Existentialism discussion

A character in Dostoyevsky's"The Brothers Karamazov" said "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent...? Tell me, and tell the truth?"
(This question is also posed in the "Philosopher's Stone" folder of GR Magazine, a Goodreads group that I moderate. You are all welcome to join that group.)

Are you sure you have the right link?

Wow. I don't know where that link came from. I never heard of that group; must have been posted by someone who commented on the discussion topic in GR Magazine. Thanks for pointing it out. I have deleted it.

No

I wouldn´t be able to kill anyone (I´m even saving ants from drowning). Also, can you call it a peace if you need to kill someone, even if child and even if you think its going to save a world?

Construct a realistic scenario where that would be the case (and that you could phrase to be the case in those words, without explicitly using metaphor in its appraisal), then maybe I'll answer it :P

Circumstances are everything (asking questions outside of context is likely not a particularly useful expenditure of ones time), as is the phrasing of their interpretation.

If there is indeed a feasible situation in which that might arise in this reality, then it would be slightly different, like: killing a child to ensure the disease it spread didn't infect other people (in certain circumstances, if the child were under a year old and they were very likely to be maimed by the disease in some way, there would be countries that would probably find that perfectly acceptable).

The only conceivable possibility that I think might arise that it would occur is if you considered it in hindsight. Like, `would you kill Hitler as a child if you would have had the chance, if you had been this incredible, honest psychic and known what his existence would have resulted in'. Which, of course, would not actually happen. Granted, there may be individuals that at some point might suddenly believe that a young person bodes bad news to the point of killing them, but society would likely sentence them to a mental hospital as a result.

Do it or don't do it...you'll regret both

God answer Nick.

No. On the narrow path it is necessary to observe both peace and strife and allow others to make their own choices. It is permitted to defend oneself, but killing with intent is enough to knock you far enough off the path that you may not be able to find your way back.

*I also save bugs from drowning, or flip June Bugs back over on their feet again, etc. Sometimes I wonder what they think is going on when the big slow human interferes? Are we so big that they think we are mountains?

This pretty much sounds like 'the trolley problem' . If you take the child as the fat man you can throw from the bridge and therefore save 6 lifes is like, in your case , achieving world peace. However , is all a matter of choice of which you are totally responsible and which is inevitable . In my utilitarian point of view , the sacrifice should be made in order to achieve peace . After all , the consequences not the manner matter .

World peace is an absurd fairy tale ,human beings are not perfect in sense that they are capable only for construction of theoretical approaches for perfect society , but in practice, a man will never be capable to create utopian paradise, but he will always be able to kill the child for the sake of world peace .

Aimée wrote: "Construct a realistic scenario where that would be the case (and that you could phrase to be the case in those words, without explicitly using metaphor in its appraisal), then maybe I'll answer it ..."

This. The problem with thought-experiments in general is that our moral intuitions (i.e. our everyday principles) are made to fit the world in which we currently live and to bring about the best outcomes in that world. Presenting us with a wacky alternate reality is not a great way to test moral principles for this world.

How do I know that it will bring world peace? Do I think that God told me? Do I have a hunch? I have pretty strong moral intuitions forbidding me from killing in scenarios where I have hunches of this kind. If we were omniscient beings, or if we lived in a trolley-problem epidemic and were very familiar with the stakes and the consequences, we would no doubt have developed different moral principles.

As it stands, my principle not to kill people seems better-suited to my actual situation, so I would not kill the child.

Nick wrote: "Do it or don't do it...you'll regret both"


So true!

The point of Existentialism, is that we are responsible for our own happiness and well-being. No one should have to pay with their lives for another's place in the world.

M. wrote: "A character in Dostoyevsky's"The Brothers Karamazov" said "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last..."

I have read The Brother's Karamazov. a very fine novel. Now to the question. When addressing this question, we are considering levels of morality in mind. What if the child grows up to be the next Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Howard Hughes. If we kill the child, we have sacrificed a potential savoir of humanity. If we don't kill the child we might risk the potential rise of another Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. The question is dependent on the views of others who reply. There is no definitive answer to this question just like the Trolley problem.
For me, one single life does not matter. Even if that life might be the next Elon Musk, it is still worthwhile in killing the child if it means saving the human race.