Would It Be Right?

Picture this:

There is a terrable virus effecting the world.
It kills millions in a brutil, horrible way.
one man caught it ... yet lived.
Now, people think that he might hold the cure to the whole plague.

but ...

To find the cure, the mans brain must be removed ... obviasly killing him.
But it dosn't end there

If the man is "put to sleep", the effect will be the distruction of the cure within his brain, and if he is sedated, it will aslo distroy all chance of it being removed.
the only way, is to remove it well he is fully alive ... and fully conchas.

here are two situations:

one: He is willing to die so others will be saved. is it right to kill him?

two: He is cowerd, and will not agree to die ... no matter how much others ar suffering. so it right to murder him?

vote your heart

No one has the right to decide on someone else life.

Well you asked if it was right. No its not right and its a horrible thing. Now would I do it anyway? Possibly.

But if no one has the right to decide on anybody else's life, than doesn't that mean that they wouldn't have the right to decide to let every other person on Earth die because of this one man as well?

It's the lesser of two evils if you think about it, sacrifice one sheep to save the whole herd, or save one sheep and sacrifice the herd.

Also, if you want to get completely philosophical, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? No one, except maybe God if there is one. But even then, how do we know that God's "right", since "right" is only a concept of the human mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayside

But if no one has the right to decide on anybody else's life, than doesn't that mean that they wouldn't have the right to decide to let every other person on Earth die because of this one man as well?

It's the lesser of two evils if you think about it, sacrifice one sheep to save the whole herd, or save one sheep and sacrifice the herd.

Also, if you want to get completely philosophical, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? No one, except maybe God if there is one. But even then, how do we know that God's "right", since "right" is only a concept of the human mind.
[/b]

---

Well, I don't think God is versed with philosophy. And I don't think he is good either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayside

Also, if you want to get completely philosophical, who's to say what's right and what's wrong? No one, except maybe God if there is one. But even then, how do we know that God's "right", since "right" is only a concept of the human mind.
[/b]

---

I agree with Bayside, you can't talk about 'right' and 'wrong' in such situations. I too would say it was morally 'wrong' to kill the man if he didn't want to, but ethically it would be 'right'. It's like talking about whether or not imprisonment of criminals is wrong - the point is, they hurt society, so society makes sure they won't do it again. One being hurt, many others spared. And as Bayside, I'd also say righteousness is subjective, period. If you should choose a general viewpoint, it would be what's right or wrong for life itself (i.e. 'right' is what ensures a large biomass). Since virus is generally not considered life, I guess the man would have to die.

If you would let millions die just because of 2 people being egocentric (the guy, but understandable, and the 'you' for caring to much about Your feelings and thoughs when 'killing' an innocent man).

Save millions a painful death by one. No-brainer. Ofcourse the man isn't going to agree. I even wouldn't. That doesn't make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rav1

Well, I don't think God is versed with philosophy. And I don't think he is good either.
[/b]

---

Well, of course it all depends on what you believe. And that was just a part that I threw in anyway, it wasn't supposed to be the main point of my post, just a side-note you could refer to if you could be bothered to. The main point is that there is no right and wrong, just mere concepts of the mind, as is just about everything else, and that one man should not be able to decide whether or not the rest of human civilization lives or dies (talking about the man with the cure in his brain here).

Something allmost exactly like this question also appears in the book 'the god delusion' by richard dawking. It isn't a surprise that allmost all people have the same reactions, it doesn't matter where they are from or what they believe (aslong as it doesn't directly mix with some of their ideas, like you shouldn't make the living man Karl Marx or The Pope.)

Intrestingly, people generally thing that 'sacrifice 1 for 5' is fine, aslong as you don't 'kill-to-save-5'. Would you have to choose between saving 5 people in a room by trowing a bomb in the only possible place: another room with one person in it, that would be cool. However if it was just one room, and the only way to safe 5 people would be to push a very fat man on the bomb so no one else would get hurt, That wouldn't be okay, in most people's mind.

I voted yes, but with #2, it is only on the contingency that we know he has the cure for sure. If it is just a suspicioun, then killing him is wrong because what if it turns out he has no cure. I we know he will cure everyone it is worth it. One person being killed brutally is worth saving millions.

i would kill the person without a second thought then let a million people die a horrible death because he is a coward.
another one is would you kill a little girl to save a million people.
if you had the choice to pick between two people if a madman strap bombs to the person would you save a person who had found a cure for a disease thus saving thousand people or one of your familliy members let say your mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

i would kill the person without a second thought then let a million people die a horrible death because he is a coward.
another one is would you kill a little girl to save a million people.
if you had the choice to pick between two people if a madman strap bombs to the person would you save a person who had found a cure for a disease thus saving thousand people or one of your familliy members let say your mother.
[/b]

---

If you would kill a man, then you will probably kill a little girl. I wouldn't kill him, since it's his life and his choice, it's also not his fault that people are dieing, I would probably be the one helping him escape from the angry mob.
About the family members, well it all depends on the way you view the world, or those thousand people...

I say it is "right" but only because I think killing and death is "right" in all cases - just like the fictional disease killing people is "right".

Now ask me what "right" means... lol

~

is it moraly exeptable or socially correct.

or does it violat your conchance.

I don't think that any one has the right to decide who lives and who dies, but with situation 1 if the guy agrees to die to save others then I think it would be acceptable.

But with the second option, I don't know because at the end of the day one person will be hurt and no one has the right to decide who it will be.

Uh, yes. Yes, it would be right. Greater love hath no man than he who lies down his life for his friends. Or whatever.

Right and wrong can differ in the eyes of different people. The man who is the carrier will might see it as wrong if the others attempt to kill him, while the others see it as wrong when he doesn't want to die in order to save humanity.

I would find it horribly unfair from his perspective to die unwillingly by the others. But then again, they do it to save themselves and their loved ones. So I can't say it is right or wrong, since it may differ in the eyes of him and the others.

However, if he willingly accept to die, and the others kill him, then probably all of them would find it as the "right" choice.

Has no one heard of quarantine?? :P This has made me wonder about something similar - I will post the topic here

It would definately be wiser to kill one or a few persons carrying a virus capable of destroying the entire race, and get rid of the threat once and for all, than quarantine him and risk someone actually being stupid enough to release him, allowing the virus to spread.