It is one the most difficult philosophical questions which produces an ultimate answer for this question: “does goal justify the means?”
2007-01-19 10:00:28 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes to both questions
2007-01-19 10:04:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually it's not that difficult.
For a start let's make it simple. Would it be wrong to kill hundreds to save one person?
Pretty obviously the answer is no.
Then would it be wrong to kill one person to save another? Many would say no. Some might say yes.
Then to your question. If you can save thousands by killing one is it right? Many would say yes. A few (including myself) would say no.
So we're just arguing numbers here. If that is the case and it is up to the individual to choose what that number is then your personal ethics need to be checked before you make such a choice. Because perhaps whoever had the choice is not the best person to make it.
So, I'd argue that who am I to choose the life of one child over the life of many.
I personally do not believe the end justifys the means. And to sacrifice the child would damage my own personal ethics. Furthermore it might give a false impression to others "If he was allowed to kill a child and do great good why can not we all do something similar. I will kill this person and claim it is for the greater good too. Who is to say I am wrong?" By curing all disease you might cause other untold harm to cultures or societies. Or the planet. A massive population explosion (which is what you'd get) might harm the planets already delicate ecological balance. Wars would escalate as people fought over land. etc.
My personal belief is that it is never right to kill anyone for anyone elses benefit. Except in the case where you are defending your own or anothers life against someone who would willfully and intentionally try to kill them. Even then, you should try to incapacitate and not kill.
2007-01-19 19:03:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's difficult at all!! I would gladly kill a thousand innocent children to save the world from disease. Why not? Lose a thousand to gain several million? It's like the lottery, you pay three dollars to gain a million. Duh? What a great deal! Now that works in theory, but we need diseases. The world is so jam packed with people that disease is the only way our race will survive. So if you can guarantee the world human race can go and colonize mars or something, then yeah, I'd kill the kid no problem. But if things are going to remain that same then no. It would cause far more problems.
2007-01-19 18:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question. IF I were willing to have all diseases cured then killing the child would be no problem. I caused my ex to have a miscarriage with no hesitation so this would be even less difficult. OF course i sort of LIKE watching the sufferning some people go thorough with their diseases, but that's just me.
2007-01-19 19:31:24 · answer #4 · answered by kveldulf_gondlir 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know, sometimes, I think that the end DOES justify the means. If you kill one person to save millions, then I think that one person's death is justified. If you value all life so much that you don't kill an innocent person, but millions die as a result, then you've become such an inflexible adherent to your own ideals that your ideals become the end, not the life your ideal was meant to protect. It's a catch-22.
2007-01-19 18:25:46 · answer #5 · answered by Bastet's kitten 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Humans are the only disease in the world.
And no, natural selection is a process, this include human actions such war, nature/life cycle is a cyclical process and we cannot add corners.
So, even if you kill that child we would over populate and start killing each other for food. And if you don't kill that child some else will kill him and you probably.
2007-01-19 18:21:46 · answer #6 · answered by resiste_lfc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I wouldn't. If people are ill, that means they did something to deserve it in this life or in the past ones. Whereas that child is, as you said, innocent. I wouldn't do it. And I hate Machiavelli's "goal justifies the means", it has indirectly affected my life in a very bad way.
2007-01-20 12:44:23 · answer #7 · answered by lucantropeea 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because ending disease in the world would be the end of the world. Over population and starvation is not a disease, and it is these factors plus greed that would ultimately destroy mankind.
2007-01-19 18:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by rex_rrracefab 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have no religion but if you mean the life of a living , feeling child, then the answer must always be no.
I would rather die than expect somebody else to give up their life for me, even though I would be prepared to give my own life to save a person who means a lot to me.
2007-01-19 18:27:08 · answer #9 · answered by Ted T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I wouldn't. The reason for things like disease is population control, survival of the fittest if you will.
Imagine if the child you killed to put an end to disease was meant to grow up and discover something that would save the earth from its impending doom.
2007-01-19 18:15:37 · answer #10 · answered by dovey 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I vote for choice number 3. Make the child aware of what he is giving his life for, and that it is a good thing. Then he'll do the killing himself, so you don't have to!
2007-01-19 19:16:53 · answer #11 · answered by contemplating 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