/lit/ - Literature

>>4869572
*one has to die

bump

>>4869572
You save the health one obviously

unless there is more to this you're not telling.

>And if you kill the brain-criplled child, doesn't that prove that we are NOT all worth the same?!

Is there anyone other than bleeding heart liberals who think we are all worth the same

>>4869605
This your question is shit end of thread.

>>4869605
>>4869614
The morally correct choice would be to kill both

If one has to die, you save the one that have most chances of staying alive.


I'm pretty much what americunts would call a liberal, but really?

>>4869618
Indeed.

Who says we're the same? Even kindergarten preaches we're all special in our unique way.

>>4869625
If each individual is special and unique how can you make a judgement then?

>>4869627
unique does not imply equally unique

OP's mom obviously decided to kill the healthy one.

>>4869627
Maybe go for the one that's not going to sap time and effort and extra attention and money and be constantly frustrating.

>>4869643
That is a baseless assumption. The healthy one might become a killer, a criminal or might become a cripled child later on while the brain-cripled child might become a janitor on 4chan

>>4869649

No, one is guaranteed to "sap time and effort and money," the other only has that potential.

>>4869572

Why does one have to die? Seems unrealistic.

>>4869649
Give it up bro, the entire premise, the wording, is ridiculous. You can always start another thread about how your parents chose the retard over your normal sibling.

I kill both because this is an hypothetical situation and thus I don't feel responsible for my choices

you all would kill Bethoven.

>>4869672
it's not like he'd hear it coming

besides what would he do, inscribe a song about it?

big pansy

>>4869572
"brain-criplled" [sic] would be easier to keep happy for all eternity if one of them is then unbound from death.

>>4869672
Maybe his father would have taught his brother counterpoint instead and he would have been better than beethoven

>>4869683
like you can just teach someone to became a genious.

Actually it's not that unrealistic.
Just imagine a twin pregnancy, where for health reasons the mother can only carry one child.
Also, people undergoing fertility treatment often have to choose how many embryos to keep, if the treatment happened to be too successful.
So while it sounds strange, it might happen.

>>4869701
But not in 18century. The entire dun dun reveal is stupid op. Hypotheticals don't exist, especially what 'could have happened.' Maybe we could all fly if we lived to 200.

>>4869572
Poorly concealed homework thread.

>>4869572
I have no interest in killing babies, OP. You'll have to grow some testicles and do it for yourself, if you think dead babies are that important.

I save the healthy one.

Doesn't mean he's worth more intrinsically (that will be determined by his actions later in life) but he is more likely to have a happy and productive life while the crippled baby is more likely to suffer and make the people around them suffer.

>>4869660
Exactly. The only situation in which one has to die is when the death is inevitable, in which case there is no choice in the matter in which case you don't have to choose so the question is fucking stupid

>>4869572

>>4869625
if we're all special nobody is you ninny

I slay the healthy one because it satisfies my Wille Zur Macht more.

>>4869833
"If given a choice between two babies to slay, I would slay the most powerful baby."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

>i have a mega good philosophy question for you.
This kills the ethos.

>>4869572
>And if you kill the brain-criplled child, doesn't that prove that we are NOT all worth the same?!
Exactly. Potential is the best measurement of an individuals value at an early age, hence why middle-upper middle class kids get the best education. The retarded one will never consciously contribute anything to humanity, thus it is more ethical to spare the kid with an actual chance at life.

>>4869572
Kill the healthy one, thus lowering competition with me for evolutionary status.

Everybody knows not everyone is equal, Liberals are just delusional enough to deny it.

>>4869874
You have no way to tell which one will go on to contribute more to humanity, if that is to be your measure. Medicine could easily cure the cripple in it's life, and the experience of going from that state to normal lucidity could create such a unique experience so as to shape an individual that can create amazing and unique art or contributions to society. Whereas the other dude could just end up being regular average cog in the machine.

>>4869637

I actually lol'd.

i'd kill the brain cripple even if there was no kill requirement.

>>4869605
Kantians, and people who truly follow Christian ethic down to the letter.

But I don't think anybody really follows those ethical philosophies to any extreme degree. So yeah, nobody.

>>4870242

this, brain cripples are suffering and need to be put down

I would kill the healthy baby, because the idiot baby could be an idiot-savant.

>>4869572
Of course you kill the brain-crippled one. Everyone is dogmatist about eugenics when sitting on the ivory tower in the sunshine, but anyone who has every worked with the mentally disabled (such as myself) knows that it's all garbage.

>>4869605
>bleeding heart liberals
It would be "bleeding-hearted liberals" and you're a fucking tool

>>4870291


no, im pretty sure it is indeed 'bleeding-heart'.

