Would you kill children to become smarter?

[Riiser-Larsen]

holy shit this is the greatest thread ever

Quick, get popcorn.

[Yugo-Austria]

I swear, this website is on drugs...

Medicinal?
Ha!
Medicinal...funny.
Drugs or high on life.
Hah.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

I swear, this website is on drugs...

Medicinal?
Ha!
Medicinal...funny.
Drugs or high on life.
Hah.

Yeah....medicinal

[Paixao]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

Although morally/ethically identical, killing strangers by pressing a button, without ever seeing or doing the act is completely different from strangling them to death. Strangling is awfully personal, and awfully brutal at that.

Would I strangle a child for knowledge? No. Would I impersonally cause/allow a child to die due to an action of mine to gain knowledge? Probably no... It comes down to how much knowledge and how much benefit I could give other people through said knowledge.

It's a subtle but palpable difference.

[God Kefka]

Yes, I would. If I were able to use that knowledge for the betterment of society and the human population as a whole, I would do so with little hesitation. I would be willing to carry the burden of also knowing that I am a monster who killed an innocent child. But, I would repent in a way that makes it so no other suffers, ever again. It would benefit humanity and the populations of all other animalistic, insectoid, and such life on the earth. If I were in that child's place, and someone could murder me to do the above, I would want them to murder me. I am but one life compared to the possible benefit of billions now, and billions to come.

Sure...

I expect with that kind of intelligence (''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer) I would be unstoppable.

I think the good I would accomplish for myself, my friends, my country, my family would far far far outweigh the life just ONE kid (see no. 4, it's just one kid).

Besides, what happens when we die? No one knows. Maybe I've just sent the kid to a better place, in all likelihood he simply ceased to exist (something that happens to all of us inevitably right?). It's not really that evil and unforgivable in the grand scheme of history...

I haven't really changed the pattern of history DIRECTLY in any way except by massively augmenting my own intelligence. The kid's life process was speeded up that's all...

And I wouldn't get caught... so what's the problem?

First of all, I'm disgusted.
Second of all, how do we know that you would actually USE your knowledge for the better of mankind? In the end, you could just use it to take control of everything. You could use your knowledge to kill millions more than you saved! Do you mean to tell me that it would be worth it to sacrifice a child on the gamble that you would use your knowledge for good?

Besides, I for one couldn't sleep at night if I knew that I had deprived a child of his or her life because I wanted knowledge. It would haunt me forever, and my conscience would eat at me until I, too, would die. That's not the life I would live, and I have a hard time picturing anyone else wanting it either.

You have to admit though that it is extremely logical.

Getting rid of one random child so that the world gets the benefit of producing an individual who is top tier intellectually in every possible human endeavor. The sum of the world's total knowledge has just gone up and this new individual can achieve so much for the greater good with his intellectual faculties...

As for your second point... well YOU wouldn't know but I would right? Since I'm the one making the decision I know what I made it for. I have no plans to kill millions unless it's necessary to save billions...

And no I will not sleep at night with a troubled conscience.

We don't know empirically that killing a child is evil. That's a normative assumption. For all we know it could automatically send that kid to heaven or be a morally neutral action (since we all have to die in the end, all I did was accelerate that process for the kid)...

Also, as soon as I save AT LEAST two lives with my new-found powers, the debt would have been repaid. So long as on balance more lives are saved...

[Shaggai]

Basic human morals-or at least your version of them-are, to be honest, stupid. What matters is not "oh, he killed a kid, he's evil". What matters is "he killed a kid, but he saved billions of other lives, so I think it was worth the cost". If killing a kid will prevent ten other kids from dying, then by not killing that kid you are killing ten. Killing ten kids is worse than killing one. Don't you agree?

But what if you kill one kid and then never act on your new knowledge? Would you kill two kids to save four kids? Would you kill 100 million kids to save 100,000,001 kids? After all, by killing a million, you saved one! Where would it no longer become ok? Where would you draw the line? Most importantly, how do we know that you (with infinite knowledge) actually WOULD draw the line eventually?

