Suppose an alien from outer space hands you a device that can track down and destroy all HIV RNA/DNA in the world. One disadvantage: any human being with detectable quantities of HIV will not survive the process.
What would you do?
Would you choose to rid the world AIDS...
Moderator: Moderators
Would you choose to rid the world AIDS...
Post #1The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
Listen to the fool''''s reproach! it is a kingly title!
As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
William Blake - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
Listen to the fool''''s reproach! it is a kingly title!
As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
William Blake - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
-
Sir Rhetor
- Apprentice
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:57 pm
- Location: The Fourth Spacial Dimension
Post #21
What a great question! It is much less obscure than the "fat man on the bridge" problem I am familiar with.
I would say that I would not, but I must justify my answer in order to make this post worth your time. My theory is still that morality is driven by potential to society. People with AIDS are not so much of a burden on society as they are as a benefit. Let me clarify myself: those with the disease can still open bakeries, and even be CEOs. They can contribute much to society. Killing the people removes any benefit they would bring, and actually adds burden with the possibility of fast-spreading diseases which always occur in places with high mortality. Think of the effort the living would need to make in order to remain alive! So instead of killing them all, rounding them up in a concentration camp would be a similar, but less harmful solution. Now, obviously I am not proposing this, but I think the idea of the “solution� proposed in the initial post is that the infected will not be able to infect any others. So a concentration camp would do the same thing, in theory. Let me add another twist to this, though. What if you found out after you had killed all of the people who have AIDS that one of them was a scientist on the verge of a real cure?
I would say that I would not, but I must justify my answer in order to make this post worth your time. My theory is still that morality is driven by potential to society. People with AIDS are not so much of a burden on society as they are as a benefit. Let me clarify myself: those with the disease can still open bakeries, and even be CEOs. They can contribute much to society. Killing the people removes any benefit they would bring, and actually adds burden with the possibility of fast-spreading diseases which always occur in places with high mortality. Think of the effort the living would need to make in order to remain alive! So instead of killing them all, rounding them up in a concentration camp would be a similar, but less harmful solution. Now, obviously I am not proposing this, but I think the idea of the “solution� proposed in the initial post is that the infected will not be able to infect any others. So a concentration camp would do the same thing, in theory. Let me add another twist to this, though. What if you found out after you had killed all of the people who have AIDS that one of them was a scientist on the verge of a real cure?
-
ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
Post #22
A younger me would have been tempted, though for less noble reasons. Now I would decline.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
Post #23
my reasoning. people that will be killed = fixed number. people that will continue to die from aids, as its spreading, ( assuming we are unable to cure it ) will be forever increasing. also, seeing as how people with aids will die anyway, probably sooner that people without aids, youre only bringing the inevitable closer. tragic? yes. in the benefit of the majority? yes
-
lionel1020
- Student
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:50 pm
- Location: Paris, France
Post #24
One can play with these difficult scenarios any which way but whatever you say you would do is just a guess until you are in this situation for real. Even then it depends on your priorities and/or your personal situation..... at the time.
The Aid's decision is not that clear cut. The Aid's virus keeps evolving and mutating which is why they are having problems finding a cure. On a personal level each day you delay you run the risk of a member of your family or relative or close personal friend being infected.
1)You kill one million but you save the million per year who would not be infected in the future.
2)You do not kill one million (who die anyway) and 10 or 20 million extra die before you find a cure.
3)You do not kill one million (who die anyway) and one million die each year until you find a cure....you never find a cure.
The only real and unemotional way to make a decision is to play the numbers game.
Would the pentagon shoot down a plane over the Atlantic with 400 passengers on board if they knew the plane had a nuclear bomb on board and was heading for Washington?
Of course they would!
The Aid's scenario is the same thing with bigger numbers and a longer time span.
Me? I'd think it through, but probably press the button the same day the alien gave me the machine.
The Aid's decision is not that clear cut. The Aid's virus keeps evolving and mutating which is why they are having problems finding a cure. On a personal level each day you delay you run the risk of a member of your family or relative or close personal friend being infected.
1)You kill one million but you save the million per year who would not be infected in the future.
2)You do not kill one million (who die anyway) and 10 or 20 million extra die before you find a cure.
