Which are the basic tenets you are referring to? — Πετροκότσυφας

Very basic... Heaven (bliss with God), hell, innocent children, eternal souls, ...
Hinduism (or some flavors thereof) is different if memory serves.

As an aside, in a secular context, killing infants tend to be considered atrocious, and is free from such reasoning. Of course. Any ordinary person would think so, I hope. — jorndoe

I lean towards the views of Peter Singer. Infanticide, despite its scary-sounding verbage, is probably not morally problematic because infants aren't even capable of futural thoughts or even are conscious. To say that it is morally wrong to take the life of a young infant is, in my opinion, probably unfounded equivocation.

To say that it is morally wrong to take the life of a young infant is, in my opinion, probably unfounded equivocation. — darthbarracuda

So if I whipped out a hammer and brained your baby to death in front of you, you would have serious difficulty saying my actions were morally wrong?

Seriously?

I have like a super duper secret for you. It's so secretive that I can't look at the screeen as I right it! See, thing is, that the next life is actually way, way worse than this one... so I'd soak it up while you still can. It's not even interesting like hell or anything, it's more like... hmm... this, I guess:

Around 200 children have been killed as collateral damage in US drone strikes on Pakistan in the last ten years. I don't recall the moral justification for this in the Founding Fathers' words of self-constitution. These are actual deaths, not imaginary ideologically-inspired deaths.

Not sure how much there is to define. The tenets are just common beliefs, like taught in Sunday school.

The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead and grant eternal life to his followers. — Christianity (Wikipedia article)

• Source: Christianity (Wikipedia article)

Muslims view heaven as a place of joy and bliss, with Qurʼanic references describing its features and the physical pleasures to come. — Islam (Wikipedia article)

• Source: Islam (Wikipedia article)

Around 200 children have been killed as collateral damage in US drone strikes on Pakistan in the last ten years. I don't recall the moral justification for this in the Founding Fathers' words of self-constitution. These are actual deaths, not imaginary ideologically-inspired deaths. — mcdoodle

As an aside, ISIS have displaced 100,000s of children. :(
The examples in the opening post are not imaginary deaths.
Anyway, children are easy victims.

• Attorney: Woman thought God told her to kill sons (CNN; Mar 2004)
• The Numbers Are Staggering: U.S. Is 'World Leader' in Child Poverty (Paul Buchheit; AlterNet; Apr 2015)

This is the lowest quality thread in the history of threads.

I lean towards the views of Peter Singer. Infanticide, despite its scary-sounding verbage, is probably not morally problematic because infants aren't even capable of futural thoughts or even are conscious. To say that it is morally wrong to take the life of a young infant is, in my opinion, probably unfounded equivocation. — darthbarracuda

Going by the tenets, the argument extends somewhat beyond infant age.
Might go by some notion of innocence, or mortal sin or other passage to hell.
(It all seems rather arbitrary in any case.)

This addresses none of my points, though. — Πετροκότσυφας

There's a simple question involved, going by said faiths:
If an innocent child is killed, then will they go to heaven?

Let's say that the answer is yes (whatever this thing you call "heaven" is). What does this have to do with the murder of an innocent child? — Πετροκότσυφας

As per above:

while going by said tenets, the reasoning itself is sound, and the killers accomplished the goal — jorndoe

... of which there are examples.

Note, though, it's not me calling it "heaven". It's part of the faith system. How much sense does it make?

, you're hand-waving.
It's not about definitions, but about what people believe.
In case you answer "yes" to the question, you've affirmed the killer's goal.

It is you who thinks it is permissible. — Πετροκότσυφας

I do not.
Consequences of breaching "permissible" extends to the killer alone in this case (surely not the infant).
Consequences to the infant (if the answer is "yes") is heaven and eternal bliss with God.

Let me repeat: nowhere have I claimed it permissible.

On a satirical note, here's The Onion on the topic: God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

Doing evil in order to achieve the good is not justified in Christianity and Islam, generally speaking. They are not consequentialist religions.

There is no alleged policy in the supposedly blesséd imaginary hereafter that justifies any action in the only world we actually know anything about. As far as we know, beneficial and harmful consequences for any action are limited to this present world.

