Kill an innocent to save the world?

[Diana]

A hypothetical question, that I implore you to think serious about!

You have seen the future. A baby has just been born and in the future, that child will grow up to be a mass murdering world destroying evil psychopath. No matter how you've tried to change it, FATE always ends up the same! That kid grows up to be evil. If it lives, the world WILL end.

The only way to save the world is to kill the baby before it happens.

Can you do it? Why? Why not? Would you have to get someone else to do the dirty deed, or take up the responsibility yourself? Or is the world doomed to extinction?

 

[Jumi]

I would be able to do it, because I've been in a situation where I could have stopped something that I knew would happen, and in this case you know.

Now if "I" could do it? I think I would be able to do it. I know it sounds evil, but it takes the evilist of people to to the greatest good at times. I'm not condoning it, and I can guarantee that if I were ever in that situation, I'd probably dissapear from the face of the planet forever, and force myself into a life of solitude for the evil I'd done. Might even "off" myself... regardless of the lives I saved.

Either way, a good thing from a bad way is still bad. : (

 

[MiraMirror]

Da:nana:, this is exactly the same as Giygas from the game Mother.
Let me remind you that it emotionally touched me in all its sadness...
No, I'm sorry, but I would not. I couldn't bring myself to do it.

 

[Hydronine]

I would.... but I would be swift about it and give it the respect it deserves. I would probably never ever forget about it, and work to pay it respects for the sacrifice of life.

 

[Vay]

I would be able to do it, that I'm sure of. The hardest part would be convincing me its necessary.

 

[Necella]

Psh. It's just a baby. I'll just slam it against the wall =D


Ahem, in srsness though, yes I would do the deed. If I had a vision that this baby is going to be a mass murdering SOB, then I will kill it. But ya know, I'm lazy and my guilt tends to take over me, so I'll probably hire an assassin or someone who has no guilt to kill the baby for me. I mean, yeah it's a bad thing to do, but in the end, you're saving millions of lives.

 

[Orochi]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Inane Nihilist]

If that is what will happen and given the order to remove the child from our world, then yes. I would be able to do so in the understanding it is for the greater good of mankind. I would hold back(if any) feelings as the removal occurs.

"What must be done, must be done..."

 

[October Knight]

I guess it would depend on who it was. If it was a loved one, I may have to pass. If it was someone I didn't know I could probably do it, I mean to save the whole world....

 

[Hydronine]

Why am I reminded of a scene in Elvenlied (SP SP SP I KNOW)

 

[Warmaster Death]

If i had to play Inquisitor, so be it.

i hope to fuck i'd be able to.

i ahve a choice, one life on my hands, or all lives.

 

[Ochalla]

I'm killing you for putting me in this situation Diana!

 

[Clover]

This reminds me of Hell Boy, in a certain way. Like he keeps getting told that he will end the world, but who's to say that vision is right or wrong.

I couldn't imagine killing some innocent baby all because I keep having a vision that it' going to destroy the world one day... That's too much responsibility to be put on my shoulders. I don't think I'm quite capable of such actions.

So basically what I am saying is that I would probably not be able to do it for a few reasons. One reason being that how am I to know my vision is going to come true. Another reason being, who's to say that the child can't change? (More shocking things have happened.) And lastly, I am incapable of killing a spider, let alone a baby.

 

[Xnijmai]

Well, if it is truly fated that this will be the child that destroys the world, killing him here and now will only delay what is fated to come.

If this kid can destroy the world, what good will it do if I kill him? The potential for the world's end is still going to be there, regardless if this kid is there to take up the mantle of world ender or not.

Strike him down now, someone else takes his place. And if he truly going to be the monster that end the world, I say preempt him.

At least if I knew that he would become the monster some day, I have an estimation of how much time I had before he unleashes his plans.

Ravage the world before he can reach that time point, you must incite catastrophe, bring the world itself to it's knees by your hands. Just as long as humanity is not wiped out completely and is given at least a fighting chance to survive.

So I would do the complete opposite if I had the power to do so; destroy the world so that humanity would regain it's innocence. Destruction that would start the cycle of Rebirth.

It may sound crazy, but starting back up from scratch is much better than complete annihilation.

 

[Blind Hemingway]

I call this the idea the "Hitler Paradox." If you ever seen the episode of the Twilight Zone, a maid from the future goes back in time and drowns baby Hitler. However, another house maid steals a poor smuck's child and replaces the baby that was drowned. It's not the Hitler we know from our world, but it still comes to pass. As Jinx already mentioned, if you believe in such a concept as fate then no matter what you do then someone else could have easily taken over that role. So let's use Hitler as our guinea pig. If he was removed, then the west would have focused on Stalin as the face of all evil with the 22 million people he murdered in the Gulags.

 

[Seiji]

What Daiki said.

If Fate is the true power over the future, then guess what? If not this baby, then another baby will grow up to become the World Ender. Fate will work it out in the end, because... that's what it does. There's no avoiding it.

So will I kill the baby?

No, I wouldn't. It's the same paradox that Clover pointed out: who's to say that vision is wrong, or that they couldn't be stopped once they started? Or is this that whole Fate scenario again? Look, the world's ending either way, so long as that Fate variable is the constant. I'll go ahead and avoid blackening my soul by killing a baby.

Even with taking out the Fate-concept, I think it's wrong to not try to teach this child the concept of good and evil. Let him grow up, and take the time to actually see whether or not you got Hitler Jr. on your hands. At that point, well... Do what needs to be done. But not before, when no crime has been commited.

 

[Acquariana]

I would kill the baby, but I wouldn't do the dirty work myself. I would probably hire some assassin since I can't even kill a spider or cockroach on my own. As Orochi said, "The needs of many outweigh the needs of few." I wouldn't really respect it all too much though; who would want to worship/idolize our possible demise, anyway?

 

[Diana]

The question isn't about whether or not Fate and the vision is true or not. D:

The question is about whether or not you could do the deed! >> Forcing people to make a difficult choice and think about why they would or wouldn't! D:

 

[Seiji]

I wouldn't kill the child, not because I couldn't, but because I think it's morally wrong to, vision or not.

 

[Krang]

The baby will eventually grow up and rule the world, no matter how tyrannical its rule would be, it would be in charge before it blows the planet up. You could save a lot of lives. If there actually are three old women named Fate and when you slay the baby they just shrug and make three more evil babies, why not join the evil baby-to-person as right-hand man and usurp his rule? At least you'd see the end of the world dressed in fine clothes having a End-World feast with the council of villains. Of course, I'm not seeing a Trashcan Man thing, I'm thinking more of a Order, a powerful organization obsessed with the end of the world.

I couldn't. I'd melt as soon as I saw it waving its little arms around, making those squealing noises, in delight at apparently nothing.