I don't know... To me, the simple question of doing anything to cure mankind of all disease is pretty cut and dry. I wouldn't do it. I think the human race as a whole hasn't redeemed itself enough in my eyes to make me consider going on the cross or nailing someone else up for its sake.
But if it's a matter of the sacrifice of one, weighed against the all-but-certain extinction of the whole species, that's another story.

Yeah I guess, Arche. Your choice can't be relationalized. You're right. How would you know/measure someone's sociatal value? Especially since you don't know the future events of each of their lives. I suppose you would have to rely on impulse in a situation like this. If you don't act soon, they both can die. That is worse than only one of them dying.

Besides, doesn't philosophy need to have some kind of basis in reality to be legitimate? The original question seems a bit too far-flung to qualify.

I guess it is a little far fetched. But if it's just theoretical. Anyway, here sit your brain down to this(a question asked a lot). Is death penalty justified, even if the prisoner has committed horrible deeds? Do two wrongs make a right? (does this qualify as a philosophical question or just a question of morality [wait, philosophy deals a lot with morals])

I support the death penalty for the incorrigible, and that's it.

They call it the 'department of corrections' for a reason. If you can't 'correct' someone, there's no sense in letting them live at the taxpayers' expense.

The big problem with the death penalty is that it can cost more to execute a prisoner than to keep them in jail the rest of their life. With appeals and all. I can't remember where the study was done, but I do know there was one. I'm not saying it was conclusive - there could have been another study that's better showing that it is cheaper to execute prisoners. In any case, I believe the economics of it all is a bit screwed up if I recall correctly.

I won't answer this one. I can't be objective properly regarding death penalty issues.

Double whammy.

Another dillema: You are being held hostage with your best friend, mother, spouse, only child and father. Behind you is you kidnapper, holding a switch
to a bomb that will kill you all. Your only option is to kill 4 of the 5 people in front of you or you all die. The kidnapper will give you five seconds to kill them, one after another. If you succede, he'll give you a minute to turn around and kill him.

You can't turn and shoot him before you're done. He has lighting-quick reaction time, so don't try it.

The appeals system needs a major enema. There's nothing that sickens me more than a guy who committed murder and showed no remorse for it getting his sentence reduced because of a technicality.

The judicial system is really in a mess in general. Although judges aren't supposed to be swayed by political opinions, they are very political in their interpretation of laws. Sometimes this means allowing obviously guilty people to go free because of a political agenda on legal precident.

^^ bacon: well that's our judicial system for yah.

hm...well to me it's ok to kill the child..but the it's not. So it might be good to kill the child because if it cures dieases, many people will not lose their lives to caner, and more. But, the bad part it that with the cure for dieases the population of the world will grow bigger. The world will not grow bigger, so will the people population getting bigger it will crowd the world. Also, how do you know that this 'child' will be the cure for the diease? What if you sacrafic the child but no cure comes from it? Then you would have killed an inocent child for no aparent reason. Won't you feel guilty about it after you kill the child and nothing comes out of it? i know i would

He He He



No, I couldnt kill my best friend or mum or dad

Ouch. This one's hard. Makes for a good climax if the people the killer thinks you've killed actually haven't died at all.

I'm just glad these dilemmas are hypothetical.

I'll get back with my answer later...

I don't believe in the death penalty soley because I believe that life in prison is worse. If someone I knew was murdered, I'd have the murderer live the rest of his life locked up in a cell with no human contact and no chance of escape, as well as living with the guilt of having murdered someone. Also, if an innocent person is given life in prison, then there is a chance that new technologies etc. could prove him/her innocent, whereas with the death penalty there is no going back.

For the child vs. disease, I would personally let the child live, but not because I believe that it would be worse to kill the child. Unfortuatly, disease keeps the population from growing too big to fast. However, this is already happening, so it becomes a choice of whether mankind should exist without disease but die after a short period of time due to overpopulation, or have people die from disease but have the overall existance of mankind prolonged.

good awnser

Frankly, it would have been better if we all die. Could you even imagine the amount of guilt, the utter devastation of knowing that you killed those dearest and closest to you. Sometimes, it is the one who survive that carry the most burden.



Firstly, you have to define what is this "cure mankind of all disease" thing? Is it a cure for all the diseases that we have now? If that, then no, I won't. Mankind has been surviving with diseases for millenias, there is no reason to alter the balance. As you can probably deduce, I'm a big fan of "Balance". I believe that everything is there for a reason, for you to try to change the balance may result in devastating consequences. So no, I won't kill the child.

However, if the situation was of that this child would utterly devastate humankind. I mean, really wipe out the humankind, I would kill it. Of course, this is only in theory. I reckon that no one wants to see their loved ones suffer from illnesses.



