In our example should the un-frozened man be killed and dissected to save millions.
Yes
No
Other. ( Explain in thread.)
0voters
Imagine a future where a super virus has taken over the earth where millions of people die everyday through infection.
Scientists go through all their medical data and technology globally only to find no cure for the mass epidemic.
Finally it is discovered that one person from the past frozen in cryo-stasis is the only shot of prescribing a cure to the dying population.
Scientists revive the frozen man and do tests on him only to find out that in order to extract the elements from his body they must consequently kill the man in order to save millions of lives.
The man recently unfrozened explicitly doesn’t like the idea of being murdered in sacrifice for the rest of the world’s survival.
The main question of this thread is:
Is it alright to kill this one single man for the survival of all people on the globe even though he is unwilling to die?
You ask whether it (it meaning "alrightness), is a property intrinsic in the act of killing the frozen man.
Neither I, nor anyone else, knows whether “alrightness” belongs to the situation…(thing in itself). All we have is our sentiments on the matter. So, that’s the answer to your question. Nobody knows whether it is alright.
If you had asked “would you sacrifice the frozen man,” or “does it sit right with you that society will kill a man so that billions may live,” then one could then answered with some honesty, instead of with insubstantiatable claims about the thing in itself. The answer would be something like “yea, my sentiments on the matter are such and such,” or “no, it doesn’t sit right with me that this happens.”
Of course it is. Just don’t let everyone know so you can avoid the misguided outrage of the moralist assholes who’d all rather die and go see thier stupid god.
It is both alright that the sick diseased individuals kill him to find a cure and it is equally alright if the man who is being targeted to die to run away for his own survival.
( Hence a neutral amorality stance.)
It is a matter if the cat or the mouse gets away first.
God is what people cling to who have no hope of success by thier own worldly means.
What you do is convince them all to do your bidding, while they just think that it’s thier natural place.
Then when the masses of poor and stupid people decide that they don’t feel like they’re getting what they deserve, you tell them that the treasure awaits them in heaven.
This gives them just enough hope to keep working thier fingers to the bone for you so that you can have heaven on earth at thier expense, then you die and get a big fancy grave, and they get buried in a pine box, thinking that they’ve somehow won by doing what they should to gain entry into the kingdom of heaven, when really it’s just a hole in the ground.
