Would You Torture a Baby to Bring Peace to Humanity?

A character in Dostoyevsky's, 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 - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth?"


Would you would torture a baby to bring peace and happiness to humanity?

Views: 170

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm a sort of 'business-plan' minded person.
I need more details on this whole peace to humanity thing.
Is it peace to only the people that deserve it? How does this peace come about? How long until the world is at peace? How long will peace last? What is the definition of peace?
...and now featured!
Baby torture! Is nothing sacred around here?

I don't think I could torture a baby. But if it was agreed that torturing a single baby would be okay because of the greater good, then I would not be against it, per se. And with that statement, I kiss goodbye any hope of running for public office.
I'm in the same boat as Reggie. It's not so much as if I would do it, but more so if I could.
Rereading my answer, it seems I am saying that if everyone was was cool with torturing a baby, then I would not object. Terrible wording on my part. I was operating under the parameters of the hypothetical question which states that the baby torture would indeed bring world peace. But as pointed out later, this is not realistic.
The end does not justify the means. I think all the people who are the cause of war and strife should be held accountable, not given a free pass. In fact, this is what irks me about the Jesus guy. It seems pretty cowardly to allow someone innocent to be tortured and killed for my "sin". IF I am guilty, I should be responsible. The whole idea of a sacrificial savior is wrong on principle, in my mind. Not only that, but it doesn't solve the problem of the corruption within individuals. Obviously, this is a hypothetical question, but... there are "evil" people who will always be evil, and killing babies (or lambs, goats, prepubescent girls, virgins, or other miscellaneous "innocent" beings) won't solve the bigger problem.

Let's seriously draw the parallel here to Abraham and his kid, Isac, and to that guy who sacrificed his little girl because she was the first breathing thing to enter his presence after his victory in the war God had blessed, and to Jesus (even though he wasn't a baby, he was allegedly sinless). We're Atheists partly because we view God as a baby-killing, sexist, racist, homophobic, narcissist bully. We don't approve of his soul-saving tactics. By torturing and killing a baby for the sake of humanity, we become the Judeo-Christian God we all so despise.

Sacrificing that which is innocent for the survival of that which is corrupt is wrong.
I thought that we were operating under the pretense that the baby-killing would in fact bring world peace, a for sure thing, no doubt about it, 100 percent guaranteed.

If that is not the case, then I would amend my answer to resemble CaraColeen's.
Well yeah.... but what about torturing a baby just for fun? :D
No- because I can conceive of no circumstances in which torturing a baby could bring peace to humanity. I would consider the person brokering that kind of deal to be a lying sadist and I would probably on balance kill that son of a bitch.
I like Paddo's reply.
Immediately kill anyone offering world peace
-It's just principal, people.
Though really, it's sorta true, if you think about it. Any person or being offering world peace would have to have some questionable means to go about achieving it, since peace is pretty subjective.
What's a peaceful, happy world to a Muslim male age 25-34 located in the Middle East probably won't be a peaceful, happy world to me.
Someone is going to have to have their point of view changed. Radically.
Or cease to exist....

Yup.. from hence forth, systematic extinction of anyone offering world peace is mandatory operating procedures.
I think paddo was only saying that he might kill the guy who said he could offer world peace in exchange for baby torture -- not that he'd kill anybody offering world peace.

But you may have a point about the definition of world peace. Any of these could technically be considered world peace, though hopefully not what any of us have in mind: (1) entire world is enslaved under one dictatorship, or (2) successful genocide against all dissenters, or (3) extinction of human life.

“I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I agree 100%. I am not a violent or angry person, but the dude would die.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 0 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service