Thread: If a virus...

I'd say not. It can only survive by infecting us and replicating itself inside of our cells. You might say "But if it realized it was killing us, wouldn't that be immoral and it should stop?" The only counter I have for that is that we can only survive by killing the virus, so we kill it off without thinking about it, so does that mean we should stop killing viruses? In a situation where two organisms meet and only 1 can survive, I wouldn't think it would be immoral to kill the opposing organism. Its unfortunate that one has to die, but hey its survival of the fittest.

I agree with Fantasy. Everything must eat something else to survive, so even if a virus was intelligent enough to realize it was killing us, I wouldn't blame it any more than I would blame humankind for eating plants and animals.

I've always been somewhat fascinated with parasites. Because I believe in Creation (to a point), I often wonder about the durability of critters like lice and tapeworm. It boggles by brain to imagine lice going back as far as after the Fall and traveling from person to person ever since. But- I guess, I digress lol

No, because infections are a consequence of what a virus does as it grows. If it morally "chose not to infect somebody" as if it had the capacity to know this, then it wouldn't be a virus. I don't think that is possible. What else would it do?

Why should it care? We're only people, after all - we're sub-virus.

Depends what knowing includes. For example, I know that kind and happy animals are killed for me and I consider myself as pretty moral. I think that this knowing isn't too well defined. If all it has is knowledge, then why would it stop? What does this knowing include?

Unless this is a trick question since viruses would win the "we are just a bunch of atoms" competition among other "living-ish" things and can't really stop what they are doing because they aren't doing anything. Personally, I think this is a very silly question. But anyway this is supposed to be the philosophy sections so... No they wouldn't stop. Because they couldn't or because knowing doesn't really constitute morality (whatever it is).

Why do I have the feeling we're helping O'nus with his homework?

I'll say yes, it ought to stop, because the vast majority of viruses cause their host little or no discomfort, and those guys propagate their DNA more widely. Viral pacifists likely have a more varied genome, being more widespread, and greater influence, if less dramatic, on the ecology at large.

The only measure by which killer viruses succeed more than pacifists is the video game logic of "kill=win."

Originally Posted by O'nus

If a virus knew that it was making people sick and even possibly killing people, ought it stop infecting people? Why?

~

By human moral standards, yes. But why would a virus give a shit about that? By virus moral standards (if they had them), we should be helping them reproduce.

They are blood thirsty jerks...

On the serious note: They don't have brain/feelings. They are just doing it because that's how they were programmed.

Viruses aren't all bad. There 10 non human cells in your body for every human cell present.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Viruses aren't all bad. There 10 non human cells in your body for every human cell present.

Well, viruses aren't cells, but otherwise...ya!

Killer viruses are aberrations just like killer humans.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well, viruses aren't cells, but otherwise...ya!

Killer viruses are aberrations just like killer humans.

I don't know if I agree with that. Killer humans choose to kill other humans. Killer viruses, on the other hand need to kill humans in order to survive. You say that some viruses can survive without causing harm to their host, and thats true, but the ones that do cause harm can't choose not to anymore than you can choose the color of your eyes. Viruses are a simple machine, and their genome is a replication program that they can run once inside of a cell. If they were to have a choice, it would be to either kill themselves without replicating, or infect someone and cause damage. Since we don't consider it immoral to kill other organisms to survive (whether it be plants or animals that we eat), there is no reason it should be immoral for a virus to infect us to pass on its genes.

I cant even understand this question

I cant even understand why something that doesn't even know its alive cares whether or not it is surviving

I mean, there is just something about viruses that come off as more of an artificial life, a program, more than a real living thing

call me crazy, but I'm not sure we have the whole story on viruses

The only thing that really separates viruses from other sorts of organisms is the fact that viruses cannot reproduce on their own; they require other cells to help. I can't see how something not self-contained like this could even come about in the first place... but I doubt they would stop if they knew what was going on. It's like telling humans to stop reproducing. A few might, but most wouldn't care.

This suddenly reminds me of Half-Life 2. Suppression fields anyone?

I think the question is whether a virus should stop infecting and killing people if it could choose to (assuming of course that it has the necessary intelligence)?

Personally I'd say it depends what the "intelligent unit" is - if one virus molecule is the living being in question, it should not infect people, because it only needs to infect people to reproduce, and it's wrong to kill a sentient being in order that another can reproduce. However, if "the virus" is some sort of intelligent distributed organism made of millions of virus molecules, I would agree with Fantasy and Zhaylin, since its life is at stake.

Have you read Speaker for the Dead, or Xenocide (part of the Ender's Game series)?

Your question immediately made me think of those books, being that in the story it was suggested that the virus plaguing a particular planet that a colony of humans were attempting to survive on possessed intelligence.


To answer your question:


There is not enough information provided to give us any reason to believe that a virus would not want to do what it does best. Some questions that may lead us to a sensible answer may read as follows-

1- Does the virus have morals, and if so, what kind of morals?
2- Does the virus possess the ability to enjoy particular actions?
3- Does the virus have the capacity for empathy?
And so on..

