greater good, lesser of two evils and decision making

[Blaphbee]

What the fuck is the purpose of this thread?

For humanists to gloat over their moral high ground? Or simply to waste bandwidth?

 

[derek]

Both, it would seem.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I would actually be interested in hearing a logical justification for killing the man with the cancer cure. This is not to suggest that a reasoning for that choice cannot be made, rather that most who would choose such an option cannot support it with any validity (at least those that I have encountered).

Trust me to come up with a justification for killing the guy with the cancer cure! But before I do that, which would Jesus choose to do? He would kill neither and take the consequences.
I don't totally know what I would do, but here is a reasonable justification for killing the man: the world is overpopulated and the environment is being destroyed by forests being cut down and increasing rate of pollution and greenhouse gasses, especially from the developing nations. The only way to save the planet is for millions to die, ideally by letting nature run its course with diseases like the bird flu and AIDs, until humankind is vastly reduced and all industry that causes the pollution and deforestation has stopped. This man saving millions of lives is seen in this light as counterproductive to saving the planet and giving humans some kind of future, which is better than everyone dying in a climatic doomsday scenario.

 

[Kenneth R.]

A man has discovered the cure for cancer and millions of people will be saved.
A baby is 1 month old, healthy and full of life, completely unaffected by the perversions of man.
Both are in front of you and you have to eliminate one or the other. If you do not, your family will be eliminated. One of your family members has cancer...
who do you eliminate, and why?

I choose not to choose. I hold no power over life and death of others. If I must die for such a choice, so be it. I will die trying to defend my family from whence such an attack comes. As Norsemaiden said, it is what Jesus, my ideal persona, would do.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. There exists no necessary evil. I will not be forced to side with it.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

What the fuck is the purpose of this thread?

For humanists to gloat over their moral high ground? Or simply to waste bandwidth?

whats the purpose of replying?

 

[Silver Incubus]

This thread would be better if there was a reason why you had to get rid of it. Then there would be an alternate choice.

But as Final Product has said, the baby would have to go so that more people would survive. It's not like the baby is going to miss much anyways. This world sux and that baby will probablly grow up to resent the world as much as everyone else.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

Trust me to come up with a justification for killing the guy with the cancer cure! But before I do that, which would Jesus choose to do? He would kill neither and take the consequences.
I don't totally know what I would do, but here is a reasonable justification for killing the man: the world is overpopulated and the environment is being destroyed by forests being cut down and increasing rate of pollution and greenhouse gasses, especially from the developing nations. The only way to save the planet is for millions to die, ideally by letting nature run its course with diseases like the bird flu and AIDs, until humankind is vastly reduced and all industry that causes the pollution and deforestation has stopped. This man saving millions of lives is seen in this light as counterproductive to saving the planet and giving humans some kind of future, which is better than everyone dying in a climatic doomsday scenario.

And there you have it, a perfectly logical pattern of reasoning to answer a question with a seemingly simple answer. Perhaps humanity has hope after all!

 

[Impudent]

Trust me to come up with a justification for killing the guy with the cancer cure! But before I do that, which would Jesus choose to do? He would kill neither and take the consequences.
I don't totally know what I would do, but here is a reasonable justification for killing the man: the world is overpopulated and the environment is being destroyed by forests being cut down and increasing rate of pollution and greenhouse gasses, especially from the developing nations. The only way to save the planet is for millions to die, ideally by letting nature run its course with diseases like the bird flu and AIDs, until humankind is vastly reduced and all industry that causes the pollution and deforestation has stopped. This man saving millions of lives is seen in this light as counterproductive to saving the planet and giving humans some kind of future, which is better than everyone dying in a climatic doomsday scenario.

