Question about Morality

[Romial]

Lets say there was a terrible desiese somewhere and it began to spread. Killing thousands among thousands of people(one that isn't already alive per say, a ficitional disease). And a radical doctor was trying to find ways of finding a cure for it. But the only way he could is by injecting hundreds of people with the disease and test out some of his theory's on them, killing them until he gets it right. Well he finally finds a cure for the disease thankfully.

Now the question is...would you allow the same treatment be used on you if you had the disease? If you do, it would mean him killing all those people were worth it and might happen again in the future. But if you don't, well then you're pretty much shit out of luck.

 

[Guest]

 

[Gusty Wind]

hehe.. sexyyyy face..

I saw a movie once likes...

to answer your Q..

YES and NO.. mmuahhh``

hehe lol

 

[James G 5]

Lets try and calculate this
hmmm the death of me
or the death of 6 billion people.
hmmm now I know i'm worth a tonne more than you....but even i'd be stretching the truth thinking I was worth more than 6billion

Wow, even Hanns has standards!
(of course if everyone they were testing it on was an Arab or Muslim he'd probably go with it )

 

[Gusty Wind]

Lets try and calculate this

hmmm the death of me

or the death of 6 billion people.


hmmm now I know i'm worth a tonne more than you....but even i'd be stretching the truth thinking I was worth more than 6billion

OOO !! not yet...

I don't want you to die yet...

I still haven't see you sexyyyyyyyyyyy eyes ..

mmmuuah ~wink` ~ miss you sexyyyy

now are you gonna *Ignore* me again ?mmuahh on you lips .

<boing> wrong !!!

I meant kiss on the stupid COLD HARD STEEL>>>BLOOOOPp..

sexyyyy .. you av to me .. aww

 

[The Heretic]

Now the question is...would you allow the same treatment be used on you if you had the disease?

Yes.

If you do, it would mean him killing all those people were worth it and might happen again in the future.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. My use of a cure/treatment found by killing other people neither justifies the methods used to find the treatment, nor does it mean that because I take advantage of the treatment that I am responsible for how it was arrived at. The end does not justify the means (the experimentation) and I can take advantage of the end (the cure/treatment) if I didn't participate in the means of arriving at the , and I didn't condone the means, and I tried not to allow the means.

 

[sterlingclay]

Since I don't put people ahead of animals and we use animals for that sort of thing anyway, yes. If the treatment were available I would use it.

But known human testing is kind of absurd, don't you think? Why would that go public? People freak over that sort of thing.

 

[CuffedKitty]

Yes I would use it.

First, maybe he killed a hundred people to find this cure but in finding a cure it could now save millions or even billions of people.

Second, those people would have been dead anyway because the disease would of spread and they would have died from that.

Third, if someone says there's this cure that's going to save my life, morality be damned, I'm taking it.

 

[Romial]

First, maybe he killed a hundred people to find this cure but in finding a cure it could now save millions or even billions of people.

But killing one life is murder enough. Hence this is where Morality comes from. Do your morals say that if people got murdered to find a cure, was it worth it? What would the families of those people think or feel? What if YOUR family was part of the people murdered to find a cure?

 

[watergirl]

I think...

yes, if I could afford it, if it was available, if I heard about in time, if I was smart enough to acknowledge in time that I was sick and needed to see a doctor...

my family is full of stubborn people who sometimes die of things that could have been treated...

But, really, I agree with Sterlingclay... we test things on animals, they die for us... this was such an odd question... why not ask, would you be a guinea pig for the experimental version of the cure?

I think this is somewhat a stupid question - people who have diseases can volunteer for experimental treatments and such, as it is now - the hypothetical doctor would have no need to go around infecting people with the disease...

and, hey, how bout that smallpox vaccine, while we're on the topic?

 

[Romial]

Gotta go out for a little while. I'll check it when I get home...kinda interested to read it all.

