Would You End All Disease at the Cost of a Child's Life?

[Pengwuino]

I saw this question on Swordfish (awesome movie!) and wanted to ask a variation of it here.

If you had the chance to permanently cure all diseases, but the price of doing this was that you had to kill a child, would you? How bout 100, how bout 10,000?

 

[Brady]

00

Don't play God.

 

[Antiphon]

No. Not even one, not even if everyone I dearly cared for would be cured.

Disease is not Evil. Killing the child is.

Unnecessary suffering is to be avoided when possible but not at the price of performing
such a heinous act. The metaphysical value inherent in the child far
outweighs the temporal inconveniences of disease and suffering.

 

[NeutronStar]

I saw this question on Swordfish (awesome movie!) and wanted to ask a variation of it here.

If you had the chance to permanently cure all diseases, but the price of doing this was that you had to kill a child, would you? How bout 100, how bout 10,000?

Permanently cure all diseases? That’s an extremely unrealistic and hypothetical question. We kill children all the time. How many children were killed when the USA invaded Iraq? How many children were killed when the USA dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Overall the USA doesn’t seem to mind killing children for small gains I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to kill them to cure all diseases permanently.

I can only speak for myself. Had it been possible to cure all disease permanently by killing me when I was a small child I would be very upset to learn that they didn’t do it. Besides why is the life of a child any more valuable than the life of anyone else? I never did buy into that one. Would the question be any different if you could kill an adult to achieve your goal? I think the only difference is the assumption that the adult could either volunteer or refuse while a child isn’t likely to have a good grasp of the consequences.

I could probably also offer up the idea that I would offer my child up for sacrifice for the result you’re suggesting. But ONLY if that’s result was guaranteed. I certainly wouldn’t offer the child up for trail and error laboratory experiments. That’s not at all what you have suggested here, your claiming that a permanent cure for all diseases will be the result. If that were the guaranteed result I think any decent human would volunteer their own life to achieve that goal. Many humans offer up their lives for much lesser goals already.

But again, I remind you that you’re lofty goal is not at all the same as just doing scientific research in the hope of maybe coming up with half-baked medications for some diseases, you’re suggesting a permanent cure for all diseases that’s not at all the same as doing research for lame drugs or procedures for some diseases most of which won't even result in actual cures at all.

Don't play God.

Kind of late for that isn’t it? We have been in the business of playing God in a very big way for quite some time. We keep people alive on machines who would otherwise die naturally. We take body parts out of one person and put them in another to keep them alive. We help people who can’t naturally reproduce have babies. We play God all the time. Even many prescription medications are keeping people alive who would naturally die without them. Yep, it’s way too late to be telling humans not to play God.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmm... 3 posts and its already into vile anti-american rhetoric... and this isn't even GD:PWF.

 

[NeutronStar]

Hmm... 3 posts and its already into vile anti-american rhetoric... and this isn't even GD:PWF.

I'm sorry you took it that way, my comments weren't intended as vile anti-American rhetoric as I myself am an American.

I just happened to state a few historical cases that I knew to be true as examples. I'm quite sure that other countries are just as guilty.

 

[Pengwuino]

Overall the USA doesn’t seem to mind killing children for small gains

Your right, I'm not sure how I could have taken that the wrong way.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Meh, not even going to go there. But politcal bodies are generally much more evil than the people that create them. Most Nazi's were decent people just trying to get by, as is seen in studies of the Eichman trial, yet the bureaucratic nazi party was capable of great evil far beyond the measure of any man who made it up. It is the ability for people to distance themselves from their actions that allows things like this to happen. As thousands of people were needed to the extermination of the jews, yet the transport people, the gun makes, the bullet makers, the railroad engineers, none took resposibility for the deaths as they did not pull the trigger. The US I think is along the same lines, no person takes responsibility for the actions of the whole.

 

[Gokul43201]

Pengwuino : Your OP uses the word "would" while the poll uses "could". Asking how far you could go, is entirely different from asking how far you would go, and I think it's the latter question which is important. But that's just my opinion - so which one is it ?

 

[Antiphon]

Overall the USA doesn’t seem to mind killing children for small gains I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to kill them to cure all diseases permanently.

Neutron, you and the criminally negligent fools who suceeded in miseducating you disgust me.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino : Your OP uses the word "would" while the poll uses "could". Asking how far you could go, is entirely different from asking how far you would go, and I think it's the latter question which is important. But that's just my opinion - so which one is it ?

Oops, can you change all the coulds to woulds? I figured people would realize what the question is about based on what forum it is but I suppose it shoudl be clarified.

 

[Astral Rob]

I would not kill even one child.

