I designed two new banners. Let me know which one you prefer. Click to enlarge both of them.
Yesterday, I asked whether you would kill an innocent girl to cure the world of HIV/AIDS, ultimately saving millions of lives. Given that HIV and AIDS kills 6,500 people every day, leaving millions of children as orphans in Africa alone, is the killing of one innocent person justified?
I couldn't kill one person to save millions of lives because doing so means I have to ask myself, "How far would I go? How many people would I kill to save millions?" Let's ask the question again, except this time, you have to kill ten innocent people to cure the world of HIV/AIDS. Would you still do it? What about killing a hundred? A thousand? Many of you justified killing one person to save millions, but would you kill thousands of people? At what point would you stop and say, "Alright, this isn't ethical anymore."
To the people who said they would kill the girl yesterday, how many people would you kill to cure the world of AIDS?
28 comments:
Do I have to kill anyone lol
I don't think I would kill the girl. AIDS is treatable and isn't a death sentence if you can afford the medication. I would simply try to get the medications out and more affordable. lol
@Timothy: You make a good point. The cost of offering everyone medication > life of one girl? People can decide for themselves on that.
People in Africa can't afford medication. Technically, most people don't die of HIV/AIDS, but the diseases that come with it when the immune system is impaired.
bottom banner!
I'd kill myself to cure aids! But I'm not a girl and am only one person!
Hmm, second one, yeah.
2nd one but personally i think you should make the width shorter so it looks more like a banner. like 860 pixels by 250 pixels
2nd banner, looks like you picked that one already though.
I'd say the first one?
It's a very difficult question because there's no way we can assign a value to human life. Just because it's 1 vs millions, doesn't mean it's simple math. What if that girl grows up to produce amazing art, or a new political paradigm or... cures aids? Trying to find a ratio that would be acceptable doesn't work because it's still one human life too many.
At the same time, if actually presented with the opportunity it would take a lot of pondering. The magnitude of all aids sufferers being cured would be immense, and people die unjustly everyday, including those very same aids sufferers.
second banner in my opinion.
well, if you would kill everyone who has AIDS, is it like curing AIDS?
I dont know. I dont want to say "killing one is ok but killing more is bad", the more i think about it the more i question my own humanity
Think you picked the right banner orientation.
I'd kill the number of people reasonably expected to die of hiv/aids in the short to near term. I do think it is simple arithmetic; whatif's about future potential are great and all, but are unreal, and unponderable.
As is, hiv is treatable. That fact that anyone dies of hiv/aids in this day and age is criminal. That is something that should be more than hypothetically pondered upon.
first banner
Second banner, which you seem to have already chosen. It keeps the flow of the eyes going, the other option kind of stunts the flow for a moment.
I have tendencies towards well-intentioned extremism, or rather a colder kind of logic. I would say to kill the girl and make her a martyr, but if offered the option, I would have myself killed instead. I do not believe myself any more important than her.
As for your newer question, that's hard to answer. It would depend on how MANY would have to be killed. If this is more along the lines of "How many would you kill if you didn't know how many had to die," then I wouldn't kill any. A shot in the dark like that is ill-advised. If I had one thousand people killed, and I had to kill 1,001 to cure AIDS/HIV, it would have been a complete and utter waste of human life, and I can't do that. But if I killed a thousand and the number would have been 816, then that means I had 184 people killed for no reason.
Of course, you can argue that those additional 184 people were insurance, but I would argue that point.
As for knowing the number, it depends. I would say that it could not exceed 0.1% of the world's population. To destroy a disease that kills or otherwise destroys the lives of many, many more than that, I would make that sacrifice. However, I would allow each individual to choose him or herself, answering whether or not they wanted to die for that cause. So, 0.1% of the world's population would be, what? 6.9 hundred thousand?
And if not enough agreed, then I suppose I would have that number of people randomly picked, proportionately from each country, and then killed.
So, in the end:
+I would have the girl killed
+I would have myself killed instead if allowed
+I would not have anyone killed without that number
+If I knew the number, I would consent, try to perform a worldwide casting call for martyrs
+If the following was true but I failed to receive the number, I would surgically have a proportionate amount killed from each country
No 2
There is no "insurance" when it comes to death. If you have to kill a thousand to save 864, that makes no sense: it'd be more ethical to allow the 864 to die instead of taking a thousand lives.
No, there comes a time where you gotta draw the line. Kill a hundred to save a thousand? Too many.
Kill ten to save millions? Refer to the whole "they are heroes they must be honored for their sacrifice" line from my previous answer.
Like I said, I'm willing to kill in order to save...but there DOES have to be a clear line in the sand drawn. When the cost outweighs the profit (lives given to lives saved) then it's not worth it.
Let's not even attempt to speak of "quality" of those souls sacrificed - no such thing, y'know? Cleanliness, sure, but quality?
Naw man, souls are souls, lives are lives. Kill ten to save millions, sure. Kill a hundred to save millions? Questionable.
Kill a thousand? Isn't that genocide?
If half the world has to die so the other half has to live, it becomes a matter of willingness and choice versus those unwilling...and I'll give you great odds at how much greater those unwilling are versus those that are willing.
Oh my gosh this is so deep. Why have I not found your blog before? :O
It's a hard question.
Bottom banner. As for the question of ethics, I would say yes, but there is no way I can figure out to really calculate the value of a human life in this instance.
2nd. and Utilitarianism for the win! I would would kill one to save many. It's for the greatest good for the greatest about of people. You'd think it'd be a no brainer but I understand how it's controversial. How do you value one life over others? It's tough, but I would do it.
I like them both. D:
The top one, don't quite know why but the top one. +followed.
mufcfollowers
The second looks best. You're welcome.
Both of the banners look great, but for some reason i like the top one idk why. I don't think any life is more important than any other, not to be harsh but if someone has the disease they are probably going to die from it at some point in their lives, nothing can be done about it. But killing someone on the chance that you could save someone else...I don't think any real loving human can do that. And if they could who is to say that that little girl wouldn't have grown up to cure the disease herself? You can't play god.
I prefer the second banner.
And that has to be the most difficult question... How far would you go? I have no idea. One person... ten... a hundred. To save generations from something... I think it could be justified.
You could also just kill every human who currently has aids. That would stop the spread of the virus and save millions of lives in the future. Though I doubt that preventing the spread of the virus is so important to the victims that they'd eradicate themselves. I guess a better option would be regular testing and education in all areas of the world.
I'd probably kill up to ten people, but then it'd go to far for me.
they both look epic but i like the first one a tad better
If the amount killed is always lower than the value of the amount saved, then it is still ethical, just brutal.
@Sketchar how utilitarian of you. I think if its the people you are trying to save that are potentially dying the mechanics of this question get easier. Let the possible patient decide their fate. I cannot create a scenario where someone has to die to save someone else so I think it's an artificial construct with no value. I choose not to play.
Post a Comment