Wow, that is a really great answer. I agree with you for the most part. It's sad to see so many people dying helplessly due to these cureless diseases, but at the same time, there really are too many people on Earth to be supported by the Earth. This is also why I am not against abortion. Once again, it's sad to see a baby die before is has even had a chance to live, but we don't need that many more people in the world. Long ago, diseases as simple as the common cold killed millions and children had a much smaller chance of living to adulthood. Currently, diseases aren't a problem anymore (except for the few big ones that are as yet cureless) and most children make it to adulthood. If every baby that was conceived was allowed to be born and grow up, the world would be even more extremely over populated than it is today and we'd consume the remaining resources of the Earth faster.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Wow, that is a really great answer. I agree with you for the most part. It's sad to see so many people dying helplessly due to these cureless diseases, but at the same time, there really are too many people on Earth to be supported by the Earth. This is also why I am not against abortion. Once again, it's sad to see a baby die before is has even had a chance to live, but we don't need that many more people in the world. Long ago, diseases as simple as the common cold killed millions and children had a much smaller chance of living to adulthood. Currently, diseases aren't a problem anymore (except for the few big ones that are as yet cureless) and most children make it to adulthood. If every baby that was conceived was allowed to be born and grow up, the world would be even more extremely over populated than it is today and we'd consume the remaining resources of the Earth faster.

It's great that some of you think that answer was sensible, I think most humans are vermin and do nothing but exploit and abuse the planet and spread ugliness and despair. Nietzche says "man must be overcome", but responsible people who don't cause all this destruction and don't live selfish decadent lives are great. Nietzche would call such people "the path to the Superman". It would be tragic if these people thought they should not reproduce, because they are actually part of the solution - without them nothing will ever improve.

People should live in harmony with their natural environment and in their natural habitat, instead of trying to escape from or control nature, and nature should be allowed to keep numbers down and genetic health at an optimum, even though that means we have to accept disease as being a fact of life. (With medecine and no natual selection, everyone would end up being born ill anyway - genetic engineering is likely to cause all kinds of unpleasant complications - but that's another subject.)

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

my only point was the "what if..."

like, we know the guy has the cure for cancer, but WHAT IF the baby would grow up to find the cure for a disease, or what if the baby would grow up and become president and solve the problems in the middle east, or what if the baby...........etc etc etc. the point is that you dont know.

 

[derek]

It's great that some of you think that answer was sensible, I think most humans are vermin and do nothing but exploit and abuse the planet and spread ugliness and despair. Nietzche says "man must be overcome", but responsible people who don't cause all this destruction and don't live selfish decadent lives are great. Nietzche would call such people "the path to the Superman". It would be tragic if these people thought they should not reproduce, because they are actually part of the solution - without them nothing will ever improve.

People should live in harmony with their natural environment and in their natural habitat, instead of trying to escape from or control nature, and nature should be allowed to keep numbers down and genetic health at an optimum, even though that means we have to accept disease as being a fact of life. (With medecine and no natual selection, everyone would end up being born ill anyway - genetic engineering is likely to cause all kinds of unpleasant complications - but that's another subject.)

To use computers and work in offices could also be said to be "against our nature". Our standard of living (mainly western world, sadly) has increased hugely since the introduction of medicine etc. So where do you draw the line and say treatment for this disease is OK but genetic manipulation to eradicate the entire disease from the gene-pool is wrong?

 

[Impudent]

No, definitely not, but there has to be some means of keeping the population down.

 

[derek]

No, definitely not, but there has to be some means of keeping the population down.

The mindset of the world is to currently cure all diseases. I think the best option is to look into limited breeding, yet continue these medical advances so the reduced population is healthy.

 

[Impudent]

Limited breeding would be hard to pull off though. Everyone wants a kid. But say we could do it, even better yet, we could only breed those with desirable attributes (intelligence, etc...).

 

[derek]

Limited breeding would be hard to pull off though. Everyone wants a kid. But say we could do it, even better yet, we could only breed those with desirable attributes (intelligence, etc...).

I think for the sake of this planet and ourselves eugenics must be at least considered, yes.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think for the sake of this planet and ourselves eugenics must be at least considered, yes.

Eugenics is better than genetic engineering because messing about with genes in test-tubes is both unnecessary (because you can just do it through selective breeding of the healthiest) and dangerous because genes often have unexpected effects and altering them can cause unexpected mutations further down the generations.

If we stopped using medecine/operations for defective body parts immediately, then a lot of suffering would happen. This is simply avoided by carrying on with these treatments, but trying to get the genetic quality of the population up until medecine is less required.

If we decide to carry on as we are doing, the result will be that the entire population will be born with many defects and will be medically dependent for life. Should a catastrophe happen causing a dark age, people would die unnecessarily because the medecine had run out. We need to get back to a natural state of health. Also, there is the aspect that a medically dependent population is more easily controlled and manipulated by the state, which controls the supply of pharmaceuticals.