Suppose someone released a virus that did not kill anyone, but sterilized 75% of the worlds population. As a result, this caused a massive paradigm shift in thinking and technology, as new and innovative ideas were used to avoid a complete collapse of modern civilization. As such, humanity enters a golden age for a long period of time. Was it ethical for that person to make that decision for so many people, knowing that their sacrifice would benifit future generations for years to come? If a group of people do not have the ability to make the right decision, is it ethical for someone to make it for them?
2006-07-12 11:15:18 · 10 answers · asked by Mr. Lavos 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Not trying to prove a point, just a sampling of opinions for an Ethics class.
2006-07-12 11:57:04 · update #1
The problem is people are overpopulating . This is a real threat . It is a ethical solution if the end result is total extinction . All the persons would surely die eventually as a result of dwindling resources , Morally however I would not share the same view . This as a result would accelerate cloning and research in life span and medical advancements .. The actual truth is the poor would mostly effected and would send the upper class into violence and turmoil .
2006-07-12 11:31:35 · answer #1 · answered by J D 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ethics is simply the analyzing right from wrong, or good from bad.
In the eyes of most of the religions of the world, releasing this sterilization virus is not 'good' (and would therefore be unethical). Respective religions may have different reasonings behind this, but it is unlikely that releasing this virus would be considered ethical by a major religious group.
If you ask the question 'is it ethical', you can choose to view this from your entirely personal viewpoint of right and wrong, and not a religious viewpoint. If you choose your own way, then pretty much anything can be viewed as 'ethical'. There are those who view having sex with children as 'ethical'. There are those who view jihad as 'ethical'. Regardless of what it is, there will probably be someone, somewhere, who views just about anything as 'ethical'.
Most people in society would not view the release of this virus as ethical. Some people, based on their own personal views of morality, would view it as ethical (these might be the same people whose ethics include the 'obligation to die' - and yes, those people exist as well).
If you ask me if this is ethical, I would suggest to you that it is not, in my view. Yes, our society has problems, including feeding the world, providing adequate medical care and education, and so on and so forth. But technology also marches forward. We cannot assume that land will never become more productive per acre (or live in the fear that global warming/pollution will make it less productive per acre) than what it is today. What if we learned to control the weather, thereby eliminating droughts and making all the farmland arable every year? What if we found a way to transport ourselves using technology that gets 100 miles to the gallon? Or uses solar power? What new technologies will come tomorrow that help human beings better utilize the resources on the planet?
The answer is that I don't know, and neither do you. But if someone makes a decision on their own to release such a virus, thereby permanently and indelibly changing the future of human civilization, they will do so without my support or approval.
2006-07-12 11:31:29 · answer #2 · answered by LA_kinda_guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if 75% of the population posting questions actually had no brains to begin with? What if they thought that since they can turn on a computer, type, and pose a question that made them "intellectual"? And that by posting their questions they actually offered others real live altering solutions and suggestions to the world. Suppose someone with no brain capacity at all for argument posted a question and thought they really had everyone musing at their brilliant rationale? Would it be the right decision of that person to actually give up 5 points??
But, for the sake of argument, it's a pity that this didn't occur prior to your mother and father copulating ....
2006-07-12 11:24:41 · answer #3 · answered by i_troll_therefore_i_am 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would have to say it's unethical and short sighted because no one can tell what the future will really bring. this virus for mass sterilzation could wind up desemating humanity to such an extent that it could not recover. one human being is in no position to decide for most of the world's population that they will be sacrificial lambs, and therefore should be grateful for the honor.
nature has a way of allieviating over population with natural disasters and asteroid strikes. this has always happened and always will. if you make to great a reduction in the human population you will have less people and therefore less chance of the human race surviving the next asteroid strike. they do come.
2006-07-12 11:59:44 · answer #4 · answered by Stuie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm is this result "guaranteed"?? or is it just as possible that the exact Opposite could happen and there is no golden age..! =T... since no one can Know what will definitely happen in the future, that would be considered a HUGE gamble on our society's future welfare, and therefore somewhat "unethical" for taking that chance: you are TAKING away the ability to reproduce, which is a right for any animal, human or otherwise. if, in the end it is indeed a "happy accident" in the long run, it doesn't take away the fact that the original gamble was an unethical science project on human guinea pigs.
2006-07-12 11:32:06 · answer #5 · answered by sasmallworld 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry but what is the point of this question? Who says there is an over population problem? People have the right to make decisions even bad ones. I hope this is just a question to stimulate conversation, but sounds pointless to me. Even though you try to ask a smart question, I think its pretty dumb!
2006-07-12 11:21:22 · answer #6 · answered by admyr75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please keep in mind that this Mass Sterilization will effect only Straight People...their longing to reproduce will be frustrated greatly, and they will blame Gays for the outcome. Considering that Gays are blamed for all HIV infections in the world (preposterous), it is not much of a leap to assume that they will be blamed for this one too. I, for one, would opt for the mass sterilization of stupid people...well, can we add 'fat people' to the list. And, ugly people...I am not sure who will decide who is ugly, but let's add that one. And...skinny people...no one likes really skinny people. Personally, I do not like blonds...let's add them to the list. And I absolutely hate people with hairy bodies, so they should be added to the list. Well, you get my drift. It didn't work for Germany, and it just doesn't work for mankind. Personally, I think all people should be limited to one child for about 10 generations. .. but that is just a concerned world citizen talking. Good luck on this one.
2006-07-12 11:21:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the problem with ethics. So interpretable from one person to the next.
2006-07-12 11:19:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey, I think that you have a good point, but, Hitler tried that with the Jews in Germany.
This really is a possibility though.
Look at ads.. (Aids ) It is a possibility.
It would sure devastate the QUEER population.
2006-07-12 11:21:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as it would affect all groups in the same percentages, I could live with that. Expose me first.
2006-07-12 11:42:19 · answer #10 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