>>4870300
Wow, Americans can't even properly name things if that's the case

>>4870284
You sound bitter about your life choices, anon. Hopefully, you will not reproduce, so the genes responsible for your shitty existence and personality are not passed on to future generations.

>>4870078
there is a thing called probability

It is more probable for the healthy baby to contribute to society than for a retarded one

>>4869674
Beethoven wasn't born deaf you fucking pleb.

conservatards are more predisposed to employ the all life is sacred argument, ruled by the primitive deontic morality as well as not responding well to actual reality

>>4870311
There is more to probability than just the chances of A or B occurring.

>>4869572
All human souls are worth the same.
No two human bodies are equal.
A crippled child will contribute much less to society than a non-crippled child. Although the crippled child's soul holds equal worth, if one must die, it is better for everyone if the less capable of the two were to die.
The person doing the killing is no less of a murderer.
tl:dr this question is almost as dumb as you are

>>4870284
If I had the choice between saving you or a cat from a burning building, I would save the cat without hesitation, despite the fact that it's "brain-crippled" and does nothing but leech resources without providing anything meaningful to society. I'm pretty sure it's the most pragmatic decision from an eugenic point of view too.

>>4870390

Can you elaborate on that a little?

I mean, to me this is one of those boringly obvious issues given OP's stipulations: one of them HAS to die, you choose, and one of them is "brain-criplled". It's not rocket surgery, you know?

>>4870511
Not him, but I think OP is really just asking if inherited potential deems one person's existence more valuable than that of another. Obviously there is little reason to believe that a mentally retarded person will be brought up to the cognitive capacity of an average human, and thus is expected not to accomplish as much, if anything, in addition to being required to undergo constant attention/care from others. Really, none of the arguments posed in favor of the retard are that convincing since it's so hard to affirm that said retard would be of more value to society than a non-disabled person.

I think a better question in the same vain is, "You are a college admissions administrator. You are faced with deciding between two candidates. One is a poor student with a sub-par academic record and an obvious history of having a lack of motivation, but is nonetheless more sincere in their essay. The other is a middle class student with above-average grades and a record of being proactive in school/community activities, but is nonetheless somewhat insincere in the essay and seemingly the epitome of bourgeois. With the best interest of the school in mind, who do you admit?"

>>4870407
>tl:dr this question is almost as dumb as you are

Says the poster who not only believes in objective value but also souls

>>4870764
>is a hard determinist
>browses a literature board

>>4870764
Objective values are not determined by the universe. Those two infants, of course, are merely two different clumps of atoms. Objective values are born of necessity. Without them, human civilization cannot exist. I answered in an anthropocentric context. Questions like this have no meaning in a non-anthropocentric context. Souls do not exist, but for the purposes of our lives and laws, they must.

I choose the brain-crippled one because human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution and this baby probably wouldn't be as conscious.

>>4870728
With the best interest of the school in mind? You pick the 2nd student because he's a surer bet. He'll probably be able to pay for all four years. If you think that sincerity and whether or not someone is "bourgeois" comes into play in college admissions, you are seriously mistaken. They are trying to make money. If it comes down to someone who is less likely to stay and someone who is more likely to stay, it's going to be the latter.

>>4869572
We aren't all worth the same, mate.
So yeah, kill the cripple.

Infar these situationists, I away do to you.

>>4870851
> Imbligbro do
But why do you to mega?
No don't same!

>>4870851
>>4870868
imbliginging criplelelel

>>4870822
Then, in comparison to OP's original question, you are selecting the non-retard.

>>4870883
Yes, basically

Let neither survive.

Anti-natalist master race.

>>4870889
Ok cool. Idk if you were the one defending the retard though.

>>4869605
>>4869620
>>4869643
>>4869791
>>4870242
>>4870247
>>4870284
>>4870284
>>4870311
>>4870407
>>4870847

>>4870907
No, just airing my personal grievances with the financially driven nature of the system of higher education. I was talking about that with my brother today. In my parent's day, they could take a semester off, work and pay for their next semester with that money. Now, that's virtually impossible and as a result, you either go into debt or you don't get educated. It's a fucking dismal system.

>>4870921

Student here. It's been a year since I've had a job and all I do is study and apply to jobs all day erry day.

My biggest hope is to get a job in two years with a measly 30k in debt.

>>4870928
hard labor, buddy.

believe me, or don't, whatever; i dropped out my first year of prep (15yo). started plumbing.
>by 19yo, buddy and i branched off and started our own company
>by 21yo, i left him and started my own
>by 23yo, i had 3 trucks (1 plumber, each)
>now, 25yo, 7 trucks (1 plumber, each; two of which have a helper) and I don't actually plumb anymore.

all i do now is drink, excessively, and try to write.