3)You do not kill one million (who die anyway) and one million die each year until you find a cure....you never find a cure.
The only real and unemotional way to make a decision is to play the numbers game.
Would the pentagon shoot down a plane over the Atlantic with 400 passengers on board if they knew the plane had a nuclear bomb on board and was heading for Washington?
Of course they would!
The Aid's scenario is the same thing with bigger numbers and a longer time span.
Me? I'd think it through, but probably press the button the same day the alien gave me the machine.
-
stupidstupid
- Student
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:02 am
Post #25
I feel that to choose to kill all those with HIV/Aids would lead to a hazardous and slippery descent to the legalisation of forced sterilisation for women who could potentially bring children with genetic abnormalities into the world (after all they can breed and pass the abnormality on).
Now if it were changed to ' would you choose to kill the people with hiv who deliberately infect others'?
My answer would be a clear yes to this one...
Su
Now if it were changed to ' would you choose to kill the people with hiv who deliberately infect others'?
My answer would be a clear yes to this one...
Su
-
Serpent Oracle
- Scholar
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:06 pm
- Location: UK
Post #26
Not much of a cure is it?Sjoerd wrote:It would be great if we could overcome this problem on our own, but I am afraid we are far from that. The AIDS virus is highly resistant to all attempts to eradicate it, and so are certain human behaviors.Coyotero wrote:We can overcome the problem on our own, and are very close to doing so without it costing so many lives.
AIDS is an epidemic because of a lack of adequate education about the risks and precautions.
I'd decline.
Would it make a difference to you if human scientists instead of aliens had invented such a device? What if you had invented it yourself?
You may as well just round up and kill all humans with AIDS with a machine gun...
In very simple terms killing innocent people to achive some 'greater good' end is always proven disastrous.
Better it is to work out a way of defeating viruses such as HIV without the necessity of killing people.
In fact during the last year much progress has been made with viruses including a developing technology which allows us to attach antibodies to viral particles before they enter their target host cells, so that even if it gets inside it will be destroyed before it hijacks the cell and replicates, something that had been previously considered impossible.
If we start treating human beings as we treat other life forms so badly...like Cattle with BSE...killing off the infected...then I would have to take up arms and go shoot some scientizts.
Post #28
I would be tempted to do it...
But a broader question echoes whenever I try to consider this one:
if we could eradicate all disease with the wave of wand, should we?
Why wouldn't we? Well, what effects would the increased population have? Already the increases in health care technology put greater strains on public health care systems; extreme example: suppose we could cure cancer but it cost $500,000,000 per patient. Should we bankrupt the country to extend people's lives by ten or twenty years? Read: 'bankrupt the country' as abandon the education and social welfare of the coming generation.
SO: I would finally decide not to do it. It is not so clear that we would actually reap an overall social benefit by eliminating HIV, and we would certainly be committing ourselves to a lot of extra death and suffering, so I will vote not to do it.
But a broader question echoes whenever I try to consider this one:
if we could eradicate all disease with the wave of wand, should we?
Why wouldn't we? Well, what effects would the increased population have? Already the increases in health care technology put greater strains on public health care systems; extreme example: suppose we could cure cancer but it cost $500,000,000 per patient. Should we bankrupt the country to extend people's lives by ten or twenty years? Read: 'bankrupt the country' as abandon the education and social welfare of the coming generation.
SO: I would finally decide not to do it. It is not so clear that we would actually reap an overall social benefit by eliminating HIV, and we would certainly be committing ourselves to a lot of extra death and suffering, so I will vote not to do it.
-
NotApplicable
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:36 am
Post #29
I voted no. Any time anyone is killing ''for the greater good'' you can be certain that person is morally corrupt.
Re: Would you choose to rid the world AIDS...
Post #30Suppose an alien from outer space hands you a device that can track down and cure tetraplegism in the world. One disadvantage: any tetraplegic human being will not survive the process.Sjoerd wrote: Suppose an alien from outer space hands you a device that can track down and destroy all HIV RNA/DNA in the world. One disadvantage: any human being with detectable quantities of HIV will not survive the process.
What would you do?
What would you do?
I feel the answer is so obvious to anyone with half a heart. Obviously, I would say NO.