Who are you to make a life or death decision for that child, even if it would benefit the entire human race for the rest of its days? You're nobody but a human being looking for some moral justification to commit an evil act. The only person who could make such a decision would be the child itself. If the child chooses their own life, that would have to be respected for it is their decision and theirs alone.

 

[NeutronStar]

Neutron, you and the criminally negligent fools who suceeded in miseducating you disgust me.

I think it would be wonderful to discover that I’ve been miss-educated.

 

[hypnagogue]

Antiphon and NeutronStar, if you must continue your internal dialogue here, please do so via PM. This thread is not the appropriate place to conduct your discussion of miseducation and so on.

 

[luxv66]

Along the same principle, would you have supported killing Hitler as a child if you somehow KNEW what his future held? (Assuming killing him is the only option)

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

I would not kill a single child, who am i to make such a decision controling the life of another, thinking that this would eb the solution of my problem, it's too selfish for my liking!

 

[Kenneth Mann]

If you had the chance to permanently cure all diseases, but the price of doing this was that you had to kill a child, would you? How bout 100, how bout 10,000?[/b]

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed it, but this offers a back-door approach into the 'Stem Cell' argument. All you need do now, is define (the Devil is in the definition) a Stem Cell as future Child, and you've enhanced the argument for many people.

KM

 

[EnumaElish]

"Ending all disease" is way far out, off the wall. It is unrealistic and would be competely unsustainable. Something akin to promise of eternal youth.

The vegetarian/vegan equivalent poll:
If it took to eat an animal to end all carnivorousity, would you do it? How about 10? 100? 10,000?

P.S. The hypothetical underlying this poll sounds like a particular conspiracy theory one comes across now and then: "our current state of knowledge/technology is sufficient to end (your "favorite" scourge or medical anxiety here) forever, but we'll never see it happen because it'll eat into drug companies' profits."

P.P.S. And maybe (just maybe) this is an appropriate place to recite part of the script from http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/MeaningOfLife/mol.html :
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/MeaningOfLife/m-04-i-2.html ("Yorkshire")
MUM: Come on, now. Out you go. Now, uh, Vincent, Tessa, Valerie, Janine, Martha, Andrew, Thomas, Walter, Pat, Linda, Michael, Evadne, Alice, Dominique, and Sasha, it's your bedtime.
CHILDREN: Aww, Mum!
MUM: Now, don't argue! Laura, Alfred, Nigel, Annie, Simon, Amanda,--
DAD: Wait! I've got something to tell the whole family.
MUM: Oh, quick. Go and get the others in, Gordon.
CHILDREN: What could it be? Shhh...
DAD: The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute.
CHILDREN: [talking]
DAD: Come in, my little loves. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.
CHILDREN: [whining]
DAD: No, no. That's the way it is, my loves. Blame the Catholic church for not letting me wear one of those little rubber things. Oh, they've done some wonderful things in their time. They preserved the might and majesty, the mystery of the Church of Rome, and the sanctity of the sacraments, the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, but if they'd let me wear one of those little rubber things on the end of my cock, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
[...]
CHILDREN: Ohh...
DAD: ...me mind's made up. I've given this long and careful thought, and it has to be medical experiments for the lot of you.
CHILDREN: Ohh. Oh. Oh...

 

[Dayle Record]

Disease represents predatory forms of life that do harm to our species. Yet, they are a part of a huge biomass that is also life. It might be thought that disease, resistance to disease, the existence of disease are part of keeping us hardy enough to interface with the huge, non human biosphere we inhabit. As I think of it respiration, food consumption, elimination and interaction with our biosphere, is life.

 

[Astronuc]

My children asked something similar - If I was given the choice of 'giving up my life' or the 'destruction of humanity' what would I do.

Clearly, no doubt, I would forfeit my life without hesitation to save all of humanity. However, I would not make that choice for someone else, i.e. I would not take it upon myself to deprive someone else's life.

But I don't think that will ever happen.

Likewise, I don't think killing one person is necessary to cure all disease or illness.

Rather, proper nutrition, education and proper utilization of the world's finite resources can go along way in preventing disease.

 

[arildno]

An at least as (un-)interesting question than the one given in the poll is the following:
Suppose a child gets infected by a lethal disease that will start spreading uncontrollably and wipe out most of Earth's inhabitants unless you kill that child soon enough.
Would you kill the child?
I certainly would..(if there were no other options of limiting the spread of the disease)

For the poll question, I voted "not a single child", since we're able to cope with the diseases we do have.

 

[Amp1]

I voted not a single child, also no I wouldn't have killed the Hitler child, and I ask those who said yes... what if it were your child?