>>4870973
i also, now, go to university here in los angeles. though, i am not doing so great seeing as how i drink too damn much

>>4870973
>>4870978

K. I'm 21 now but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

>>4870981
>It's been a year since I've had a job
> all I do is study and apply to jobs all day erry day

i am sorry, i thought that you were looking for a job. it is not like i suggested choosing a trade, or anything.

>>4870998

Well that would seem to entail leaving university, which I don't want to do. There's no reason I can't work on the side, it's just a bitch trying to find anything.

>>4869572

My answer to all of these theoretical moral choices is the same one I would make in a real world scenario.

The Kirk solution to the Kobiyashi Maru.

I reject your false, win-lose dichotomy and would find a way to save them both.

>>4871009
>implying you cannot work as a plumber, or any other trade, part time

are you fucking retarded? no wonder you are not employable.

>>4871016

How the fuck am I meant to keep up a 9-5 apprenticeship schedule and go to university at the same time?

>>4871026
firstly, a tradesmen schedule is not 9-5

secondly, i have hired classmates from my university to work for me part-time. it pays well, schedule is flexible, it is plausible

you keep thinking you can't do it. people like you (with your b/s degrees) are needed to bag my groceries.

>>4871045
>firstly, a tradesmen schedule is not 9-5

Yes it is. Keep on drinking bud.

>>4871045
Would you hire a fellow of /lit/?

>>4871050
no, it is not...but, i will keep on drinking.

>>4871057
i wouldn't be opposed. have you any hand/power tools of your own? can you drive? have you done plumbing before? most importantly, are you in los angeles?

The brain crippled one. The world doesn't need another overachiever playing the harpsichord and working as an Oracle executive.

>>4871095
lol finally someone spells crippled correctly.

6/83 posts

>>4869634
>unique does not imply equally unique

>>4869572
And if you killed the other kid would that prove otherwise? You still selected one to die for some reason.

>>4869605
It's mainly right wing conservative religious people who propagate the idea that we're all the same

False binary

Don't kill either.

Kill yourself

>>4871130
Well it's a dishonest question. "Worth" doesn't exist independent of preference; so you can prove someone prefers such and such wine, but that doesn't *prove* that all wine doesn't taste "just as good" because that's merely a value judgement. Quality as a quality.

>>4871160
You didn't attend university, did you?

>>4871161
No, of course not, what do you take me for?

>>4871166
Feminister I've told you to go away in the past but sometimes you are okay. The OP is of course retarded and doesn't know what 'to prove' means.

>>4869572
You must define worth to answer the question. Is it worth to the society? Regardless, as the future is unknowable you cannot judge the merit of one individual over another. Take a typical neckbeard basement dweller defined by a total lack of contribution to his society (If we are defining worth in that manner). With the amount of published journals and information available to him/her, the possibilities of him/her teaching oneself and inventing or proposing a novel idea is the same compared to another in the same field.

>If you have the two exact copies of me, except that one would have one inch longer cock, which one would you pick?

I actually asked this question to my ex... :(

>>4871212
If you define a life by manner of "worth" then you are classifying their potential within your paradigm. Say that we euthanize all individuals who have a disability or malformation. We would still be in the same dilemma to determine someone's worth with the new quandary as to judge the new population with the absence of the previous qualifier. There would still be individuals who would not measure up to their peers in ability or accomplishments.

>>4871221
dude, i've asked my g/f something similar save i didn't specify the inch, i just said bigger.

she jokingly chose the bigger cock

>mfw

Dumb thread. OP, maybe you get dragged down into monstrosity a little too easily, rather than this dilemma *proving* anything. Good job shitting up the board, though.

>>4869572
>NOT all worth the same?!

Not really, no. The only relevant difference between the babies is how much happiness/pain you're denying one by killing it.

Odds are you're denying the crippled baby very little happiness, and much pain by killing it compared to the healthy baby. Absent any other considerations, you then kill the healthy baby, despite it being entitled to as much moral consideration as any other baby.

Morality economics?

Sticking with the absolute limit of is described here and no more, the choice is clear.

I suppose the next step is to expand this into a generalization for use in the real world. There's too many variables added, I don't see how this might lead to throwing a certain class of people into wood chippers just because of one finite hypothetical.

But the real question:

>we are NOT all worth the same?

Sure, that's true. The old will walk off into the woods in times of famine, heroic sacrifices abound, etc.

If you prefer your examples sere, then ask any urban area health-care worker what it's really like. Ask about the potential of health-care rationing and the horrors that will entail. They'll smile, and change the subject.

Ask about the homeless that get a mat in the corner for an hour or two, some analgesics, and a bus ticket to the next town over.