EVEN if you believed that it was permissible to kill an infant to gain the benefits of heaven for the victim, you would still be held responsible for the infant's(s') death and would likely be punished severely.

It is a fraud perpetrated on believers to suggest that atrocities in this world will be rewarded in the next. Suicide bombers, for instance, who have been brainwashed to think that heavenly bliss awaits them after they walk into a food market and kill themselves and many other people, are hideous victims of their faith rather than noble torch bearers.

So if I whipped out a hammer and brained your baby to death in front of you, you would have serious difficulty saying my actions were morally wrong?

Seriously? — dukkha

Well first of all I wouldn't have children to begin with. Second, it is immoral from the perspective of those who have children. But infanticide cannot harm the infant, only those who have infants.

Doing evil in order to achieve the good is not justified in Christianity and Islam, generally speaking. — Thorongil

EVEN if you believed that it was permissible to kill an infant to gain the benefits of heaven for the victim, you would still be held responsible for the infant's(s') death and would likely be punished severely. — Bitter Crank

Right.
And so, going by such faiths, presumably the killer ends up down below, and the infant up high.
Or something.

There is no alleged policy in the supposedly blesséd imaginary hereafter that justifies any action in the only world we actually know anything about. As far as we know, beneficial and harmful consequences for any action are limited to this present world. — Bitter Crank

:D

As an aside, euthanasia has come up in the public in recent years.
The context here is mostly the "right to die" and "assisted suicide" movements.

Jorndoe, I radically disagree with Christianity and Islam but the weakness and awful bias of your argument is persuading me to defend them. Can this be really your aim?

I lean towards the views of Peter Singer. Infanticide, despite its scary-sounding verbage, is probably not morally problematic — darthbarracuda

These two sentences need to be separated. Because they are juxtaposed, it is easy for anybody other than a very careful reader to infer that Peter Singer thinks there is no moral problem with infanticide. That would be an incorrect inference. It is darthbarracuda that has no problem with infanticide.

Jorndoe is a really nice and cool guy. I met him a couple of times in person when I lived in Nova Scotia.

A staggeringly stupid idea for a thread, even if it is a joke! And if it is not a joke, then it is also a vicious misrepresentation of the religions in questions.

Some emotional responses here. Maybe I should have posted it over in the sociology section. Of course killing infants is repugnant, as held by most believers and others alike. :)

There's a fairly simple observation involved.

Remove the Christianity and Islam part, and go by common religious beliefs, like taught in Sunday school and madrasas, for example.

1. It's uncontroversial among such believers that an infant (or other innocent child) that dies, goes to heaven, to be with God. I'd say this often enough includes accredited pastors and imams and such, although "heaven", "God", "innocent", etc, can be subject to all manner of ideation and definitions.

2. If an infant is killed, then the killer has committed a crime, both by various religious and secular rules. Those entertaining faith as per above — the killer in particular — may believe the killer can still be "saved", others may believe they cannot and don't care (or perhaps believe they're damned in any case), yet others may believe something else, who knows.

As per such faith, killing an infant will secure the infant's entrance into heaven, to be with God. Believers, be they (would-be) killers or not, commonly share 1 above.

That does not mean the act of killing is good or anything — it goes against other rules — yet, the repercussions extend just to the killer, not the victim.

It's not so much about consequentialism, as it is about believed consequences of an infant's (or other innocent child's) death. Neither is it about throwing Abrahamic religions in the bin. It's about analyzing real-life beliefs, irrespective of any (perceived) controversy.

Anyway, have a good weekend, and holidays.

It's not so much about consequentialism, as it is about believed consequences of an infant's (or other innocent child's) death. Neither is it about throwing Abrahamic religions in the bin. It's about analyzing real-life beliefs, irrespective of any (perceived) controversy. — jorndoe

The world's most famous perpetrators of infanticide were Chinese atheists under communist rule. Apparently buckets of water were kept at the bedsides of delivering women for the purpose of dunking female infants to their deaths.

Despite the reasoning you point out, neither Christians nor Muslims are particularly known for infanticide.

Sometimes it's more informative to analyze "real-life" actions versus "real-life" beliefs.