We obviously have very different perspectives on this, but a few thoughts:
> Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against.
It's a thought experiment. Within the thought experiment, it already happened, and the chances are 100%. "This is an unlikely scenario for me find myself in" probably shouldn't affect your decision-making. You can argue that it's not a worthwhile thought experiment because it's unlikely, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing.
> Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against
It's unclear if you're saying it's a lost cause or if the direction the kidnapper went wouldn't be useful, but according to https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-ab..., 80% of children are found alive in nonfamily abductions reported to NCMEC, so my impression is that information soon after a kidnapping has much higher than a one in a million chance of helping.
Alternatively, you could adjust the thought experiment to be "At what probability of saving the baby's life should I give an answer?". "Never talk to the police under any circumstances" (the quote from the video that people seem to be defending literally) means you say nothing even if your chance of saving the baby's life is 100%.
> Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in.
I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, and I don't believe it. This is both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy.
You seem to be putting a very high amount of weight on the fact that the person trying to stop the kidnapping is a police officer. I would try to help regardless of who it is. You really should not be using theory about the role of the state to decide whether or not to help a human being trying to save the life of another human being in an urgent situation.
> Odds of getting into that situation are a million to one, against.
It's a thought experiment. Within the thought experiment, it already happened, and the chances are 100%. "This is an unlikely scenario for me find myself in" probably shouldn't affect your decision-making. You can argue that it's not a worthwhile thought experiment because it's unlikely, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing.
> Odds of your information helping to find said baby are a million to one, against
It's unclear if you're saying it's a lost cause or if the direction the kidnapper went wouldn't be useful, but according to https://www.parents.com/kids/safety/stranger-safety/child-ab..., 80% of children are found alive in nonfamily abductions reported to NCMEC, so my impression is that information soon after a kidnapping has much higher than a one in a million chance of helping.
Alternatively, you could adjust the thought experiment to be "At what probability of saving the baby's life should I give an answer?". "Never talk to the police under any circumstances" (the quote from the video that people seem to be defending literally) means you say nothing even if your chance of saving the baby's life is 100%.
> Not in the "the state is right and absolutely moral" way you seem to be stuck in.
I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, and I don't believe it. This is both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy.
You seem to be putting a very high amount of weight on the fact that the person trying to stop the kidnapping is a police officer. I would try to help regardless of who it is. You really should not be using theory about the role of the state to decide whether or not to help a human being trying to save the life of another human being in an urgent situation.