Would you kill children to become smarter?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

You'd need to be pretty thick to think this is a good idea, so I can see the appeal.

[Timothia]

You clearly don't have an intention to save lives if you were willing to kill to get into a position to save them!

Knowledge is like power. And you know how the saying goes:"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Power, money, knowledge, they are all the same type thing: they don't really change the person you are, they just change the degree that you preform at within your personality. If you were willing to kill a child to get to this position, then you are willing to kill an innocent. That willingness would be magnified by your intelligence. If you were willing to kill a child as the average-intelligence Kefka, then you would be willing to kill a child as super-intelligence Kefka. The only difference is now you have an even bigger stage, even more methods, and even more possibilities to pull it off.

Your logic is flawed though...

The scenario only allows me to gain intelligence ONCE by killing just one child.

So whatever killing I do after... would have to be for the greater good or for my own personal gain (and as I've already said countless times, under the capitalist structure providing solutions to the world's problems is very profitable financially)

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

[The Orson Empire]

Stop asking these types of questions. Just stop, please.

[Gallowfield]

I need to become smarter, but not that badly!

[Arumdaum]

You'd need to be pretty thick to think this is a good idea, so I can see the appeal.

[Crownariam]

Hmm, perhaps we should think of this over retarded remarks and spam again

Hmm. Perhaps a *** 24 hour forumban *** would allow you time to rethink your approach.

Who reported Yugo-Austria? Whoever did it, thanks.

[Timothia]

Stop asking these types of questions. Just stop, please.

It's tough to keep up, I know. I'm having a hard enough time myself. But the questions aren't all that hard if people stopped trying to defend a virtually indefensible point.

[Utceforp]

Your logic is flawed though...

The scenario only allows me to gain intelligence ONCE by killing just one child.

So whatever killing I do after... would have to be for the greater good or for my own personal gain (and as I've already said countless times, under the capitalist structure providing solutions to the world's problems is very profitable financially)

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

That's the thing. If you gain ultimate knowledge, by definition you would no longer be flawed. You would know how to control your emotions and not make selfish or irrational decisions, and you would know whether or not any given action is morally right or wrong.

[Scinan]

Let's take a moment to talk about the valuation of human life.

We tend to value our individual lives pretty abstractly, because any attempt to make a concrete, objective estimate of any given human life quickly devolves into abstract assertions memeticly engineered to preserve human life because that is how we refrain from murdering each other as much as possible. As long as human life evaluates to NaN, no-one can meaningfully call into question the value of anyone's life or end it on the basis that it is worthless, or at least worth less.

But there are gradients aren't there? We tend to valuate new lives over old, in part because we know old lives can't be stopped from ending, but new lives represent the greatest potential flexibility for future development.

So in general, all things being equal, one will tend to reflexively value a newborn infant over a 90 year old grandfather despite the wealth of experience and knowledge the latter may have accrued.

This is not a comfortable thought, but there it is.

How does this relate to the question posed by the thread?

Well, let's think about what's really being asked here: Do you value enriching your own life over the life of a child? It doesn't matter what you claim you'll do with what you get from the deal, the question is whether you value yourself over someone else, and specifically over someone who has presumably lived significantly less life than you have already.

For my part, I think the question runs into the problem of being incomplete. There just isn't enough information about the scenario to form a realistic response, so people are left to fill in the blanks to create a scenario they can make a decision about.

All things being equal? Probably not. I'm fairly content in my intellect as it is, and I would prefer to enrich the mind of the child through education and thereby expand the net working intelligence of the species.

[Crownariam]

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

That's the thing. If you gain ultimate knowledge, by definition you would no longer be flawed. You would know how to control your emotions and not make selfish or irrational decisions, and you would know whether or not any given action is morally right or wrong.

Could still be flawed, could be unattractive.

[Vazdania]

...what? Humanity is not the source of value. A monkey may value bananas. That is true whether humans exist or not. Besides, if anything, it puts the individual at the helm: whether humanity is of value or not depends on whether said individual values others. I, too, am a lover of knowledge. If the OP read "Would you strangle strange children in order to become hyperintelligent," my only question would be the chances of my being caught. Why? Because I value knowledge and intelligence more than I value strangers.

Would you?

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

I don't think this is appropriate.

[Utceforp]

That's the thing. If you gain ultimate knowledge, by definition you would no longer be flawed. You would know how to control your emotions and not make selfish or irrational decisions, and you would know whether or not any given action is morally right or wrong.

Could still be flawed, could be unattractive.

Yes, but that wouldn't affect your decision-making, so you could still be trusted with the knowledge. Also, presumably ultimate knowledge includes knowledge on how to perform plastic surgery on yourself.

