Your choice results in either the deaths of 10 or hundreds of millions of people.
If I am driving down the road and a child is in the road I can stop the car and not hit the child or I can not apply the breaks and hit the child. You are saying that not applying the breaks is not murdering the child. I don’t buy that at all.
You are MURDERING 10 people or you are MURDERING millions and millions of people.
No, you are NOT murdering millions of people. Unless you think that the fact I didn’t lock away (for their own safety) everybody who was destined to die in car wrecks today means I murdered them, too. And that I didn’t personally protect every child that died in a hot car, or drown in a pool, means I am a child killer. How many people did YOU murder today through your inaction?
I can’t believe this thread is taking this turn. I want to know how many people in this thread are willing to die so that I don’t get cancer. How many of your own family are you willing to murder so that Kim Khardashian never gets cancer? Because these 10 people aren’t statistics, they are real people.
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.
This was pretty much my thinking as well. Big C has killed enough people that getting folks willing to give up their lives to end it would probably be no real problem.
It’s also the same reasons why we’ll waste everyone inside a building if we think there’s an enemy in there. What’s your point? We, as a country, do it ever day.
10 complete strangers? Yes.
Myself? Yes.
My daughter? No. Sucks that millions would die. Oh well.
We, as a country, do it.
I don’t do it.
It is a very different situation. Terrorists do not have this kind of power. In this situation some people must die; it will either be 10 people that die quickly, or millions that die a slow painful death.
Any argument about nature etc being the agent of the cancerous deaths I think is weak. Nature, fate destiny etc. are all subservient to your choice in this situation - all the other agents are given the ability to act based upon your decision.
On the other hand, the logic that lets the ten people live is the same logic that turns away from fighting atrocities, genocide, stopping Hitler etc. in the name of “peace.” Murder may be a little extreme, but gross negligence, which this absolutely is, is not much better at all.
beowulff I have decide you are correct. I would not support having some random person die so that their organs could be used to save few people’s lives so I can’t support curing cancer at the cost of few random people’s lives.
So, you are saying you wouldn’t sacrifice your own life to stop cancer? For me it would not be something I would even have to think about.
This is one of those situations where a Jesuit education comes in handy, because if youth retreats have taught me anything (other than not to put vodka in an empty shampoo bottle because it will still end up tasting like shampoo), it’s that there’s an order of operations to these things.
So I would ask myself first: should I kill 10 people? Answer: No. The end.
When a new drug comes to market there are going to be some people who get sick and some who die from it. Close to 100,000 people die in the US each year from Rx drugs. As a society we consider this acceptable a price to pay for the benefits of medications.
Once again, you are missing the point.
Seems to be something you are good at.
*As a society * we do lots of things that are against many systems of morality. Some of them I might agree with, some of them I don’t.
I don’t agree that it’s OK to murder people in order to achieve some nebulous (or maybe even not-so-nebulous) goal.
Once again, rationing treatment is not the same as murder.
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.
I guess I just can’t really see your point. Your choice is to allow millions to die, these millions also have family and friends. These scenarios just don;t give you an option of nobody dying; you have to choose one group dying or another group.
That right. If they die, they die.
At least I won’t die knowing that I murdered an innocent person.
Those millions aren’t going to live forever just by curing cancer. They will all continue to die. Just as it has been since time began, as it will continue until immortality is perfected. No one here gets out alive.
And by not sacrificing 10 strangers, my conscience is clear.
The cancer sufferers would weigh on my conscience. I can appreciate that something different weighs on your conscience; but I don’t think either one of us is immoral for our views on the situation.
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?
Generally, the effort to cure diseases is a good thing. However, since we are not actually preventing people from dying (and what a moral dilemma that would be), it is far from obvious that I should kill people in order to change the probable cause of death for some other people.
We could eliminate cancer tomorrow if we really wanted to. All President Obama has to do is push one button.
I think it’s more an issue of people’s willingness to take on personal responsibility. Some people feel it’s worse to kill a few people directly than to allow a larger number of people to die through inaction.