A morality question for you all.

m.castaldo · Post by **m.castaldo** » 2005-12-02 10:01pm

Just wondering to see what everone would do in this situation.

For this situation, assume that you're critical or near critical, say, another year or so to live on average, while it'll take nearly 5 years to reverse engineer enough of it from the original sample to be useful to anyone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-12-02 10:06pm

Why can't they reverse engineer the cure from you after you've used it on yourself?

By the way, the question: "would you do it" is different from the question: "is it ethical". So this is not so much a morality question as a character question.

m.castaldo · Post by **m.castaldo** » 2005-12-02 10:10pm

Well, not being a biologist, let's just say that the 'cure' for AIDS doesn't actually affect your body, since HIV seems to attack anything biological that can fight it. So, let's say that rather then a vaccine or the like, the 'cure' is actually some sort of near future nano-technological machine that is able to actually go after the HIV molecule and destroy it. However, it has a very small 'shelf life', say 10 hours, in the human body, after which it burns itself out. As such, it'll take several years for our technology to reverse engineer it to a point we can mass produce it.

And a persons character can be tied into their morality. After all, what is a persons character but their ethical and moral make up? As such, I'd like to add that, after you choose your answer, say why you chose what you did.

A-Wing_Slash · Post by **A-Wing_Slash** » 2005-12-02 10:12pm

I don't think that this question can get very accurate answers. Except for a few jokers, the occassional asshole, and maybe a crazy, 'AIDS is God's wrath' fundie, everyone here will say they'd sacrifice themselves for the rest of mankind. However, if you were actually in this situation I think that it would be much harder to resist saving yourself. I certainly hope that I'd make the right decision, but I'm not sure. I don't think that you can get a truthful answer to this question without having this happen to you.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-12-02 10:12pm

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that a lot of people might know what the right thing to do is, but might not actually do it themselves. For example, almost everyone would agree that it's unethical to lie, yet everyone lies on occasion.

m.castaldo · Post by **m.castaldo** » 2005-12-02 10:15pm

You're right. I didn't understand. I wasn't trying to pound home what the 'right thing to do is', but just try and get some honest responses to see if, if you were faced with the choice, what would your personal ethics/morals/character steer you towards, rather then a basic 'yes, the obvious answer is to help others you stupid bastard.'

Oh well, was thinking about it after watching the movie Rent, figured it might make for an interesting thread.

m.castaldo · Post by **m.castaldo** » 2005-12-02 10:17pm

Edited to add: Any chance you can think of a way to reword it to make it sound better and to get my original intention across?

solitaryshell · Post by **solitaryshell** » 2005-12-11 10:53pm

Well, I would use it for myself and to hell with everyone else. I don't want to be a noble martyr, I want to live a long healthy life. Maybe this isn't the ethical answer but I would be lying if I were to say otherwise.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-12-11 11:00pm

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't give it up. That's not meant to make me seem like a more moral person, I still feel guilty that I stole someone's sock when I was 8. This would drive me insane. I'd have to give up the cure for others, whether I wanted to or not.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-12-11 11:18pm

I would die someday anyay. So instead of adding a few more years I would give the cure to the world and enjoy the last year of my life as a noble person loved by the whole world.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2005-12-12 12:16am

I would sacrifice myself for all the others, but not without adequate 'compensation'. I want a 100m statue of me in every major capital city, looking out above the heads of all ye mere mortals, with a double helix in my right hand. I want to be world famous, remembered in song for endless generations, and having countless research centres, wings, buildings and streets named after me. If i'm going to die for the world, i want it to give me immortality first, dammit.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-12 12:38am

I think I would give it to science, but in the towards the end I would wish I hadn't. Of course, if I'm near the end already, I'm much more likely to use it on myself. It gets pretty bad when it comes time to die.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-12-12 02:18am

Would anyone know the reason that you were suddenly cured of AIDs? (You'd be ripped apart if anyone found out about this).

I really don't know, although I think that i'd probably give it to the world, I don't intend to be in that position anyway.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-12-12 03:13am

Depends.

