Moral Dilema: What Would You Do?

[Zephyr]

So we did this in AP History a few months ago, the results were interesting = )

You're in the middle of an all out war. You and a group of people are hiding in a secret location so that you can avoid persecution by the invading enemy. Unfortunately, the enemy has raided the house and are looking for people. Suddenly, a baby in the secret hiding place starts to cry uncontrolably. You have tried EVERYTHING possible to quiet the baby down, but no avail. It just won't stop crying, not even for milk. If the baby keeps on crying, the enemy soldiers will more than likely find you. Everybody else in the room cannot bring themselves to smother the baby to death. You have two choices, and only two:

1) You let the baby cry and everybody gets killed.

2) You smother the baby to death yourself for a chance at survival for everybody else.

Could you smother the baby to death even if it was your own child?

Think realistically.
Think wisely.

I'll post my response from class as soon as I get some feedback here.

[The Batman]

I couldn't do it at all I just would not be able to do it I can't even imagine it.

[Oblivion]

I wouldn't be able to do it aahhhh it would kill me inside to do it

[Underground_Network]

I would be able to do it if it was necessary. If we were all to die including the baby if they were to find us, what would be the point? I would smother the baby if it meant saving us all from the enemy soldiers. It would kill me deep down inside, but I would do it.

[Zephyr]

Either way I would smother the baby, BUT I would be scared for life.

My reasoning: By smothering it to death, you give everybody else in the room a chance to live. Either way the baby is going to die, so you might as well give everybody else a chance to live.

[thesphinx]

whether or not it would be better to smother the baby I couldn't do it.

[Patchy]

I could smother a baby to death however not if it was my own child.

[Camazotz]

I could not smother the baby if it were mine, but I could if it wasnt. Its going to help save more than just one life, which is good enough for me.

[RaisingSand]

Not meaning to sound like an awful person, but I probably would smother the baby, even though it would totally kill me to do it.
But, if you are in that sort of situation, and the baby continues crying, if you're found, you'll most likely be killed anyway, so by smothering the baby, you are essentially giving everyone else a chance.

[Oblivion]

Oh also... I would make sure it didn't die- Smother it for 45 sec-1 min, let it breathe...

OR i would smother them until they pass out, because then they could not cry, or struggle

[Underground_Network]

^^ It doesn't work like that with babies... I'm sorry to tell you.. The chances of the baby not dying and not crying are as close to zero as you can possibly get...

[Oblivion]

When i was 1 years old i cried so much i couldn't breath and passed out. if you can't breath you pass out, and stop crying. So ha! ;)

I still believe in my statement

[Zephyr]

I'm pleasently surprised.
In our class, here was the stats:

5 would smother the baby if it wasn't theirs
3 (including me) would smother the baby either way
10 Wouldn't smother it under any cirsumstance

[Mzor203]

I just wouldn't be able to... I know it would be best, but I couldn't.

[Andrew56]

Sacrifice the few for the many. Emotions could not be accepted in that time. It would probably ruin my life and I'd never feel right again, but I wouldn't hesitate. It's really the logical thing to do.

[japanman]

UHH i voted yes and no because i could if it was neccesary but then again i could let evryone die and possibly escape while everyone is bieng attacked.

[kolte]

I'd like to think I wouldn't be in that situation, and if I was, then I don't think smothering the baby would be in anyones mind. We would all die, because I don't think anyone would consider smothering the sobbing baby.

[dodgeman09]

not no but hell no!

[japanman]

AHAA!! i figured it out! i would let us all die but i would protect the baby no matter what till it i die.

[Serenity]

You figured it out? It's not like it's a riddle..

[Techno Monster]

I don`t know if I would do this, but I`m just saying, soldiers are in a state of mind, that killing is with little emotion. I think a solider would kill the baby, I woulden`t but I haven`t gone through Military training now have I???

[theOperaGhost]

in the heat of the moment I don't think emotions would stop me.
I don't know about my own child yet. When I actually have a child it might be different.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Morally, yes, I guess I would have to. Even if it violates as close as I come to a "categorical imperative"...

Practically, I doubt I'd be strong enough to take an innocent life of a stranger, let alone that of my own child.

[byee]

Could you do me a really big favor here? Now that this exercise is over, could you raise your hand and ask the teacher to explain the point of this particular execise? What was he (she) trying to teach? I'd be really curious about his answer.

[Whisper]

Fuck No

I find it interesting how the only option is kill the baby or have everyone die
its a few infantry soldiers quickly clearing a house

First of all
I wouldn't allow everyone to hide in the same area
Second of all I'd put all the guys in ambush positions
If the baby started to cry or if anything didn't look right we'd attack
I'd kill them

We know the layout, the best places to hide, to divide the soldiers, to attack, etc...
You gotta remember YES they have guns but this is a house VERY tight quarters divided and split up all over the place
If you played you're cards right
Its easy to level the playing field

[Sugaree]

AHAA!! i figured it out! i would let us all die but i would protect the baby no matter what till it i die.

The baby would still die. It's not a riddle Jake.

I'm not sure. I mean you could try and cover the baby up and hide but I doubt that would work.

If so then I wouldn't do it, even if it wasn't my child.

[Zephyr]

Could you do me a really big favor here? Now that this exercise is over, could you raise your hand and ask the teacher to explain the point of this particular execise? What was he (she) trying to teach? I'd be really curious about his answer.

It was a thing that he found in an article about the minds of serial killers, he thought it would be interesting since we were covering World War 2.

There were a few moral dilemas that we had to answer, but this one stood out the most.

After all of the questions were answered, we had five 'serial killers' in the class: The only two guys in the class, me and two other girls.

No surprise though, most of the girls in the class are the chruch going, moral types who think with their hearts rather than logically.

Of course the article didn't meanmuch by the results, it just showed that me and the other 4 'serial killers' answered the questions the same as most serial killers did when questioned.

[byee]

Thanks for getting back to me on this, Steph. Did you find that particular exercise helpful or insightful in any way?

Asking kids (in the US) why they back a particular presidential candidate is thought provoking. Trying to understand one candidate's appeal over another is interesting. Exploring why we feel the way we do, why we choose what we do, or think or value what we do is provocative in a good way. Using a real world example of some issue, current or past, that we might have personally experienced can help us identify who we are and clarify our selves. That's all good, and that's education at it's best.

What your teacher did here was frankly irresponsible. Presenting a ghastly situation (which mercifully no one in the room had any prior experience with), and using the results to somehow draw a comparison with known criminals (mass murderers) is really pretty hideous and frankly unethical. And, of course, totally untrue. There is absolutely nothing to learn from that exercise (other than the fact that your teacher is an idiot), and certainly to identify yourself as a mass murderer as a result is surely not the message to take from all this.

Sorry to sound harsh, but whenever I hear (or experience) really bad education masquerading as 'creativity' I shudder, and I shivered pretty badly when I was directed to your post here. Your teacher really crossed a line here, and the result is that there seem to actually be some students who now see themselves 'like' mass murderers, simply because of the way they answered a ghastly, horrible hyopthetical situation that none of you could ever hope to (thankfully!) fully comprehend. The results are therefore invalid. Except for the opinion of the teacher and his particular brand of 'teaching'.