Group: Moderating Admin
Joined: 28-May 04
Member No.: 16
QUOTE(hitokiri @ Jan 5 2005, 12:55 PM)
depends..... do i get to patent the cure?
It's rather hard to answer, yes . . . but if I can kill the kid and save mankind, could I get someone else to do it for me? And furthermore, is there a guarantee that the disease will be cured after the death of the child?
SINCERELY, Quistis (Forum Spam Assassin, Vice-Mother, and Queen of the Grammar Police)
This sentence says something else when you're not looking.
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
This is the classic ethics question that goes around everywhere. I hate answering it because if you were to investigate it realistically, you would find yourself wrestling with the answer.
It all comes down to whether the ends justify the means or whether one must do what is right just because it is right. Part of the issue here is that realistically humans do not have omniscience, which means there is no proof that whatever was necessary to save mankind would actually work. In addition to this, we don't know whether it's the case that the decision actually doesn't need to be made (i.e. the disease could be cured on its own through some mutation, but will change humanity forever).
So, to answer it using a utilitarian system, you have to be prepared for uncertainties. It may seem reasonable that those uncertainties are small risks, but on the other hand if you had a society where it's ok to kill one for many, you may find that many are getting killed for the greater many (where does it stop/who makes the decisions).
Anyway, that's part of the whole dilema. It's just a puzzle that I've always hated seeing and most answers don't fit the real question either. The ultimate question being asked is whether it's ok for the ends to justify the means even though you will never know what the ends actually are (no one here is omniscient I don't think - well, maybe quisitis and Kase, but no one else I'm sure).
Joined: 12-December 04
From: Soviet Cambodia
Member No.: 3,609
I don't think the ends justify the means. Because the child has nothing to do with world disease. Did the child create ebola, smallpox, or anthrax? Why kill something so pure and innocent? Though, if it really did cure all disease... the reward (if you can even call it that) is so great. What is one child weighed against hundreds of thousands that will die here, Europe, third world countries and all other countries. I'm afraid I'd have to say.... yes. I would kill a child if it ended world disease "Permanently"! I don't want the diseases mutating and building up a resistance against our "miracle cure" and having us kill a child in vein.
Joined: 9-September 04
From: somewhere in a place right now....
Member No.: 650
oh and by the way i thought about it the and my answer is yes but only if i'm either guaranteed to get away with it or the authorities are ok with it. yeah yeah cure humanity is nice and all but prison....not so much.
------------------------------------------------------------ "argh...my neck is one gargantuan monkey fist..." - J. Peterman -
People in the old days sacrificed children, also for what they believed was the greater good. We look back on it now and it's considered barbaric. Would our descendants think the same of us if we sacrificed the kid?
But forget about what the descendants think. What's the worth of a cure if it's stained with blood?
Besides, cure one disease and there are countless others. Where do we stop?
But if it's absolutely necessary and there's an almost-guarantee that it would work, the kid should at least decide for him/herself if he/she wants to do it.
If it were up to me, though, then the answer's no.
Joined: 2-January 05
Member No.: 4,924
As long as all diseases are cured and authorities have no problems, I say yes. Call me cold-hearted but, the way I see it, the lives of all people who are affected by the diseases outweighs the life of one child.