If I gave it to someone and got full credits for the cure, like The Nobel prize world wide fame and a place in the history books, then hell yes.

I want something out of the deal, fame or cure hopefully both.

And I think I would halve the dose, take half and give away the other half.

~Edit
Also what guarantee do I have that the cure would not be sold for an extravagant cost much like the current medication unavailable thought much of Africa Asia and Eastern Europe?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-12-12 03:40am

Don't know. I'm still young, got my whole life before me etc etc...

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2005-12-12 04:52am

Since the scenario says I invented it...
And since this is in SLAM, not OSF I can assume certain rules of reality apply, like any 'cure' requiring a huge amount of time, teamwork and copious meticulous notetaking. Real science isn't anything like TV.

For an excellent example of the development of a 'real' 'miricle' 'cure' try the PBS docu 'Cancer Warrior'. It took 20-30 years and is still experimental.

I publish the results in Nature (or another reputable Jouranl) and declare myself the first 'test' subject.
I'm sure the team I worked with would like credit too.
I would also like a Nobel prize.

My cake and eating it. Yum. Yum. Yum.

Pezzoni · Post by **Pezzoni** » 2005-12-12 03:00pm

Assuming I could give it away in a fasion in which it would be made freely avaliable to anyone who needs it, and instructions for it's reproduction to be spread freely to other contries with a need for it, I'd go with giving it away.
Wether I would actually behave like that if placed in the situation for real; I'm not sure. I'd like to think I would...

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-12-12 06:12pm

I'd give the cure to mankind, and then be extremely pissed off at myself for giving up my chance to cure myself like an idiot, and then I'd be okay with it. Until I died, anyway.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2005-12-12 09:02pm

Modern Science can keep AIDs havers alive quite a while now.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-12-12 10:20pm

I don't understand the question. If I invented a cure for AIDS, why can't I give my research data and notes that I used to create the cure to scientists for mass production and cure myself? Or have the team of other scientists and colleagues who helped create and conduct all the clinical trials that would have been necessary to work out the kinks out of my viral cure do it?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-12-12 11:08pm

m.castaldo wrote:Just wondering to see what everone would do in this situation.

For this situation, assume that you're critical or near critical, say, another year or so to live on average, while it'll take nearly 5 years to reverse engineer enough of it from the original sample to be useful to anyone.

If you are the one who discovers the cure, that means automatically that you have the formula to produce it and experimental expertise in its production and use. In this case, as the most experienced person with the formula who has the best chance to replicate the result and teach others to replicate it and thereby mass-produce the formula for the benefit of millions, you first use it on yourself. The question is less one of morality than practicality. And if you're worried about the moral dimension of the issue, experimenting on yourself first means that, if the formula is flawed and doesn't actually produce the cure hoped for or results in unexpected side-effects, these are discovered before what could be a defective formula is mass-produced and released to an unsuspecting public.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-12-13 03:13am

OK, I'd admit it. I clicked I'd use it on myself.

Because some others pointed out that if I managed to make the cure myself (or led the team that did it), I'm probably the best guy to recreate it so this is just practicality, I considered an alternate scenario. One in which the drug was given to me by God.

I'm sorry, guys, I think I won't be able to get over my fear of death just yet. If there's any left after I use it, I'd give what's left away, though.

Maybe I can compromise and let them make some measurements and pictures of magic nanobot to ease the reverse engineering, but if they can't make another magic nanobot before I die, I want the first one back.

arigo · Post by **arigo** » 2005-12-13 04:52am

I hate to say it, but I don't think I would. If I give it to others I don't exist anymore. I can't care for other people when I'm dead.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-13 06:13pm

This is dumb. If I use the cure on myself, I can stay alive, reproduce it and then mass-market it. And, by testing it on myself, I've guaranteed it's effectiveness. This has nothing to do with character. You can have a win-win situation.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A morality question for you all.

If you had AIDS and you discovered a cure, one you could either use yourself and be well, or give to a scientist and have it be mass produced, although it would take longer then you have to live, would you....

A morality question for you all.