Isn't this derived from the classic "if you could only save one" question? That's just it isn't it? You wouldn't know for sure until you encounter this problem. I'm staying silent on this subject, Hunter X Hunter style.

Here's the reverse.
Would you kill 90% of earths population to save the life of the only one you loved?
I answer yes...

i'd say no. in my opinion, that's incredibly selfish, and will your loved one appreciate it or will they feel incredibly guilty that they were the cause of the deaths of a few billion people? if i was the dying loved one, i'd rather just die.

i would never do it because, 1. it's cruel and inhuman, and 2. without diese, there is nothing to stop us from expanding until we become over populated. we shouldnt even think about finding cure to disese until we have figured out to colonize other worlds. if that has already been done, i still wouldnt kill a child in cold blood , i would give them an injection or something humane.

i'm with you

i dont get the question...how do you know that killing the child will cure the disease?

I've already told people millions of times don't cure desieses or world hunger it is mother natures way of not overpopulating unlesss.

we open a humen hunting season

i couldnt kill anyone... to many hands are already stained with blood and i dont want to contribute to that

Kill a child and save humanity from disease, that'd just create over population and we'll either kill everything else or kill each other anyway.

I say we quit even trying to cure disease and sickness and let more people die there's too many of them...

good point

Well its been done in the past to cure polio, small pox, ect. The Government would use children from orphanages to perform expirimental treatments on. Approximatly 500 orphaned children died of the from their experinmental vaccines... But thats the the darker side to the creation of vaccines.

So in comparison to sacraficing one child for the needs of the many I suppose I wouldnt, but thats not saying that there isnt someone that would.

Of course. And if you can't do it yourself, you can always hire someone. Some people will do anything for money nowadays.

Hmm...Yah I suppose your right!
*Goes out and hires himself some minions*

Hmm maybe I'll actually get myself some forum minions... *Grins in a diabolical fashion*

I forbid you to make another coup. Believe me, it's for your own good.

Who said about a coup or a group or whatever...I'll enslave you all!!

I dont know id jus kill but as long as i get away completely with it

question hard head hurting............no

If someone does sacrifice a kid to cure humanity of all diseases, I don't want to sound all cold hearted but there would be economical problems since medications, medical supplies, and etc wouldn't be sold and the companies would go bankrupt, causing many people to lose their jobs. And then there's the population problem. If people just dies of old age or by fatal accidents, this world will become even more overpopulated and many problems arise from that. This would be reality.

I couldn't do it. I mean, what if it was your child(even if you don't have one)? I can't bring myself to kill someone when they don't deserve it, even if it will save other people. And yes...I know I sound selfish, but I still can't do it.

No offence but i would HATE to have you backing me up in a fight.

No offense taken. I'm not much of a fighter

I would without a second thought. You have to think...millions of innocent children die of disease. So in reality the to options you have are: A)Kill one child. or B)Kill millions, and eventually billions.

if one life must be sacrificed to save millions i say do it.

I really don't know. I wouldn't kill a child with my bare hands. But I guess yes. Sacrificing 1 person too save millions and billions of people is ok. But if it were something like killing 100 people no way.

You wouldn't sacrifice one child to save 100 other people, many of them possibly being other children?

unless there is really no cure... n scientists are giving up... which i hope not...

That sounded cruel

But yes, I would kill a child to cure mankind. Call me cold-hearted, but I would do it, and do you know how... I would bite him Blood from an innocent child keeps you alive longer than the sinful blood of a grown-up...

On the other hand, I don't think there are a cure for mankind...

watch many vampire movies?

I wouldn't kill a child for a cureall for humanity. Humanity shouldn't be so damn selfish and barbaric.

i would'nt

I would.
You could just word the question to: Would you let Everyone die just so one kid will live?
Nut's to that. Kill the little brat and save the world.

what if that was your little brat?
it's just bad karma either way

If it's my kid? Well then I'd still make the sacrifice if it's the only cure and if the disease is really bad.

I'd rather feel guilty at the kids funeral surounded by friends and family (before going to prison) than to feel guilty for letting everyone else die and resenting the child.

have we been given any criteria on the disease? is there a chance we could 'sacrifice' the kid and not end up with anything?

I wouldn't have any guilt of having other people 'naturally' die. Forcing a person to die though, that will have lasting psychological difficulties on you as a parent.

I think the uilt would come from knowing you could have stopped that much death. I assume death anyway because I doubt anyone would kill a child to stop a slight headache and runny nose.

I used to do research on ways of treating cancer. I stopped a few months ago. Do I feel guilty about quitting? Nope.

There are ways around sacrificing a kid anyways these days. One could take cells from a placenta or perhaps bone marrow cells from the kid and save the day.


It's easy to sacrifice someone else.

I think the better question is:

Would you sacrifice yourself?

For me, right now....i'd say probably.