Moral Dilemma

I am re-reading one of my favorite novels and have come to the point in it where a question is posed...I have never been able to answer it.

To summarize (and paraphrase)...a character makes the following assertion...

"The prosperity for all mankind for all eternity is not worth the tears of a single innocent child"

The conversation (which is incidentally between a the character and the devil) basically raises the question...To achieve eternal peace and prosperity for all of mankind, would you (not someone else...but you yourself) torture and kill an innocent child?

My reaction is instantly "no" as even that great an end does not justify the means. The child is innocent and no matter how beneficial the end result, no justice will ever be done for that child. It weighs too heavily. However, then i start to think about all of the children that will not suffer, starve, get hurt in the future through my actions and I begin to question.

It is a philosophical question as to the greater good but one, I think, worth looking at

I would say without a doubt, no. If humanity deserves such things there will be another way, nuff said.

A very painful situation to think about indeed.

It all depends on whose philosophy you're applying to the situation. I don't intend to be faced with this situation, so I don't really have an answer.

It doesn't depend on philosophy...it depends on where you stand morally, ethically, etc....

If you're like me and your immediate reaction is "No Way!"...but then go forward to think about all of the ramifications of your actions or inactions...does your reaction stand?

and of course you don't plan on being placed in that situation...it's a question....I don't plan on being placed in Neo's situation of having to sacrifice myself for a mankind that is plugged into the Matrix...but I can still discuss it.

if you don't want to answer...then don't reply.....


BTW...for anyone who asks...the Novel is "The Brothers Karamozov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

There is a point when self-sacrifice for the greater good is worthwhile -- but at no point is doing harm to another worth the fate of man or anything. If one individual can not hold true to the greater good, then to what benefit is the fate of man? True goodness is being able to make that most difficult choice -- that you cannot control the world, only yourself.

EDIT: I'm thinking my reply is a bit ambiguous, lol. Let me clarify by saying..... If one individual can not hold true to the greater good without causing harm to another, then to what benefit is the fate of man?

....and that true goodness is being able to make that most difficult choice in the face of the realization that you cannot control the world, only yourself.

"The prosperity for all mankind for all eternity is not worth the tears of a single innocent child"

I think you misunderstand the quote. It doesn't offer you a choice, rather a proclaimation. Therefore, within the context of the novel it cannot be argued, as it is only relevant within that particular sphere of influence.

Also, if it is prosperity for ALL mankind, then by causing the tears of a child negates the ALL - 'ALL bar one'?!?!? That is not what it says...the statement is self asserting.

the quote itself doesn't offer the choice...but it leads into the discussion where the choice is contemplated (from a hypothetical standpoint). The statement is made by the character (I think it is Ivan) at the start of his dream conversation. The topic is then explored through the remainder of the scene.

I believe it is a question of conviction...ie...you believe a certain thing...but does that belief hold up under any and all circumstances? Even extreme ones??

and thank you...but no...I didn't misunderstand the quote....