Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
If cancer was as contagious as a cold maybe.
If we could prevent the spread of HIV by euthanizing all HIV positive people would that be worth it as well... for the greater good?
If we could prevent the spread of HIV by euthanizing all HIV positive people would that be worth it as well... for the greater good?
Cancer can be very genetic. Certain races/populations are much more likely to have certain kinds of cancers. There are some people who have cancer "genes" that run in their family.
There is a difference between killing people off, and preventing them from having children. There are millions of Americans that will never have a child, nor do they want to have a child.
AIDS is contagious, cancer is not. We can prevent and eradicate AIDS through sex education, we can't prevent cancer. But, we could greatly limit the incidence rate of cancer by preventing certain "cancer carrying" genes from spreading in the general population.
But lets say hypothetically that we could cure ALL CANCER by preventing a certain percentage of the population from having offspring. Would it be worth it? Or are we better off suffering with cancer because we don't want to hurt anyones feelings?
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
"Say there's a group of five people standing on a train track, and you're on a train coming toward them. You can save the whole group by pulling a lever and switching to another track, but the catch is that you'll kill another person who's standing on that other track. Do you pull the lever?
"According to Harvard scientist Mark Hauser, who posed this question to hundreds of thousands of people on the Internet, nine out of 10 people say yes, they would pull the lever. But then, the questions get harder—and the answers much more confusing. It turns out that different parts of our brains make different moral decisions."
Would it be morally justified to save the lives of the many, by the sacrifice of the few? If you think 10% is too large of a number, what if it was only 5%? or 1%? or .1%?
At what point would seemingly immoral behavior be justified for the greater good?
Who is being sacrificed? From the question, it doesn't appear that anyone is choosing between on life and many or any for that matter, simply the prevention of some from having children. No one's life is in jeopardy, simply their desire, as noble as that may be, to have children. Frankly, many genetically high risk people are already making the choice not to have children.
Would it be moral? What is more moral, to have children when they have a high probability of suffering from a genetic disease or defect (we are not talking about abortion) or to refrain from conceiving them in the first place?
I have a genetic disorder and I have made the conscious decision not to have biological children. I do not want to pass on my genetics to another person. I think if more people CHOSE not to have biological children because of a genetic issue, that would be fine. Forcing? No.
In this case genetic selection is immoral. Not all children of cancer sufferers get cancer. This is an uncertainty that discredits sterilization.
Also, children of cancer free parents do get cancer. If the OP is suggesting that the goal of sterilization is to eliminate unneeded suffering, well, that is impossible in every possible way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
