# You can cure all cancer globally but 10 innocent people must die **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 7, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436 "2015-05-07T00:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mrldii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@mrldii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrldii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/61 "2015-05-08T21:43:33Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > …Also, for those people who think that it’s OK to murder to strangers, if you had to kill your ten most beloved family members and friends, would you still do it? > > Because, those ten strangers have family members and friends, too. Why have you changed the scenario mid-stream and abandoned the qualifying “innocent” from your initial question? Personally, I didn’t agree to killing 10 _innocent_ strangers. And, BTW, why did you ask others to participate in your thread by giving their opinions based on a selection of options, if there was only one _correct_ answer (yours) to the query? Is this a discussion or an exam…Professor? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/62 "2015-05-08T21:48:23Z")
> [@mrldii](#): > > Why have you changed the scenario mid-stream and abandoned the qualifying “innocent” from your initial question? > > Personally, I didn’t agree to killing 10 _innocent_ strangers. > And, BTW, why did you ask others to participate in your thread by giving their opinions based on a selection of options, if there was only one _correct_ answer (yours) to the query? Is this a discussion or an exam…Professor? From the OP: > [@](#): > > Scenario B: I have no way to make this example even halfway realistic. You can cure all cancer globally but in order to do so you have to pick 10 people at random to die. No families are rewarded and none of the 10 give their consent. But you cure all cancer globally. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/63 "2015-05-08T22:23:57Z")
Humans are fallible, limited & we never do better than “kinda-sorta-good”. If the 10 must die to save a million of 20–then they die. Both scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/64 "2015-05-08T22:42:32Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > I should just point out to all the people who think it’s ok to kill ten strangers that this is the same logic that leads what we call “Terrorists” to murder people every day. > > After all, those people don’t matter to them, and by killing them they hope that it will lead to a better life for the people who do matter to them. > > I don’t see any real difference between the hypothetical situation and the real-world one. You’re arguing against the premise. The question says the killing ten people will cure all cancer. So the terms are clear. If you want to debate a different situation, start your own thread. The terrorist situation you describe would be like the OP asking if people would be willing to kill ten random people as a sacrifice to Baal in the hopes that Baal would cure all cancer by a miracle. I doubt anyone who commit murder on those terms. In both cases you’re being asked to make a definite sacrifice in exchange for an improbable benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/65 "2015-05-08T22:48:28Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > What this argument is, at its very core, is a debate over Fate/destiny vs Logic (or numbers really). > > All those people dying of cancer were “meant” to die. By waving the magic wand you essentially fuck all that up and murder ten innocent people in the process. > Another way to put the OP would be: Would you strangle a baby with your bare hands to save three random people from dying in a tornado? No, it is not about fate; or at least fate in the sense that I know it. Fate implies lack of control of outcomes; in this scenario the outcomes are 100% within your control. The only part fate has is allowing the limited options. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/66 "2015-05-08T22:52:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re arguing against the premise. The question says the killing ten people will cure all cancer. So the terms are clear. If you want to debate a different situation, start your own thread. > > The terrorist situation you describe would be like the OP asking if people would be willing to kill ten random people as a sacrifice to Baal in the hopes that Baal would cure all cancer by a miracle. I doubt anyone who commit murder on those terms. In both cases you’re being asked to make a definite sacrifice in exchange for an improbable benefit. I completely disagree. The two situations are analogous - people making willing to kill others for their idea of “the greater good.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/67 "2015-05-08T23:04:37Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > I completely disagree. > The two situations are analogous - people making willing to kill others for their idea of “the greater good.” In this scenario they are not killing for the “idea” of anything. They are killing for the actual benefit of far less net suffering. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/68 "2015-05-08T23:20:38Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > In this scenario they are not killing for the “idea” of anything. They are killing for the actual benefit of far less net suffering. Says you. What will happen to the world when suddenly there are billions of more geriatric people alive? Most of the big disasters in history have been caused by good intentions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/69 "2015-05-08T23:22:56Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Says you. > What will happen to the world when suddenly there are billions of more geriatric people alive? > > Most of the big disasters in history have been caused by good intentions. Ugh; do I have to post in every post the thing I posted upthread about the assuming no negative outcomes? I’ll do it if I have to. This thread could start looking like a credit card statement though. . . . ---
