Utilitarianism

[Panicmode]

i don't understand the phrase "the ends justify the means." the means are part of the ends.

This is basically saying, it doesn't matter what we do to get to the final result, as long as the end result is reached.

eg. It doesn't matter if we brutally torture and maim a prisoner who has vital information, as long as we obtain the information.

The end, obtaining the information, justifies whatever process it took to get it (torture).

[Russ]

by "i don't understand" i meant i don't agree with the message it's conveying.

If you torture and maim a prisoner -> ends are a tortured and maimed prisoner and information

Are you being deliberately obtuse/pedantic?

[paulsterio]

I think he's just being annoying!

[Water]

by "i don't understand" i meant i don't agree with the message it's conveying.

If you torture and maim a prisoner -> ends are a tortured and maimed prisoner and information

Are you being deliberately obtuse/pedantic?

yes, the circle way of getting to my point is: in this case (1 death) the "ends" is infinity - 1 death. It is not "ends justify the means (which is not always valid) as the means are part of the end

You either have really bad grammar or you just made us all dumber for reading that.

[Russ]

I have literally no idea what you're on about, so either make it clearer or actually respond to and discuss what I posted.

[Bhootnike]

I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this?  -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.

Like in my previous post i said:

Wouldn't you just kill the child (who is innocent of course), who is suffering from the disease and is on the brink of death anyways? -Assuming you have the choice of which child you kill!

----------------------------------------------------------

[jane1234]

I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this?  -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.

Welcome to AN Debating.

On topic:
Hypothetical situations always have so many "what ifs" attached which is why you can argue about them forever. Logic says to kill the single child to cure all diseases, but you have to ask yourselves what the world would be like without these diseases. Would there be such a population increase that drains the earths resources or even makes rarer diseases more common? Impossible to predict what will happen exactly if all these diseases were eliminated.

Personally I probably wouldn't for the reasons that funkyducky and Russ outlined (cbf explaining) but you can never tell unless you are actually in the situation...

[nubs]

If the child and the guardians are consensual then I'm struggling to find a reason not to do it

Even if the guardians are against it but the child is for it then I'd probably still be compelled to knock off the kid

But if the child says no, then his decision should be respected regardless of what the guardians want and I'm struggling to justify why I believe this

[funkyducky]

What I've learnt today: No one Only jane1234 pays attention to anything I post on these debate threads .

[jane1234]

What I've learnt today: No one pays attention to anything I post on these debate threads .

:O You lie! I mentioned you in my post!

[Panicmode]

If the child and the guardians are consensual then I'm struggling to find a reason not to do it

Even if the guardians are against it but the child is for it then I'd probably still be compelled to knock off the kid

But if the child says no, then his decision should be respected regardless of what the guardians want and I'm struggling to justify why I believe this

I'm sorry, but what child is willingly going to say; "Kill me", and have it be informed consent. There is no way the child could possibly understand the repercussions of such a decision.

[nubs]

Depends how old the child is, my brother is 8 and I just asked him this question, and he said he would willingly give his own life.

I guess it also depends on the person who is committing the act. If it were me, a child giving consent would be enough to justify the act imo

[JellyDonut]

I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ?

The thread has also been Godwinned twice so it's all fair game

[Mao]

I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this?  -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.

Like in my previous post i said:

Wouldn't you just kill the child (who is innocent of course), who is suffering from the disease and is on the brink of death anyways? -Assuming you have the choice of which child you kill!

----------------------------------------------------------

Even if not presented the choice of which child (even if it is my own), even without consent (including those of the parents), I would go so far as to murdering the child if it means the disease(s) will be cured. I believe the suffering of the child, their family, and the guilt I will bear are far insignificant compared to disease(s).

For reasons Panicmode has said, people will disagree with this stance, some to minimize the pain of the self. When I said 'personal reprecussions  are irrelevant', I mean the pain of the self (me) are insignificant compared to the good of the many. If it means I have to be the bad guy to make things better for everyone else, so be it.

[funkyducky]

Semantics... I'm sure we all get what they mean by saying that this is an ends justify the means question. Means: killing an innocent child. Ends: curing a horrid disease. Simple enough; is it justified to kill the child in order to save many?

Edit: "the ends" as a noun refers not to "the end result", but to the aim/goal/objective.