 

[CuffedKitty]

But killing one life is murder enough. Hence this is where Morality comes from. Do your morals say that if people got murdered to find a cure, was it worth it? What would the families of those people think or feel? What if YOUR family was part of the people murdered to find a cure?

In your hypothetical situation, yes, it was worth it. If this disease spread and everyone died, what good would morals be? Everyone died on planet earth but we stuck to our morals?

If this was the situation and I was asked to participate, knowing I would die, but in so doing, could save my children, friends and family I would do it. If I didn't, I'd still die and so would they. I would hope the families of these people would also see it the same way.

Edited for spelling. Picky picky.

 

[Lasher]

desiese is my new favorite word.

 

[The Heretic]

If this disease spread and everyone died, what good would morals be?

What good is life without morals?

I love threads like this; helps me know who to avoid in real life and gives me any idea just how easily corruptable some people are - they can justify anything to stay alive, including murder (assuming that is what we are talking about here; the original hypothetical scenario was not absolutely clear on that - although I would infer that the "killing" was murder).

 

[sterlingclay]

I love threads like this; helps me know who to avoid in real life and gives me any idea just how easily corruptable some people are - they can justify anything to stay alive, including murder (assuming that is what we are talking about here; the original hypothetical scenario was not absolutely clear on that - although I would infer that the "killing" was murder).

This thread topic has no place in reality. It's out of the Twilight Zone. It's a 'B' movie script.

To take a cure for a disease is a given. Healthy people forced into experimentation is insane nazi practice. Why do that during an epidemic? People have volunteered themselves for aids beta drugs, and in a situation like this, the sick would volunteer themselves too. I would too, if I were sick. But there would be no need for such kidnappings if honestly sick people were readily willing and available.

If that nazi practice were rekindled, we may have a bigger problem than morality. The return of Hitler is not a pleasant thought.

 

[Ezarc]

How much do my surviviors get paid?

 

[sterlingclay]

How much do my surviviors get paid?

I'll tell you when you tell me what the hell a 'surviviors' is.

 

[Lancecastor]

desiese is my new favorite word.

Will the cure kill Yayati?

 

[cuervorose]

My two cents

From the way this was worded, kidnapping the "victims" was not a part of it. What if those who had died had volunteered? Therefore wouldn't NOT taking advantage of the cure be even more of an injustice to them? After all these people (theoretically) gave their lives in order to find a cure. The cure may save thousands more than were killed to find it. Does that restore balance?

Sorry if this is somewhat repetitive of what was already posted, but the injustice to those who had died in the testing hadn't been brought up. And isn't that all part of morality; or lack thereof?

 

[Lost Cause]

Kill me....

I've lived long enough, and if it'll help protect future generations with innoculation, then my time here was well spent.
Hey! Isn't this a reverse of an old Star Trek episode where the planet leader's daughter boinked Kirk to get a fatal gene to kill off the planet's overpopulation?

 

[Lost Cause]

So what you're really saying....

It would be immoral for people to accept products of medicine where test subjects die? So we shouldn't participate in;

Innoculations for children
Organ transplants
Aids treatments
High blood pressure medicines
Diabetic medicines

To name a few products available from life/death research.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: So what you're really saying....

It would be immoral for people to accept products of medicine where test subjects die?

The inference was that all test subjects die - at least until a cure was developed. As I read it the inference was also that this was not a voluntary or informed consent situation. Romial used the word "killing" so it is not totally clear what he meant by that, but the inference is strong.

 

[sterlingclay]

See? This thread us messed. The story is is full of holes and the landlord is nowhere to be found.

 

[Romial]

The people tested were NOT volunteer's. They were tested without their permission and injected without their permission. Thus murdered.

 

[sterlingclay]

The people tested were NOT volunteer's. They were tested without their permission and injected without their permission. Thus murdered.

Ah, there you go. Nazi shit. But where would we be today without Hitler's beetle?