2007-01-06 05:21:29 · 12 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Well, nature originally intended for only the strongest to survive and therefore pass on those good genes to their offspring. However, modern society has rejected that and instead adopted the idea that every life, human or animal, is important and should not be carelessly thrown away. It has been accepted by the vast majority of people in the world that even the most physically and/or mentally challenged people are cared for and given as much a normal life as possible.
2007-01-06 05:30:22 · answer #1 · answered by Liz 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course, it would depend on how sick. If you have ever watched while someone suffers, slowly dieing. You can't help but to ask, why is it right to put animals out of their misery and make people suffer? There was a time when people weren't put to sleep for an operation or given anything to relieve pain. Will the time come when we will see that suffering should be relieved?
2007-01-06 06:51:46 · answer #2 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That goes against the tradition we have called gadugi--you help those who can't help themselves and ask for nothing in return. The term is also used for service organizations. I would tell them that and that if I were not to do that, I'd not be a human being. Animals allow the sick to die, human beings do not.
2007-01-06 05:32:23 · answer #3 · answered by Danagasta 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America generally has chosen not to respond that way. When Katrina come ashore many of the sick and weak died because people did not care. Blame is still being passed around and policies are being planned so it does not happen again. It will happen again because if its my skin or yours most chose themselves, unlike the firefighter of 9-11
2007-01-06 05:53:52 · answer #4 · answered by wewally 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The sick can be very strong and the strong if they were struck with something that there is no cure, they would probably die.
2007-01-06 05:43:20 · answer #5 · answered by amazon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd tell whoever said it to piss off.
How would they define strong? How woudl they define sick? They could just as easily say that I was sick if i suffered from depression, and that someone with the flu was just suffering through a quick cold. Too much chance for corruption, too much chance for abuse, and idiotically narrow-minded.
2007-01-06 05:46:24 · answer #6 · answered by spewing_originality 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the sick might die. and the strong might live. in every moment in time they have the same odds.
2007-01-06 05:48:53 · answer #7 · answered by mlabhand 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only the truly weak say that
a greater person wouldn't forget the value of life, you're no one to judge a person useless, you're no one, our higher emotion and conscience is what separates us from other animals, even though we are animals, our primitive nature never escapes society
2007-01-06 05:30:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That was the philosophy of the third reich wasn't it?
2007-01-06 06:08:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in a dire situation yes...
but if not well then no. the sick can get better. and after all, what are you meaning when you say "sick"? i think in a way we're all sick.
2007-01-06 05:24:09 · answer #10 · answered by Meeowf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