Would you kill children to become smarter?

[Yugo-Austria]

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...

Haha!
Bad memory.
No remember.
Just smart!

[Constaniana]

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!!!

You should see a psychologist. Actually, scratch that. Go directly to an insane asylum, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[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!!!

You should see a psychologist. Actually, scratch that. Go directly to an insane asylum, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Oh oh I see not fun!
I want do more.
More more!

[Vamtrl]

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

This just changed the entire scenario for me.

Edit: I think the Yugo guy is a nut or a troll. No difference really.

[Yugo-Austria]

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

This just changed the entire scenario for me.

I kill anyways.
Me want smarter!

[God Kefka]

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?

I trust myself...why not?

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

We let thousands of person A's starve in the streets every day. Barely anyone actually cares about them. I've personally watched people walk right over homeless people. They didn't bat an eye.

[Yugo-Austria]

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?

I trust myself...why not?

Because kill more fun!
Fun fun!
Kill kill fun fun fun!

[Vase]

New bumper sticker!

"My kid beat up your honor student. Then I ate his brain."

Can we get bonus points for eating the child?

On a more serious note; we liquidate children all the time just because their conception is inconvenient. Just how far are we from seriously considering somewhat silly rationalizations for the further exploitation, disenfranchisement, and disposal of children?

[Yugo-Austria]

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.

We let thousands of person A's starve in the streets every day. Barely anyone actually cares about them. I've personally watched people walk right over homeless people. They didn't bat an eye.

Good point sirruh
You have done good point
Make me think more

[Ancient Naples]

What the fuck?

[Transoxthraxia]

What the fuck?

Welcome to NSG.

[Yugo-Austria]

What the fuck?

What you fuck?
Me kill kill kill.
Fun!
You try?

[God Kefka]

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.

We let thousands of person A's starve in the streets every day. Barely anyone actually cares about them. I've personally watched people walk right over homeless people. They didn't bat an eye.

You have to look at the system as a whole and ask the critical question... WHICH scenario (one in which the child is killed vs one in which he/she is not) are MORE lives LIKELY to be saved?

And then make the call. You shouldn't be myopic and only look at one child and his rights. After all, no matter what we do, every single day children are dying all over the world.

Sacrifices are nothing new...

[Reunited Illinois]

Fuck yeah, knowledge is power

[Ancient Naples]

What the fuck?

Welcome to NSG.

Actually I'm Saint Kitten. I was on my puppet and this popped up.

[Yugo-Austria]

Fuck yeah, knowledge is power

Yes yes yes yes yes yes!
This man smart
smart smart smart!
Yes I agree much more then they!
Good I like this man opinions.

[Timothia]

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...

If killing one child saved the directly and certainly saved the lives of two or more other human beings, then I would say you would be excused. I personally couldn't go through with it, but I think that most of us would agree that this would be fair. The point is not that you kill to save, you are killing to gain. You are killing to gain with near zero proof that it would pay off and save lives. In fact, you would be at the pinnacle of human knowledge of weapons technology, genocidal tactics, methods of execution... I would guess that you (who we discovered is morally-deprived cuz you killed a child to get to where you are) would be willing to kill even more people. The haunting guilt of your act would burn at your soul until it drove you crazy and you defied all laws of decency. That is a more likely scenario than you happily saving the planet from all it's problems.

[Transoxthraxia]

Welcome to NSG.

Actually I'm Saint Kitten. I was on my puppet and this popped up.

Well, welcome back to NSG then. You've missed a lot.

[Yugo-Austria]

We let thousands of person A's starve in the streets every day. Barely anyone actually cares about them. I've personally watched people walk right over homeless people. They didn't bat an eye.

You have to look at the system as a whole and ask the critical question... WHICH scenario (one in which the child is killed vs one in which he/she is not) are MORE lives LIKELY to be saved?

And then make the call. You shouldn't be myopic and only look at one child and his rights. After all, no matter what we do, every single day children are dying all over the world.

Sacrifices are nothing new...

Put out misery!
They scar for life if live from homeless.
You see yes?

[The Victorian Empire]

FUCK, NO.

Who would honestly kill a innocent child deliberately just to become smarter? That's just sick and barbaric.

[Yugo-Austria]

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...

If killing one child saved the directly and certainly saved the lives of two or more other human beings, then I would say you would be excused. I personally couldn't go through with it, but I think that most of us would agree that this would be fair. The point is not that you kill to save, you are killing to gain. You are killing to gain with near zero proof that it would pay off and save lives. In fact, you would be at the pinnacle of human knowledge of weapons technology, genocidal tactics, methods of execution... I would guess that you (who we discovered is morally-deprived cuz you killed a child to get to where you are) would be willing to kill even more people. The haunting guilt of your act would burn at your soul until it drove you crazy and you defied all laws of decency. That is a more likely scenario than you happily saving the planet from all it's problems.

To much right!
But I see law decency
Decency is no exist!
Look outside to see the sad homeless people
The mentally challenge be picked on by peers
Police beating down
Sexism
Racism
Low-life gangs

[New Frenco Empire]

Fuck, maybe. Depends on the intelligence received. Of course, if this is the intelligence I'm hoping, in which I get all the answers to any question humanity would ever ask...

Hell, a cure to all disease, an end to poverty, and humanity's transcendence is worth a few kids lives, maybe?

[The Middle Eastern Confederacy]

What the hell people, what the hell.

OMG, your post was edited by a vampire O_o... so long agoooooooooo.

OMG, THEY'RE REAL, LIKE, FOR REALSIES!

IN THE 1600s, OMG!

-----

Ves, vhy I do agree, United, now, show me that... maaaaaaark on your neck.

[Imperia Mlytoria]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath...

Yo, 'sup?