Column: A thought experiment
Published Oct. 18, 2005
For this column, I would like to propose a thought experiment, so please bear with me.
Assume the world is going to end in 36 hours. There is an asteroid on a direct collision course with America. This thing is huge: twice the size of this sovereign nation (excluding Alaska, including Hawaii). We will be completely flattened. All nuclear weapons will detonate. The edges of the meteorite that hit water will cause massive tidal waves going out in all directions from the point of impact. The tsunami will be historically unprecedented. The waves will demolish all of Central America that isn't crushed. Japan will be submerged. Hawaii — gone.
To make matters worse, the parts of the meteorite that hit land, particularly in Canada and South America, cause a massive dissemination of dust particles into the air and, in turn, the atmosphere, triggering a nuclear winter.
Things get worse. Temperatures drop even more drastically than Carl Sagan could have predicted. Earth's average temperature falls 28 degrees in a matter of days. Crops are destroyed. Fish, fowl and beast are killed alike. People in Europe and Asia die from exposure.
Although not hit by tidal waves, inland areas of Asia and Africa are attacked from within by severe flooding of their rivers. The noble agrarian working communities along the Yangtze River are but a distant memory. The few unlucky survivors are left to fight over the dwindling and contaminated food supply. Those who do not starve to death surely will not last long against the putrid air, the cold and the radiation, which grows closer every day.
Suppose you knew these things were to happen. Humanity only has a day and a half left to truly exist. Word has leaked that certain doom is right around the corner. Chaos strikes the streets. Looting, riots, indiscriminate sex and/or drug use are the favored ways to enjoy the last day. Everyone is letting the inner animal come out.
Human life has prematurely become cheap. Devious women are seducing unwitting men with the opportunity to break off one last piece only to vanquish them mid-coitus. They believe this is an act of mercy. Perhaps they're right.
I could be found ensconced in my room with a pound of weed and a high-speed Internet connection, attempting to overdose on pot and masturbation.
Side note: I realized the other day that it is impossible for me to be alone, think of masturbating and then not masturbate. As soon as I have the idea, it's as good as done. There's no use in resisting.
It is in this setting I would like to pose my moral dilemma: Is it more wrong to kill a baby than an adult?
There are a lot of ways to approach the subject. The utilitarian might claim it is better to kill the baby because the adult possibly could play a minute role in averting the catastrophe, whereas the baby could not. A relativist might say that if you think the two acts are morally equivalent, then they are. A cultural relativist might say it is permissible to kill the baby only if you are in China and the baby is a female.
I think I would kill the baby. If I am killing for food, I would go with the adult. More meat. But then again, the baby would be more tender, probably a meat of a higher class. I've stumbled upon a new dilemma: quantity or quality. I guess it all comes down to your priorities.
Contact Dan Friesen Here.