Following up on that, soulmurk, how exactly are you using the term, “laws of nature”? As I understand it, to violate the laws of nature is neither immoral nor unwise, but by definition impossible. Nothing that actually happens or exists can be “unnatural” – unless you are using that term to mean “artificial,” i.e., a result of conscious action by sentient beings (us); in which case all such actions and their results are “unnatural” equally, the welfare hospital no more so than the knapped-flint arrowhead.
[hijack]
Come to think of it, not even God can violate the laws of nature. Especially not God. If He exists, he is the source of those laws, and has both the power and the authority to decree a momentary variance, and the resulting “miracle” is as “natural” as anything else. I recall that once, in the early stages of the French Revolution when Louis XVI was still king, a minister advised him on a proposed course of action, “Sire, it is illegal.” Louis hotly replied, “That makes no difference! It is legal because I wish it!” In terms of French constitutional traditions Louis probably was wrong on that point. But if a truly absolute monarch such as the tsar of Russia had said that, he would have been right. And so would God.
No, it is a morally excusable action. That does not mean it is not a moral decision. You are, after all, deciding whether or not to take a human life. It’s not the same as if the source of the threat were some inanimate object.
We’re not talking about an equal, down the line, statistically equal die-off, so this, while interesting, is getting off track.
Yeah, leave it for future generations to worry about. They’ll probably have a ray gun that sterilizes people and a settlement on the moon for violent criminals anyway.
Because when it’s time to die off, we prevent the natural flux from happening.
Again I ask, why do we have to be in the crisis to deal with it? We’ve got highly touted brains, why not use them to avoid the drastic times altogether?
Might be less in the interpretation and more in the delivery.
Ironic, isn’t it?
It does make for an interesting question… maybe I’m just waiting for everyone else to go first.
Would depend upon the circumstances I’d guess.
As I understand it, his illness didn’t manifest itself until later in life, so it wouldn’t have been an issue because he would have survived into adulthood. If he were unable to survive to adulthood, no one would have known what he could have offered.
Fair enough, but there’s still no need to paint false imagery.
The only way to effectively allow for a more natural selection of survival would be to take away technology and medical advances and revert back to a more animalistic and “natural” way of living, effectively eliminating scientific gains made over the past few centuries.
To get to that point there would need to be either some kind of major catastrophe or else a takeover of US government by some kind of dictator.
That begs the question, then, what makes it morally excusable? What are the parameters for being morally excusable versus morally inexcusable? If I felt my personal survival were threatened by an overpopulated country, would I be morally excused to defend my life by removing the threat?
In any event, the personal basis of the answer is exactly why morality does not belong in a discussion about something that affects everyone.
Because both the people who would be eliminated and those who who have to do the eliminating find it morally and personally objectionable. It’s like telling someone they can eliminate fleas by throwing their pets into a blast furnace; no matter how true, it misses the point.
Whatever social problems there are that would be solved by a die off, they pale in comparison to the social problem that is the die off. Mass starvation is a social problem if anything is.
Maybe. Who knows? Why don’t we wait until there actually is a problem before we propose radical solutions to it?
When our numbers get too great for the earth to support, there will be no way to prevent a die-off. Disease and starvation will thin the herd, just as they do in any wild population which gets out of control. Nature has its own ways of dealing with things that trumps our technology.
Because you’re suggesting drastic, brutal and morally reprehensible action to solve a “problem” which isn’t even certain to occur.
Well, that’s pretty hypocritical, don’t you think? What do value do you have that everyone else doesn’t? What makes you so superior that you should be further down on the list? Shouldn’t the “enlightened” lead the charge and set an example?
Oh, I see. So this is not to be a fair and equitable across-the-board implimentation. And just who decides whether your “circumstances” warrant your continued existance?
I don’t think you quite grasp what a loss for mankind this would have been.
Can you honestly say that your life is more valuable than his because you have freedom of movement? If anything, you’re likely to consume more resources than he is, and certainly less likely to contribute to society.
It’s not false. There’s no “nice” way to euthanize people who want to live.