**Author:** ![mrldii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@mrldii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrldii)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/70 "2015-05-08T23:24:47Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > From the OP: > Quote: > Scenario B: I have no way to make this example even halfway realistic. You can cure all cancer globally but in order to do so you have to pick 10 people at random to die. No families are rewarded and none of the 10 give their consent. But you cure all cancer globally. Also, from the OP, as it IS the title OF the thread: **“You can cure all cancer globally but 10 innocent people must die”** Why are you deliberately omitting **that** part of the equation, when some of us selected the “wrong” answer (i.e., not the one YOU would choose) when responding to the query, which was asking us for \*\* our\*\* _opinions_? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/71 "2015-05-08T23:30:35Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Says you. > What will happen to the world when suddenly there are billions of more geriatric people alive? > > Most of the big disasters in history have been caused by good intentions. Curing cancer would only add about 3 years to life expectancy. It would be 82 instead of 79. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/72 "2015-05-08T23:34:18Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > Ugh; do I have to post in every post the thing I posted upthread about the assuming no negative outcomes? I’ll do it if I have to. This thread could start looking like a credit card statement though. . . . Sorry, but that’s too much of a stretch. The OP didn’t put any such restrictions on the hypothetical, and if you are going to debate such an outlandish proposition in the first place, you might as well look at the implications of what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/73 "2015-05-08T23:36:24Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Curing cancer would only add about 3 years to life expectancy. It would be 82 instead of 79. Uh huh. So, that’s 21 Billion people-years you are adding. Seems like a whole lot to me. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/74 "2015-05-08T23:44:29Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Sorry, but that’s too much of a stretch. > > The OP didn’t put any such restrictions on the hypothetical, and if you are going to debate such an outlandish proposition in the first place, you might as well look at the implications of what you are doing. I don’t see where the term outlandish is applicable. I did not say the OP put restrictions on the hypothetical - I said that upthread I covered the idea of negative consequences. I think the general point of the OP does not naturally take things in that direction anyway; I think the idea is would you do something horrible to prevent something even worse from happening. If you want to say that there are negative consequences that’s fine - but it seems a little silly. It would be like asking would you kill 10 people to make the rest of the world suffer more. I don’t think the question is being asked in order to contemplate the technicalities of curing cancer - I think for the purposes of this thought exercise cancer was chosen for the reason that it is considered almost universally as something unquestionably horrible and that human suffering would be decreased tremendously by its elimination. However, YMMV ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/75 "2015-05-11T03:10:35Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > And by not sacrificing 10 strangers, my conscience is clear. Millions of people would die so you wouldn’t have to feel guilty? How could you not feel more guilty about millions than ten? ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/76 "2015-05-11T03:39:06Z")
How many here have no idea that there were two polio vaccines available, and the one the US chose to use resulted in the deaths of 2 or 3 people a year for at least a generation? It is a live virus vaccine, and baby poops polio virus. If the people handling baby’s poop are not immune to polio, they will contract it. This is the reality of drugs. You “all live is sacred” types do not want to hear the realities of drug testing - at the very least, some tests will allow people to die even though they could be saved. And the development of new surgeries is not without casualties. 10 deaths for a universal, permanent “cure” for “all” “cancers”? Dirt cheap at 1000 times the price. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/77 "2015-05-11T05:19:59Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > How many here have no idea that there were two polio vaccines available, and the one the US chose to use resulted in the deaths of 2 or 3 people a year for at least a generation? > > It is a live virus vaccine, and baby poops polio virus. If the people handling baby’s poop are not immune to polio, they will contract it. > > This is the reality of drugs. > > You “all live is sacred” types do not want to hear the realities of drug testing - at the very least, some tests will allow people to die even though they could be saved. > > And the development of new surgeries is not without casualties. > > 10 deaths for a universal, permanent “cure” for “all” “cancers”? > > Dirt cheap at 1000 times the price. Trial and error falls in line with how the natural order of the universe is supposed to work. There is no malice involved in this process. Doing the Devils bidding and murdering 10 innocent people so you can have a magical cure for cancer is morally wrong. (And that’s basically what this is. Because as far as I know, there is no scientific method that I know of that involves murdering ten, random, innocent people to make a cure all drug.) Again, I ask: Would you strangle a baby with your bare hands to save the lives of three random people? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/78 "2015-05-11T06:35:57Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > Doing the Devils bidding and murdering 10 innocent people so you can have a magical cure for cancer is morally wrong. So you’d rather murder millions upon millions of people in order to feel less morally conflicted? > [@](#): > > Again, I ask: Would you strangle a baby with your bare hands to save the lives of three random people? Yes. I would have to, morally, because in that scenario I’d be saving a net of two lives. I’d have to suffer the consequences, but a lot of males in my genetic heritage have had to suffer similar consequences for outcomes which were much less clear. ---
**Author:** ![fridolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/85f322/32.png) [@fridolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fridolph)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/79 "2015-05-11T06:56:56Z")
I choose B though that choice don’t sound good too. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436/80 "2015-05-11T06:58:55Z")
Thirty strangers die every minute, so it’s not even a blip. I’ll never know whose deaths I caused, and yet I save millions of people’s lives as a consequence. No-brainer. Option B. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-cure-all-cancer-globally-but-10-innocent-people-must-die/719436.md?page=5)