[God Kefka]

Your logic is flawed though...

The scenario only allows me to gain intelligence ONCE by killing just one child.

So whatever killing I do after... would have to be for the greater good or for my own personal gain (and as I've already said countless times, under the capitalist structure providing solutions to the world's problems is very profitable financially)

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

I'd rather have on my conscience the death of ONE child... then have it on my conscience that there was the possibility I could have solved cancer, solved poverty, come up with new social systems and other things that could have saved millions to billions of lives many times over and I did NOTHING...

It's a risk that morally one HAS to take. Unless one considers the life of a single child infinitely greater than the lives of potentially billions of people who could be saved...

your position is irrational.

You are assuming I will go wrong... when based on your own rules and the incentives in place, I have every reason to do the right thing after and there's every reason to expect that I will succeed.

Look at all the good that people of moderate and not superhuman intelligence have achieved... now imagine a mind capable of synthesizing the top tier knowledge from all the fields and endeavors of human achievement. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of good that is achieved...

I am still the same person before and after I kill the child just with different mental faculties. You're making a silly assumption that I will turn into a psycho or a lunatic just because I get this mental boost.

If you are going to assume this thing, then make it rule no. 5. Because I don't see how that's a natural consequences flowing from your rules...

In fact, the likely consequence is that 1 child will be killed... but something greater and better will be achieved. That's what a reasonable person would conclude...

I think you're just scared that someone could attain the pinnacle of human knowledge and intelligence in all fields of human endeavor and achieve things SO GREAT and beneficial to all of mankind that it would make your own existence meaningless by comparison.

[Timothia]

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

That's the thing. If you gain ultimate knowledge, by definition you would no longer be flawed. You would know how to control your emotions and not make selfish or irrational decisions, and you would know whether or not any given action is morally right or wrong.

But that doesn't mean that they will act on their knowledge. They can know what is right and know what is wrong, but still choose to do what is wrong. For example, if the all-knowing person discovers that the only way he can end genetic disease is to kill every person with genetic diseases, how would he act? His morals would clash with his knowledge. If he was willing to kill to get here, I have no doubt that he would be willing to kill to "better humanity".

[TwistingNether]

if the kids belong to the Game Moderators like Dread Lady Nathicana

[Utceforp]

That's the thing. If you gain ultimate knowledge, by definition you would no longer be flawed. You would know how to control your emotions and not make selfish or irrational decisions, and you would know whether or not any given action is morally right or wrong.

But that doesn't mean that they will act on their knowledge. They can know what is right and know what is wrong, but still choose to do what is wrong. For example, if the all-knowing person discovers that the only way he can end genetic disease is to kill every person with genetic diseases, how would he act? His morals would clash with his knowledge. If he was willing to kill to get here, I have no doubt that he would be willing to kill to "better humanity".

Morality is a subset of knowledge. Having ultimate knowledge means that you would know what the right decision was. If it was the right decision to kill all the people with genetic diseases, the person with ultimate knowledge would know that and take that choice, and if the right choice was to leave them alive, the person with ultimate knowledge would know that and take that choice.

[Bacony]

Crownariam never said that they had to be human children, do they have to be human children Crownariam?

[Sucrati]

No! Becoming smarter at the cost of innocent lives is madness! I would rather be a drooling moron than hurt or kill an innocent child, regardless of whatever age they are.

[Utceforp]

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

If these are the rules, not "one child=ultimate knowledge" then I would not do it. There's no net gain of intelligence, there is a loss of another way to gain intelligence (the child's eyes, ears, other sensory organs and ability to think), and the inherent immorality of killing add up to make this a bad decision.

If, however, the child was going to die anyway, I would do it, if only to preserve their knowledge after they die.

[God Kefka]

No! Becoming smarter at the cost of innocent lives is madness! I would rather be a drooling moron than hurt or kill an innocent child, regardless of whatever age they are.

Even if it means saving perhaps infinite innocent lives after by solving cancer with a superhuman boost in intelligence?

See at a certain threshold you have to consider the serious good this could do to society.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

penis

I've got a fresh one if anyone wants to share.

[Timothia]

Let's put it this way: I don't trust you, me, or any other flawed person out there with ultimate knowledge. I just don't, and I doubt that any rational person would. There are so many ways that it can be misused, especially if one is not held to a moral standard. Then lump on top of that the inevitable death of a child? No. No, that would not be for the better. That's barbaric.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, you had better make sure that your end is worth it and actually gets achieved. The ends don't justify the means, especially if the end is never assured. The ends are not assured here, and I don't want to take the unavoidable risk that an all-intelligent human would go rogue.