Originally Posted by Invader

There is not enough information provided to give us any reason to believe that a virus would not want to do what it does best. Some questions that may lead us to a sensible answer may read as follows-

1- Does the virus have morals, and if so, what kind of morals?
2- Does the virus possess the ability to enjoy particular actions?
3- Does the virus have the capacity for empathy?
And so on..

I'm not sure any of those questions really matter. I don't think it is reasonable to fault an organism for doing the only thing that allows it to survive. Humans have morals, yet we consider it reasonable to do anything necessary to keep ourselves alive. Even many crimes become moral when it is a choice of the crime or our own death. Many humans enjoy eating other organisms. We even go out of our way to prepare their corpses in delicious ways. I don't think that is generally considered immoral. Those of us who eat animals often have empathy for the animals we must eat, but we do it anyway because we have to eat. I think it would be a bit arrogant to allow ourselves to kill whatever we want in order to survive, but expect viruses to stop for our sakes.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I don't know if I agree with that. Killer humans choose to kill other humans. Killer viruses, on the other hand need to kill humans in order to survive. You say that some viruses can survive without causing harm to their host, and thats true, but the ones that do cause harm can't choose not to anymore than you can choose the color of your eyes. Viruses are a simple machine, and their genome is a replication program that they can run once inside of a cell. If they were to have a choice, it would be to either kill themselves without replicating, or infect someone and cause damage. Since we don't consider it immoral to kill other organisms to survive (whether it be plants or animals that we eat), there is no reason it should be immoral for a virus to infect us to pass on its genes.

No, viruses can't choose, but the question posits that they can. Killer viruses do not need to kill to survive, and in fact it's counter productive, particularly if they're attacking humans who isolate our infected. You'll notice that "killer" viruses tend to die back or die out: you don't see a lot of bubonic plague or tuberculosis these days. If the hosts don't develop immunity, the virus itself adapts to do less harm, such as syphilis, which used to disfigure and kill its host but adapted to keep its host alive and screwing.

Yes, it's ridiculous to impose morals on a fleck of biotica, but from any standpoint except one that values killing itself, the killer virus is on no better than equal footing with its kinder cousins, and is often worse off.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

No, viruses can't choose, but the question posits that they can. Killer viruses do not need to kill to survive, and in fact it's counter productive, particularly if they're attacking humans who isolate our infected. You'll notice that "killer" viruses tend to die back or die out: you don't see a lot of bubonic plague or tuberculosis these days. If the hosts don't develop immunity, the virus itself adapts to do less harm, such as syphilis, which used to disfigure and kill its host but adapted to keep its host alive and screwing.

I was more implying that even if a killer virus is intelligent and can decide whether to infect or not to, it is still born with only one function which is to die or to survive by infecting a cell. When I said it can't choose, I just meant it can't choose its genome, which is ultimately which decides if it is a killer virus or not. Whether or not it is counter-productive doesn't matter, because the individual virus can't just change its genome to be unharmful.

Kill yourself and save the world!

or at least a few cows.

plants.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I was more implying that even if a killer virus is intelligent and can decide whether to infect or not to, it is still born with only one function which is to die or to survive by infecting a cell. When I said it can't choose, I just meant it can't choose its genome, which is ultimately which decides if it is a killer virus or not. Whether or not it is counter-productive doesn't matter, because the individual virus can't just change its genome to be unharmful.

Lol, I was about to jump on you for begging the question (the OP presupposes the virus does have a choice), but looking at the OP, I wasn't really responding to what's being asked, either. O'nus asks if the virus should stop infecting people, and my answer there would be no, it should keep going until less harmful offspring predominate, or the hosts develop adequate defense.

I hoped this would turn into some sort of metaphor of our conduct in this world, somehow...

We're killing people right now. People who have no money to buy food, shelter or proper medicine. All because of the greedy west...
We're killing people right now. People who simply believe other things than other people do.
...And stuff...

...

Oh well...

This question is reflecting my very concern over whether humans ought to continue to "infect" the world whilst knowing we are destroying it, etc. etc.

The debate over virus' consciousness is not really my personal concern, but it is intriguing. It makes me look down upon our own consciousness really - are we much different from a virus? We depend on other cells to reproduce. Technically, the sperm infects the ovum. Is this really that far different..? Of course it is in some ways, but I hope you see my point in the long run.

I suppose that is what it comes down to though, because you must have the ability to morally mitigate before making a moral decision.

On the other hand, it also shows how empowering even a bacteria sized cell can be.

One single viral cell moves into a body.. then multiplies, manipulates, moves, and before you know it, it has control over an entire body.

Does this not sound similar to something else close at home..? My, globalization is certainly impressive..

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

If a virus knew that it was making people sick and even possibly killing people, ought it stop infecting people? Why?

~

I don't think there is an ought about it.

Viruses aren't all bad. There 10 non human cells in your body for every human cell present.

I think you're confusing bacterial cells with viruses. Viruses are just complex molecules; they're not normally viewed as life.