Now I have a question for you. What are you driving at?

>>4870425
>using eugenics to fight eugenics

the cycle is complete. all you ever need to do is propose immorality, and the moral agents all speak immorally

hypocrites

>>4870243
I dont see what's wrong with applying Kant's categorical imperative in this scenario.

If we would kill all brain crippled babies would the world be a bad place? I think not to be fair.

Iam also pretty sick by this these questions. This thought that we are somehow all the same just infuriates me.

>>4869621
Kant would not agree because the factors within the senario allow for two diverse rules, the killing of healthy babiess and mentally crippled babies

I'd kill the parents for being natalist scum and castrate the babies.

>>4875095
Kill your parents and then yourself, edgelord.

>>4869572
From an economic stand point, save the one which can potentially contribute the most to society.

Ok, so there's 2 approaches to this problem"

1. Darwinist explanation
Survival of the fittest etc. the healthy one contributes more to society and better genes to the gene pool, so no, we're not all equal

2. Utility theory
The unhealthy baby has less chance of attaining happiness or some measure of 'the use of life', so in order to maximize happiness the healthy baby has to be selected

>>4875155
I suppose it could really depend on your definition of the word happiness. With that being said, I find a lot of people with severe defects -- both physical and mental -- can find more of a reason to live and wake up day to day than the average man.
I know it's not exactly evidence, and perhaps it's only a small vocal majority of people with disabilities.

>>4875181
Good point, although to be fair that usually requires a lot of effort from caretakers etc. to provide that level of happiness, also they generally tend not to live as long due to genetic defects, but yeah some (and maybe even a lot of tards) actually live happier lives than the 'normal' population, makes you think..

Flip a coin.
Heads - kill the brain-criplled child.
Tails - kill the fully healthy one.
>Get tails
>2 out of 3
>tails again
>3 out of 5
>∞
>go on untill you kill the brain-crippled child and tell yourself it was all left to chance

>>4875234

I love it, what's this branch of philosophy called?

>>4871235
>she jokingly chose the bigger cock
>jokingly

>Which one do you let survive?
Both

See I just transcended your arbitrary fascist scheme

>>4875155
You don't choose to be Darwinist. Stop perpetuating that myth. If a cripple convinces you to keep him around then he's fit enough for this world, per definition.

>>4875235
>Post-indeterminism-cismaleopressor-nazi-communist-individualistic-selfrighteousnism

>>4875243
>implying the brain-crippled would survive with out your assist

So the question now becomes, do you spend money and time to make sure the brain-crippled child survive?

You essentially killed the brain-crippled child, and said that 'I'm above it'.

>doesn't that prove that we are NOT all worth the same?!
Who are you talking to?

>>4869572
>econoretard thought-experiment
>prove anything

>>4875205
It is easy to live and life, that is, by fundamental design easier to live.
This is completely out of my ass here, but I believe a lot of the more developed countries have much higher incidences of depression and sadness. It can seem like, when born into a difficult life, people find more happiness in less.

>>4869572
In this hypothetical situation I let the healthy one survived. Not because it's the moral choice, but because he/she's the one I relate to more and feel the stronger emotional attachment to.

In a real world situation like this I have no idea because there are a million factors that could affect my decision.

>>4869891
that's not how evolutionary psychology works
you just lowered your gene's reproductive chances m8

>>4875248
>if a cripple convinces you
>a baby

to the contrary, friend
if you're stupid enough to keep a cripple around under natural conditions, it's you who's weak and your genes (including your tard baby) deserve to go extinct...
The problem is we 'overcame' our natural conditions, that's why we keep every humanoid thing alive whilst exterminating every other natural thing..
> prepare for idiocracy

side note; you are absolutely right to say one doesn't choose to be Darwinist, then again I never said one chooses to be Darwinist, I said 'Darwinist explanation'

>>4875262
but to get back to the choice (or the basic argument for eugenics), you don't know upfront which baby will be happier, so I would suggest the odds are in favor of the 'healthy' baby in both the utility and Darwinist approaches

>yes?

>>4875274
that is another great point, to the parents opting for the damaged child has a huge emotional, physical and economical impact

I don't get this. Is this supposed to be a hard question?

>>4875378
yeah, so to recap ITT;

>economical reason: healthy baby contribs to society
>utility reason: healthy baby has best chance of living a meaningful (happy?) life
>the impact on the family
>Darwinist reason: opt for best genes (not sure about this one since tard baby is unlikely to reproduce, but the healthy baby likely will thus perpetuating the tard ridden family genes..)

TLDR: tough nookies, tard, you're a dead baby

>>4869572
How can babies be real if our eyes aren't real?

Checkmate philosophy fags.

>>4869637
Oh fuck me that's good