Both choices guarantee many innocent lives will be saved or substantially improved. Easy choice.
As it is drug and medical research implicitly involves killing innocent people. It’s part of the process; you have to spend years doing studies, including control groups, on a life saving drug. Even fast tracked drugs take a long time.
No it’s like the good twilight zone where some other person you don’t know is making the decision. You get to be one of the few that is supporting the needs of the many.
I’d like to think the selection process for “who gets to die that other might live” is everyone who posted that they are “willing to sacrifice 10 strangers” gets to die. For the good of humanity, you know. We’ll remember you!
What you’ve restated here is thetrolley problem.
In short, you can let the runaway trolley car kill 5 people (like your cancer hypothetical, you have to assume the people will not jump out of the way, unrealistic assumptions are part of the ethical dilemma) or you can pull a switch and let it kill 1 person.
Technically, under some judicial interpretations, you are liable, civilly and possibly criminally, if you actions caused the death of that 1 person…even if you saved 5 people. While you are almost never liable if you stand there idle and do nothing (as a random bystander, you definitely aren’t. You are under no obligation to touch the machinery. If you were a trolley system operator it might be your duty to minimize deaths, sort of like if you were a trained paramedic you aren’t supposed to just walk by someone dying on the sidewalk)
Similarly, the truth is, we might be able to save millions of lives today if biomedical researchers were not shackled by “ethics”*. If they could try out treatments on live patients, killing some of them, with far less obstacles, it’s entirely possible that progress would be made much faster, saving net lives. But, if someone’s dying from cancer and you do nothing but standard treatment and they die, the hospital/research institute is not liable in any way. If they try an experimental treatment, and the patient dies a few months earlier than they would have died anyway, the hospital/institution is potentially on the hook for big money and theoretically even a criminal investigation.
*Ethics is in quotes because it is debatable whether taking an action that results in more deaths but doesn’t leave any specific person liable is actually more “ethical” than taking actions that save lives but fingers can be pointed for certain deaths.
It goes farther than that. Aging kills everyone for certain. If you had some experimental ideas to reprogram the dna of an adult to reduce their biological age, it would be a net positive even if you needed to kill billions of people in your research. (because those billions were certain to die in a few decades anyway, and once you finally get something that works, ever person you treat would potentially live for many centuries if not essentially forever (since if you could extend people’s lifespan to few centuries, during that time you could research treatments to upload minds or some other permanent fix to death))
Children get cancer. Let those 10 people die. If I had to shoot them myself I probably could steel myself to do it, in order to save the whole world (!!!) from cancer.
This is kind of a stupid question, honestly.
Every medication and medical treatment ever made has caused deaths, whether it’s allergic reactions, individual variability in response, misdiagnosis, malpractice, what have you. Everything! Even diagnostics like CAT scans cause a measurable increase in cancer rates. For a medication to only kill 10 people would make it such a remarkably safe medication that it might qualify to be sold over the counter.
So to me, the question is like: Do we kill some patients making an ordinary medicine that doesn’t work all that well, or do we kill some prisoners making a miracle medicine, or do we kill some random people making a miracle medicine? Um… yes? It’s not like we can remove death from the table under any scenario.
Aside from my expectations about medicine, the cost-benefit analysis just makes this silly. 10 people or 10 million? I might feel bad if we were going to kill 1 million to save 10, especially if they are random and uncompensated, but a million-to-one return on investment is a pretty safe bet. It’s such a safe bet that you can’t really wrap a human brain around the question.
It’s easy to say let 10 strangers die. They’re “not us”. Why do you all think the 10 are going to be on board with this? Why are you so willing to sacrifice strangers? They’re not strangers to the ones they love. Why do you think you get to live and not them?
The question needs to be, “would you die to cure cancer?” Only** Anaamika **seems willing to volunteer.
Curing cancer would be the biggest disaster humanity has yet seen.
So, no, I wouldn’t choose to kill ten prisoners or ten strangers to inflict this punishment on the world!
End of the show:
My assistant: Yay! We’ve cured cancer!
Me: Yay, indeed. Now, heart disease! *reaches into the bin full of names for 10 more names as the camera pulls back to show a long, long line of hospital carts extending off into the darkness with labels on them saying “Heart Disease,” “Influenza”, “Rabies,” “Emphysema”…
To answer the second, and while hiking today I got a answer. It would be what would I want if I was one to die, or someone who would be devastated by the loss of a loved one. Would I be willing to suffer in this way to alleviate the suffering of many more. My answer in Love is how could I not. And to me Love is the only answer, and only to our best ability. My understanding is Love is one and is God. We do the best we can with what we have, Love corrects our error.
So yes the answer to the second one is yes, if given the choice 10 random people must die for the population to be free of cancer, I don’t think I could have any other answer then that is what must be and I would be willingly be one of them.
Yes and yes.
I made this decision many years ago working on weapons systems in the Marine Corps. Ain’t no such thing as a Surgical Strike, innocent people die all the time. Most of the time for no good reason at all. At least getting rid of cancer would be a benefit.
Of course, there will definitely be some Unforeseen Consequences to curing cancer.
By not curing cancer when it is within your power you are killing hundreds of millions of people who will die of cancer. By not curing cancer you are sacrificing millions and millions or people.
There’s a huge difference between active and passive…
You are making a choice 10 people will die or millions and million each and every year. Given the OP both choices are pretty passive.
No I’M not. Cancer is taking them. Same as it has forever.
Choosing not to save some one is not the same as murdering them.
I am not going to murder one single person in order to save millions. It’s not fair to the one. One person can choose to sacrifice themselves, and that person might even be me, but I’m not killing an innocent person so the likes of the cold-hearted people in this thread can live.
You have a choice. A or B
Choice A 10 people die
Choice B hundreds of millions of people die
No, the choice is:
A) You MURDER 10 people (killing people who would not have died).
B) Hundreds of millions of people die who would have died anyway.
#A
If they’re serving “life sentences”, they weren’t “innocent”; perhaps not deserving of the death penalty, but NOT “innocent”.
Easy-peasy.
Everyone dies. Many people with cancer don’t die, but they do deal with physical and psychological health issues for life due to the treatments.
No, it has to be someone you don’t know.
Allright, let’s assume that there are no negative consequences to ending cancer.
To me your answer only makes logical sense if you feel people who get cancer deserve to get it for some reason.
If you feel that cancer kills perfectly innocent people, then killing 10 innocent people to save millions of other innocent people is the only logical thing to do.
If you choose not to kill the 10, then you are choosing to kill millions through a slow painful death. Once you are given the power to make this choice, you cannot just escape the responsibility of this power with simple minded morals that do not really apply in the situation.