill the innocent toddler as by your judgement the toddler is as guilty as all the rest whom you would morally condemn, you don't because you morally condemn everyone even those in no possible way could be attributed as complicit in building this device, i.e. all the other babies and toddlers out there.
Wrong! I refuse to play the game of retards, insane beings that fear standing up for their folly, that would hold an innocent responsible for all their irrational decisions, as if in fact to insist they were rational. Fear is your and others mind killer, that would see it otherwise, like I've said, I can only see it from it's very beginning to it's very end. You've taken this, so called, thought experiment, and have only seen it from mid stream on. You have, in the past, denied it's beginning, for fear of course. Fear that it is what you in fact are, denial, fueling your delusions. This problem started long before a doomsday device was created! So you can't start there with your, so called, rational thought. You have to start at the beginning, while looking at 'all' that this species is, and has done, always behind the learning curve we have been, always asking, "what 'can' I do for gain," instead of, "what 'should' I do to maintain balance!" And it's not a pretty picture! Oh I'm hopeful that the species shall get a clue, but it doesn't look very promising. You the epitome of the problem as you've thrown in the towel on your progeny in previous conversations, saying that we're doomed anyway, might as well go for broke, was your resolve. What a failed person you seem to be, yet you scream that you've always tried to keep Nuclear tools from being utilized. A contradiction, you surely seem.

Of course this 'can' also be the case, but it usually fails to do so, generally speaking, unless of course like I have done, one breaks it down with an understanding of human psychology.

Not an understanding of human psychology but your personal pet-psychology that you apply to pretty much every scenario.
You're denial, as usual! God, you're fearful to actually see yourself. My psychological understanding, is in the mainstream, while your NLP 'stuff,' has been refuted as being a pseudoscience, which speaks volumes of the differences between us. It's you with the personal pet view of psychology. Been programmed lately? I'd rather understand the underlying programming, started from childhood, before I try an overlay. Actually I don't believe in overlays, such as NLP. I believe in rewriting the programs original code, through it's understanding, while you'd rather deny it.

If 'you' had no way out, yes a bit of honesty peeks through the smoke.

See the 'if'? If it was the case that it was only me then I'd like to think the baby lives for the reasons I gave earlier. And given what you've said I also now think I couldn't face my kids if I killed a child to save myself.
To kill a child for your fears, or those of others, long since dead, in the name of something that is contrary to all life from the very get, is quite insane! It would seem you don't know whether you're coming or going. The contradiction in your words up till this point echo your response to this, so called, thought experiment. First you don't care about them then you do. Make up your mind!

And some more, but with that 'buffering' word 'hopefully!'

Of course!! You think I should have no qualms?
Good, that you do! I feel a little closer to you in that statement, just a little.

Honesty, though 'might' is also a buffer! "Would," would be to harsh

Because I also have kids to live for.
Yes, and all should feel that way, then why is there such a device in the first place? If your words be true, and all others feel as you do, then there would be no such device. There are other ways, if only rational thought was employed. If an adult, that's 'supposed' to be rational, shouldn't have such a button, then surely a child should never have access, a far greater SNAFU than the first. Then your types would insist on a third, to save them from the first two???? At someone else's expense no less, one that you could hold accountable, whatever the viewpoint might be. And it would surely differ amongst the masses.

This part is purely part of the cover story, the rationalization used to cover ones tracks of guilt for the sake of peers. as you shall live just fine, which is the only reason you pulled that rifles trigger in that 'instant.'

Again, I think you slightly psychotic as my peers would understand I think and you think a person could live just fine with such act. So no, this is not the reason why I would pull that trigger. This is just your pet-psychology coming to the fore once more.
No it's the part you deny within yourself, so you can feel good about yourself. You need to read Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Denial of Death. Or watch Flight From Death: The Quest for Immortality Or both actually!

To be very fair with both your words and mine, in truth, no one necessarily knows what they might actually do in some hypothetical future event. There is a very big difference between playing with something contained in ones imagination, and something that is 'really' happening in 'real' time. Both you and I have flavored our response in such a situation, with much forethought, which may or may not flavor an actual event like the one that's been presented. I just hope neither of us ever has the opportunity to find out.

Agreed and for the sake of the rest of us I hope never in your case.
Finally something we can agree upon! Good! Which fortunately, largely, makes, thought experiments of this type unreliable at saying anything of any real significance!

[Green]

To answer the op, of course I would. The more I think about this question, the less sure I become though. What if I had to kill my mother, or father or even a best friend? Could I do this? No, but I could kill one of your mothers, fathers or even best friends.

[SpheresOfBalance]

To answer the op, of course I would. The more I think about this question, the less sure I become though. What if I had to kill my mother, or father or even a best friend? Could I do this? No, but I could kill one of your mothers, fathers or even best friends.

I see that the problem with this question, is that for some, it's more to do with their secret desire to kill another, in such a way that's somehow excusable. A license to kill, for all the right reasons of course, OF COURSE!

A long time ago I said: "There is no reason in killing." Of course I meant humans killing humans for the sake of humans, or so the cover story goes...


Happy Holidays, to all those that wish to celebrate, whatever it is they wish to celebrate, in it's purest sense of course!