 

[Francis M]

I voted Not a single child because there's no guarantee that totally new/unknown diseases won't pop up. Viruses and bacteria adapt to the ever changing enviornment to survive and so do we.

luxv66 "Along the same principle, would you have supported killing Hitler as a child if you somehow KNEW what his future held? (Assuming killing him is the only option"
Again no because there's no guarantee that killing him would alter events in any significant way. What's to prevent someone else from taking Hitlers place and doing less or for that matter more than what he did?

 

[nameless]

Sh!t! Catch me on a 'bad' day and I'd wipe 'humanity' from the Earth without a second thought. Call it a 'mercy killing'. Children? Hahahahahahaha...

 

[Blahness]

Transfer to this question: Would you kill a grown man in order to cure all diseases?

"All children are special" is the most BS ever, okay? When to kids turn from "special" to "not special"? When they turn 18? 13?

Don't buy it.

And yes, I would. As previous posters said, they'd kill children just to prove a point or get to a tyrant, why not to cure diseases?

Sad, yes, but true.

 

[Francis M]

Transfer to this question: Would you kill a grown man in order to cure all diseases?

"All children are special" is the most BS ever, okay? When to kids turn from "special" to "not special"? When they turn 18? 13?

Don't buy it.

And yes, I would. As previous posters said, they'd kill children just to prove a point or get to a tyrant, why not to cure diseases?

Sad, yes, but true.

No, I wouldn't for the same reasons I stated in my previous post (#23).

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

 

[EnumaElish]

Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

Old age would normally take care of that. But with baby boomers, even that may not work. We may have to take action, I am thinking of leaving them in uninhabited mountains. Hopefully the snakes, pumas and other wildlife will see the opportunity for a more equal calorie distribution.

 

[Your.Master]

I would not kill a single child, who am i to make such a decision controling the life of another, thinking that this would eb the solution of my problem, it's too selfish for my liking!

I would not allow a single disease to exist, who am I to make such a decision controlling the lives of others, thinking that this would be the solution of my problem, it's too selfish for my liking!

You know, if we lived in a society where already a child was sacrificed once a year every year in order to keep disease at bay, I think people would react in an equally horrified manner at the suggestion at replacing the sacrifice with a new and horrible thing called disease.

I think the selfish argument is the one that says "what if it was your child". Not that it isn't a strong appeal: I must admit, I'm selfish enough that I might resist if it were my child. But from an objective stance, my child has no more right to live than anybody else's, and they have no more right to live than the terminally ill.

How many would I kill? I'd wipe out no more than the number of children equal to all the deaths that will be caused by disease in the future; or a small error value less than the total number of humans capable of reproduction (there's no point in wiping out diesease if there's nobody around to enjoy it)

As for the Hitler question, I would not kill baby Hitler. The question in the OP suggests we KNOW the result of killing a child. There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that the world would be a better place with Hitler killed as an infant. As much as Hitler was an evil man, the world has turned out more or less okay (some might argue that point). Perhaps a past without Hitler would have led to an equally charismatic, equally evil man controlling Germany with a better head for military strategy.

 

[Lisa!]

I always have problem with this kind of questions, because they come to my mind frequently. Is it moral to sacrifice someone because of lots of other people?
And the answer is "NO".
So although I could be 1 of those people who can be benifited from what you said, I still say NO. Even if I'd be sure that this child couldn't have any bright future!

 

[arildno]

Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

Murder is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

 

[Lisa!]

I forgot to say something, imagine the child was yours and then answer to this question!

Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

Would you say the same thing if you were 1 of the sick people?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Murder is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

to live is to kill, to kill is to live

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I forgot to say something, imagine the child was yours and then answer to this question!


Would you say the same thing if you were 1 of the sick people?

I'd still think disease is a form of natural selection. Of course I wouldn't want to get rid of myself, I'm a self-interested organism...show me one that isn't.

On that note, let's kick some people out of California already, or at least push em inland.

 

[Lisa!]

I'd still think disease is a form of natural selection. Of course I wouldn't want to get rid of myself, I'm a self-interested organism...show me one that isn't.

On that note, let's kick some people out of California already, or at least push em inland.

All diseases don't end up with death very soon. There are lots of sick people who stay alive for a long time. Some of them even live as long as health people and then die. All governments have to pay for some part of their expenses and lots of other problem. So it's better for all that everyone would be health!Anyway if I was you, I'd never make jokes about this stuff! And I don't think all diseases are a form of natural selection.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

All diseases don't end up with death very soon. There are lots of sick people who stay alive for a long time. Some of them even live as long as health people and then die. All governments have to pay for some part of their expenses and lots of other problem. So it's better for all that everyone would be health!Anyway if I was you, I'd never make jokes about this stuff! And I don't think all diseases are a form of natural selection.

Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine

 

[Lisa!]

You know something it's true that the original post of this thread is "to end all diseases...", but I think the main question here is "would you do something immoral in order to do something extremely good for humanity?(sorry if someone else's mentioned this before). So I think our discussion about diseases here is off topic, but I really like to continue this discussion. I'd be really grateful if someone start a thread about that because I really don't have time to do it by myself right now. :shy:

Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine

Reply to this post later!

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok Lisa, I grant you full control of this thread. I can't even believe this thread is around!

Feed it twice a day... it doesn't like cereal... and burp it every so often.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You know something it's true that the original post of this thread is "to end all diseases...", but I think the main question here is "would you do something immoral in order to do something extremely good for humanity?(sorry if someone else's mentioned this before). So I think our discussion about diseases here is off topic, but I really like to continue this discussion. I'd be really grateful if someone start a thread about that because I really don't have time to do it by myself right now. :shy:

lol, sorry to hijack your thread.

As for your question, I would definitely do something "immoral" to do something extremely good for humanity. Or at least in theory. Not sure much mental preparation I would need. I guess it depends on what the sacrifice is. Plus, I'm a bit superstitious, you know what happened to Agamemnon! I don't know if I could sacrifice my own child, or any child for that matter. I'd have to overcome instinct and cultural indoctrination. Maybe I could sacrifice an adult(s), only because I could find a bit more justification in sacrificing someone who has had a while to live.

However, when it comes to inflicting mental or physical pain, I'm not sure I could deal with that much. If I had to take a life, that's one thing, but drawing it out into a painful ordeal would really be out of the question. I mean, we are humans and we are empathetic and sympathetic to a great degree. And I don't think any amount of justification would give me the nerve to witness or know about what was being done. I guess that's the reason why I can't abide gory scenes with people obviously in pain, but I can handle dead bodies...they're simply matter at that point.

I also tend to think whatever muddle we're in, we're likely to get into another just as quickly so why sacrifice so much when you don't really get anywhere? As I've said in other threads, humans are the way they are by necessity so it really isn't up to us (to a large degree) whether or not we eliminate things like poverty or war through our desire. We have to create a need for it. Similarly, the world exerts pressures on living things, there is always going to be death and life, it doesn't have to be villified. Disease should not be seen as something necessarily evil, like war or human created suffering.


...edit: could I sacrifice myself for something extremely beneficial? I guess if it would save the world from some evil demon, lol. Realistically tho, it'd have to be worth a lot, like thousands of lives or perhaps the ensured survival of dolphins

 

[Lisa!]

Thank you very much,Pengwuino!
I finally got into the mood to continue the discussion.

Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

Even it's a natural selection, we should try to do something about it!

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.

The costs would decrease if all people were healthy. Remember some sick people will stay alive almost as long as health people and they have the same costs plus an extera cost because of their sickness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine

Happiness and being hopeful to the future, not taking the life so serious s the best medicine not only laughter. I saw lots of people who are depressed but they laugh alot. I don't think laughter could help those pessimistic people alot.
But yes you're right.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Yeah, I think we should definitely treat sickness, I was mostly being facetious We do seem to be overcrowding and overconsuming, but it doesn't have to be this way. We just continue to expand with nothing to keep us in check...like disease, natural disasters, predation. I'm not making a moral judgment on whether or not we should, I'm just pointing out that things seem to be way off balanced (which is generally not good). So the only alternative is to consciously try to change things. Fat chance of that happening.

Haha, that'll teach me to use cliches!
Gotta laugh on the inside (in my case a maniacal one) I know depressed and dependent people who will do anything to fit in, including pretending to be happy. They're not really having a good time.

 

[EL]

If you had the chance to permanently cure all diseases, but the price of doing this was that you had to kill a child, would you? How bout 100, how bout 10,000?

I would like to do whatever it takes, but probably could not...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

How about this (don't want to derail this topic completely, but this just came to me and of course I can't keep anything to myself!) -
There are parallel universes.
We find a way to enter these universes.
We find one that is a paradise, but we will ruin it if we enter it and disrupt the balance. We cannot close the gates to this universe either except through destroying our own universe. The only choice is to risk the possibility of contaminating that universe by keeping ours in existence or destroying our universe to keep the other world a paradise.
The destruction of our own universe would not entail pain, but we would be winked out of existence. Perhaps it is worth it and perhaps simply existing is enough for both worlds. Let us imagine, however, that this fall from paradise is exactly as jarring and irrevocable as it sounds.

What would you do and why? What values are playing a role? Does the concept of ourselves refer to our existence in our universe of origin or to humanity as a whole in any universe, anywhere?