EDIT - Also, as someone else said earlier, how do you know that this kid won't SAVE hundreds of thousands of people later on in life? And what if all those people die because you thought you knew best?

The probability of that is low, especially if one selects the child with that in mind. In any case, since I'm presumably getting hyperintelligence, I can probably save all of those people. Or save different people, but more of them. Also, if by killing a million I can save a million and one: Well, assuming there's absolute certainty in that situation, then yes. More people were saved than died. (Well, there are other specifics to consider, but I'm ignoring those for now.)

[The Serbian Empire]

Would you kill small children to become the small children you've killed?

All my what is this?

[Timothia]

You kinda have directly changed history by removing someone who could grow up to be great. What if someone murdered George Washington or Horatio Nelson when they were children?

And another thing: saying "it's just one kid; it's alright!" is a pretty disgusting position. Where do you draw the line? Is killing two children acceptable as well? A dozen? A hundred? Ten million? Hell, your hands are already soaked with blood, why not go ahead and kill all their parents, siblings and extended family out to their sixth cousins and the woman who served the kid's dad when he went to a diner with his buddy from high school? She's old and doing nothing more useful than a meaningless job in a diner! There's no way she has any worth!

I don't know where the line is.

However, the life of one kid for producing one individual in this world who is in '''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer'' is a sound and worthwhile trade.

I don't care if I kill George Washington or Horatio... no one I kill is going to ''in every way and in every aspect...'' be ''mentally superior to ever peer.'' You're being a moral absolutist and not seeing the big picture here.

The benefit of keeping 1 child alive in society is less then the benefit of getting 1 new individual with mental capabilities that are at the top of human achievement in EVER plausible category of human endeavor.

You have to think about what is best for society as a whole and not just what is best for 1 single child...

If you honestly believe that, then I am going to have to leave the conversation in disgust. Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that "Person A < Person B" because "Person B is more mentally capable". That sets a thousand precedents that fly in the face of progress and civilization. That's a severe moral and social degradation, and is a million steps in the wrong direction. Please tell me that you are not serious.

[Yugo-Austria]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

Although morally/ethically identical, killing strangers by pressing a button, without ever seeing or doing the act is completely different from strangling them to death. Strangling is awfully personal, and awfully brutal at that.

Would I strangle a child for knowledge? No. Would I impersonally cause/allow a child to die due to an action of mine to gain knowledge? Probably no... It comes down to how much knowledge and how much benefit I could give other people through said knowledge.

It's a subtle but palpable difference.

Why strangle them?
Just bash their head in.
Sounds better.
Besides who needs conscience or sanity?
Those place restrictions on life.
Restrictions arent fun!!!

[Vamtrl]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

Although morally/ethically identical, killing strangers by pressing a button, without ever seeing or doing the act is completely different from strangling them to death. Strangling is awfully personal, and awfully brutal at that.

Would I strangle a child for knowledge? No. Would I impersonally cause/allow a child to die due to an action of mine to gain knowledge? Probably no... It comes down to how much knowledge and how much benefit I could give other people through said knowledge.

It's a subtle but palpable difference.

Strangling can be divided into three general types according to the mechanism used:

1) Hanging—Suspension from a cord wound around the neck
2) Ligature strangulation—Strangulation without suspension using some form of cord-like object called a garrote
3) Manual strangulation—Strangulation using the fingers or other extremity

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

Although morally/ethically identical, killing strangers by pressing a button, without ever seeing or doing the act is completely different from strangling them to death. Strangling is awfully personal, and awfully brutal at that.

Would I strangle a child for knowledge? No. Would I impersonally cause/allow a child to die due to an action of mine to gain knowledge? Probably no... It comes down to how much knowledge and how much benefit I could give other people through said knowledge.

It's a subtle but palpable difference.

Why strangle them?
Just bash their head in.
Sounds better.
Besides who needs conscience or sanity?
Those place restrictions on life.
Restrictions arent fun!!!

But the mess...

[Yugo-Austria]

I don't know where the line is.

However, the life of one kid for producing one individual in this world who is in '''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer'' is a sound and worthwhile trade.