I'd rather have on my conscience the death of ONE child... then have it on my conscience that there was the possibility I could have solved cancer, solved poverty, come up with new social systems and other things that could have saved millions to billions of lives many times over and I did NOTHING...

It's a risk that morally one HAS to take. Unless one considers the life of a single child infinitely greater than the lives of potentially billions of people who could be saved...

your position is irrational.

You are assuming I will go wrong... when based on your own rules and the incentives in place, I have every reason to do the right thing after and there's every reason to expect that I will succeed.

Look at all the good that people of moderate and not superhuman intelligence have achieved... now imagine a mind capable of synthesizing the top tier knowledge from all the fields and endeavors of human achievement. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of good that is achieved...

I am still the same person before and after I kill the child just with different mental faculties. You're making a silly assumption that I will turn into a psycho or a lunatic just because I get this mental boost.

If you are going to assume this thing, then make it rule no. 5. Because I don't see how that's a natural consequences flowing from your rules...

In fact, the likely consequence is that 1 child will be killed... but something greater and better will be achieved. That's what a reasonable person would conclude...

I think you're just scared that someone could attain the pinnacle of human knowledge and intelligence in all fields of human endeavor and achieve things SO GREAT and beneficial to all of mankind that it would make your own existence meaningless by comparison.

There is also no limit to the amount of evil you could do.

Why do people do evil things right now? Those same motives carry over into the new you when you become a genius. The capacity for evil increases astronomically.

What if you found a way, in your infinite knowledge, to make yourself live forever at the cost of the majority of mankind? What would you do then? There are so many hypos and tough questions that would end with you making one mistake. Total knowledge doesn't make you infallible. Messing up when you have total knowledge could cost mankind billions of lives. You have no promise that you truly can pay off your debt to humanity that you obtained when you murdered that child, and you have plenty of chances to make it all worse.

[Bacony]

This thread kinda reminds me of DN.

[Utceforp]

I'd rather have on my conscience the death of ONE child... then have it on my conscience that there was the possibility I could have solved cancer, solved poverty, come up with new social systems and other things that could have saved millions to billions of lives many times over and I did NOTHING...

It's a risk that morally one HAS to take. Unless one considers the life of a single child infinitely greater than the lives of potentially billions of people who could be saved...

your position is irrational.

You are assuming I will go wrong... when based on your own rules and the incentives in place, I have every reason to do the right thing after and there's every reason to expect that I will succeed.

Look at all the good that people of moderate and not superhuman intelligence have achieved... now imagine a mind capable of synthesizing the top tier knowledge from all the fields and endeavors of human achievement. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of good that is achieved...

I am still the same person before and after I kill the child just with different mental faculties. You're making a silly assumption that I will turn into a psycho or a lunatic just because I get this mental boost.

If you are going to assume this thing, then make it rule no. 5. Because I don't see how that's a natural consequences flowing from your rules...

In fact, the likely consequence is that 1 child will be killed... but something greater and better will be achieved. That's what a reasonable person would conclude...

I think you're just scared that someone could attain the pinnacle of human knowledge and intelligence in all fields of human endeavor and achieve things SO GREAT and beneficial to all of mankind that it would make your own existence meaningless by comparison.

There is also no limit to the amount of evil you could do.

Why do people do evil things right now? Those same motives carry over into the new you when you become a genius. The capacity for evil increases astronomically.

What if you found a way, in your infinite knowledge, to make yourself live forever at the cost of the majority of mankind? What would you do then? There are so many hypos and tough questions that would end with you making one mistake. Total knowledge doesn't make you infallible. Messing up when you have total knowledge could cost mankind billions of lives. You have no promise that you truly can pay off your debt to humanity that you obtained when you murdered that child, and you have plenty of chances to make it all worse.

No, they wouldn't, because YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG AND EVIL. (If in fact it was evil) How isn't this getting through to you?

[Timothia]

There is also no limit to the amount of evil you could do.

Why do people do evil things right now? Those same motives carry over into the new you when you become a genius. The capacity for evil increases astronomically.

What if you found a way, in your infinite knowledge, to make yourself live forever at the cost of the majority of mankind? What would you do then? There are so many hypos and tough questions that would end with you making one mistake. Total knowledge doesn't make you infallible. Messing up when you have total knowledge could cost mankind billions of lives. You have no promise that you truly can pay off your debt to humanity that you obtained when you murdered that child, and you have plenty of chances to make it all worse.

No, they wouldn't, because YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG AND EVIL. (If in fact it was evil) How isn't this getting through to you?

Have you ever known that something is wrong and did it anyway? Yeah, me too.