The Swordfish Mentality

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Would YOU do it??

I've already said yes. Go back and read the comment you quoted.

 

[ZuZugal]

I've already said yes. Go back and read the comment you quoted.

Yes, it looks like you did.

 

[Cool-Beans]

You are correct. But when I get where I'm goin' after I'm dead then I only have to answer for myself.....The question: Have you ever killed another human being? The answer: no

Yes, you did. You killed a million kids with your inaction. No getting around that. They are dead because of you.

If it doesn't make sense, look at it this way: If a mother refuses to feed her child, she is as responsible for its death as if she'd shot it.

Inaction causing death has the same result. You are still culpable.

 

[ZuZugal]

Yes, you did. You killed a million kids with your inaction. No getting around that. They are dead because of you.

If it doesn't make sense, look at it this way: If a mother refuses to feed her child, she is as responsible for its death as if she'd shot it.

Inaction causing death has the same result. You are still culpable.

Yes, I see what you are saying. It is a certain point of view.

 

[teacups]

This thread is just going to get ugly... period.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I understand that there are people who just couldn't do it. And I thank God that there are people - specifically the military - who do it for us, so we don't have to. And they risk their lives to do it, too. Flippin heros, no less.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

This thread is just going to get ugly... period.

Not necessarily. I've seem lots of civil posts with lots of people here. It's a very hard issue to deal with....but Rich's post isn't the first time I've ever thought about this type of thing.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

It's just too far-fetched of reasoning for me. It's not realistic, but dealing in more of a fantasy mode. Each life is precious and I would differentiate between physically murdering a child versus the inaction resulting in the deaths of millions. It's like playing God. I just don't get it and it seems pointless to speculate about the impossible.

 

[dcentity2000]

Very few things are worth the life of a child, if anything.

A child's life is a precious thing, frail and trusting, without hate or malice.

If you handed me a gun and pushed an infant in front of me, wide eyed and innocent... why, I'd sooner die myself than pull that trigger.



Rich::

 

[LisaL]

See, it got asked before I even got my post up.

Then it gets extended to war.

I only asked because I don't have kids and I could never kill anyone, child or not, for any reason - even an alleged promise of peace. It's too easy to say kill this random stranger and everything will be super. There's no sacrifice in that.

It also is completely outside the realm of reality and war. No war ever consisted of the killing of one person and then a peachy peace. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Cool-Beans]

It's just too far-fetched of reasoning for me. It's not realistic, but dealing in more of a fantasy mode. Each life is precious and I would differentiate between physically murdering a child versus the inaction resulting in the deaths of millions. It's like playing God. I just don't get it and it seems pointless to speculate about the impossible.

When someone raises the idea that it is hypothetical, the person asking the questions points out that it isn't.

It is an anaolgy. It gets extended to war. Is it OK to kill a guy to save 100 (or kill 100 to save 1000; or 10,000 to save 100,000, etc.)?

And does your opinion change if you and your family and countrymen will be the ones dying?

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

Very few things are worth the life of a child, if anything.

A child's life is a precious thing, frail and trusting, without hate or malice.

If you handed me a gun and pushed an infant in front of me, wide eyed and innocent... why, I'd sooner die myself than pull that trigger.



Rich::

See, I may very well turn the gun on myself after doing it because I don't know if I could live with myself afterwards...but if sacrificing one saves millions....I still maintain I would do it.

 

[Amity 3]

I read an account from the first Gulf War about an Army recon team that was pretty deep in Iraq before the actual first strike began. their position was about to be compromised by some children playing near them. they all testified they would have pulled the trigger on the kids if they moved closer than an agreed distance.

they were all racked with anxiety because they each had a child or children, but the mission was more important than the lives of those kids playing near them.

 

[cardaway]

I am reminded of a MASH episode where a woman suffocated her child to save a bus full of people from being killed.

 

[Cool-Beans]

They explored this a bit in "Saving Private Ryan." The cowardly guy (I forget his name, the one who was more a writer/reader than a soldier) can't bring himself to shoot the German. But then he sees the guy he didn't kill killing off many on the other side, and finally shoots him.

Not like that's the only time the topic has come up in literature or movies, but it's recent.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I am reminded of a MASH episode where a woman suffocated her child to save a bus full of people from being killed.

The chicken one, where Hawkeye was talking to Sidney, right? That was a good show. MASH had a lot of good shows, but that one was especially good.

 

[Feralpeg]

It's kind of like the bus driver question. What would you do if you were driving a bus full of people on a road next to a cliff and a child ran into the road in front of you? Would you run over the child and save the bus load of people? I'd like to think I'm strong enough to do the right thing (such as it is) and save the greater number of people. Even so, I don't think I'd be able to live with it after the fact.

 

[Amity 3]

They explored this a bit in "Saving Private Ryan." The cowardly guy (I forget his name, the one who was more a writer/reader than a soldier) can't bring himself to shoot the German. But then he sees the guy he didn't kill killing off many on the other side, and finally shoots him.

that's different, he killed him after he had surrendered.

 

[Kimmie5870]

I've read through all of your replys and my thoughts swung back and forth with each post,but after thinking about it I think cool beans and WonderfulDreamer are right. On one hand I can kill my child....on the other I can cause a million other children to die.Both decisions are heart breaking but to let a million children die to protect 1 child is selfish. I couldn't live with myself no matter what I chose to do,so in the end I would probably kill my child and then myself. Two lives lost for world peace isn't asking much when you look at the overall picture


For those who mentioned god, I think god would 'look with kindness' on someone who was willing to sacrifice their most sacred posession for the good of humanity.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

It's kind of like the bus driver question. What would you do if you were driving a bus full of people on a road next to a cliff and a child ran into the road in front of you? Would you run over the child and save the bus load of people? I'd like to think I'm strong enough to do the right thing (such as it is) and save the greater number of people. Even so, I don't think I'd be able to live with it after the fact.

Yes, but this is a realistic situation that could actually occur. Under those circumstances, as horrific as they are, I would not consider what the bus driver did as murder.