I don't care if I kill George Washington or Horatio... no one I kill is going to ''in every way and in every aspect...'' be ''mentally superior to ever peer.'' You're being a moral absolutist and not seeing the big picture here.

The benefit of keeping 1 child alive in society is less then the benefit of getting 1 new individual with mental capabilities that are at the top of human achievement in EVER plausible category of human endeavor.

You have to think about what is best for society as a whole and not just what is best for 1 single child...

If you honestly believe that, then I am going to have to leave the conversation in disgust. Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that "Person A < Person B" because "Person B is more mentally capable". That sets a thousand precedents that fly in the face of progress and civilization. That's a severe moral and social degradation, and is a million steps in the wrong direction. Please tell me that you are not serious.

If george washington was killed for this reason I'm sure the person getting the smarts could do a better job and lose less men in the Revolutionary War of the United States of America.
Make a better government considering its gone to shit.

[Yugo-Austria]

Why strangle them?
Just bash their head in.
Sounds better.
Besides who needs conscience or sanity?
Those place restrictions on life.
Restrictions arent fun!!!

But the mess...

Bring portable mops.

[Crownariam]

What the hell people, what the hell.

These threads are solid proof that drugs are bad.

I've never used drugs.

[Yugo-Austria]

These threads are solid proof that drugs are bad.

I've never used drugs.

Does being high on life count as drugs?

[Riiser-Larsen]

These threads are solid proof that drugs are bad.

I've never used drugs.

I think it's more proof that these people should be on drugs.

[Yugo-Austria]

I've never used drugs.

I think it's more proof that these people should be on drugs.

Hahahaha!
Good idea maybe try.

[Crumlark]

Yes. Assuming I could strangle just any ol' kids and there were no magickal-like way for me to get caught beyond police investigations, and the ratio of kids killed to intellect increase is a reasonable tradeoff.

There are plenty of kids in the world, and plenty of them could be murdered and dumped some place in a way that leaves no genuine evidence behind. As stated by the fellow in the quoted post, I care more about my own intellect than random kids I don't know and never will know.

Oooh, you're so edgy that my jeans just became skinnier by merely reading this post. Now, wouldn't you kill for waffles? I bet you fucking love waffles.

Reading this, I'm tempted to make a thread on how old contempt for edginess is getting, along with it being more or less a workaround for discrediting someone's actual arguments.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

But the mess...

Bring portable mops.

Or Chipoltaway

[Crownariam]

Would you?

1. How much smarter?

2. Smarter in what way and with respect to which skills?

3. Would I get caught?

4. Which children?

1. Their current IQ is added to yours.
2. The area that they are smart in, and their skills. For example kill a sword prodigy, you are now a sword prodigy.
3. Depends on how smart you are.
4. You choose

[Timothia]

First of all, I'm disgusted.
Second of all, how do we know that you would actually USE your knowledge for the better of mankind? In the end, you could just use it to take control of everything. You could use your knowledge to kill millions more than you saved! Do you mean to tell me that it would be worth it to sacrifice a child on the gamble that you would use your knowledge for good?

Besides, I for one couldn't sleep at night if I knew that I had deprived a child of his or her life because I wanted knowledge. It would haunt me forever, and my conscience would eat at me until I, too, would die. That's not the life I would live, and I have a hard time picturing anyone else wanting it either.

You have to admit though that it is extremely logical.

Getting rid of one random child so that the world gets the benefit of producing an individual who is top tier intellectually in every possible human endeavor. The sum of the world's total knowledge has just gone up and this new individual can achieve so much for the greater good with his intellectual faculties...

As for your second point... well YOU wouldn't know but I would right? Since I'm the one making the decision I know what I made it for. I have no plans to kill millions unless it's necessary to save billions...

And no I will not sleep at night with a troubled conscience.

We don't know empirically that killing a child is evil. That's a normative assumption. For all we know it could automatically send that kid to heaven or be a morally neutral action (since we all have to die in the end, all I did was accelerate that process for the kid)...

Also, as soon as I save AT LEAST two lives with my new-found powers, the debt would have been repaid. So long as on balance more lives are saved...

But who's to say that you wouldn't use your knowledge to kill another person in search of more? After all, you've already made it clear that you would be willing to do that! Why wouldn't you do it again? And again. And again. And again. Until you are the wisest person in the world, but you are also the only one there as well. Would it be worth it then? What if you used the knowledge to save 50 people but used that same knowledge to kill 500 people. It would no longer be repaid, the debt would have increased! Do you really trust yourself so much that you would risk killing even more people than you save?

[Paixao]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

Although morally/ethically identical, killing strangers by pressing a button, without ever seeing or doing the act is completely different from strangling them to death. Strangling is awfully personal, and awfully brutal at that.

Would I strangle a child for knowledge? No. Would I impersonally cause/allow a child to die due to an action of mine to gain knowledge? Probably no... It comes down to how much knowledge and how much benefit I could give other people through said knowledge.

It's a subtle but palpable difference.

Strangling can be divided into three general types according to the mechanism used:

1) Hanging—Suspension from a cord wound around the neck
2) Ligature strangulation—Strangulation without suspension using some form of cord-like object called a garrote
3) Manual strangulation—Strangulation using the fingers or other extremity

All of which require watching the life draining out of a small, suffocating child while it makes awful choking sounds as it dies - or at the very least stringin' them up while they cry helplessly then having the cold heart to walk away as they choke in silence.

Going to weigh on my conscience any way you cut it...

[Yugo-Austria]

1. How much smarter?

2. Smarter in what way and with respect to which skills?

3. Would I get caught?

4. Which children?

1. Their current IQ is added to yours.
2. The area that they are smart in, and their skills. For example kill a sword prodigy, you are now a sword prodigy.
3. Depends on how smart you are.
4. You choose

Hmm....So many choices so many choices!

[God Kefka]

I don't know where the line is.

However, the life of one kid for producing one individual in this world who is in '''in every way and in every aspect... mentally superior to every peer'' is a sound and worthwhile trade.

I don't care if I kill George Washington or Horatio... no one I kill is going to ''in every way and in every aspect...'' be ''mentally superior to ever peer.'' You're being a moral absolutist and not seeing the big picture here.

The benefit of keeping 1 child alive in society is less then the benefit of getting 1 new individual with mental capabilities that are at the top of human achievement in EVER plausible category of human endeavor.

You have to think about what is best for society as a whole and not just what is best for 1 single child...

If you honestly believe that, then I am going to have to leave the conversation in disgust. Please tell me that you do not seriously believe that "Person A < Person B" because "Person B is more mentally capable". That sets a thousand precedents that fly in the face of progress and civilization. That's a severe moral and social degradation, and is a million steps in the wrong direction. Please tell me that you are not serious.

When you keep X and not get Y... or get Y and lose X, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

You have to look at it objectively and consider what each group can bring to the table of human progress.

One random child's life vs not having that child but getting 1 new individual who is the SMARTEST in EVERY field of human achievement?

I think it's hard to argue in this case that keeping X and not getting Y is really what's best for the interests of humanity as a whole. It's in the interest of the child... but not for the world as a whole (keep in mind also that the odds that the child being killed has intellectual capabilities that are higher than the newly-empowered individual in this hypothetical is virtually non-existent... I think no one contends that at the moment no single person can be the smartest in EVERY field of human achievement).

It's always a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

If you're looking at sacrificing maybe, a billion people for the benefit of one person getting top-tier mental capabilities in every field of human achievement, then maybe you are starting to cross a line.

Maybe the combined mental faculties of those billion people (unlike with the case of a single child) COULD surpass that of the newly-empowered individual. Maybe the world NEEDS the combined labor of those billion people and can't survive without it... and so on.

You see the sort of logical test that you should apply? You can't just stop at ''It's Always Wrong To Kill a Kid.'' Society would get nowhere with that kind of dogma...

[Herrebrugh]

Hmm... Let's see... Am I completely fucked up in the head? I guess not. So I guess I wouldn't, no.