do the ends justify the means?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-28 09:09pm

If it was random, I'd have to think about it a little, but I'd eventually do it. If I could pick the 100,000, fuck yes. I can think of 100,000 people that the world would be better off without, easy. Hell, if you asked me, "You can kill any 100,000 people with the snap of a finger. Would you do it?" I'd probably say yes, even without the cure AIDS bit.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-07-28 09:11pm

Andrew J. wrote:If it was random, I'd have to think about it a little, but I'd eventually do it. If I could pick the 100,000, fuck yes. I can think of 100,000 people that the world would be better off without, easy. Hell, if you asked me, "You can kill any 100,000 people with the snap of a finger. Would you do it?" I'd probably say yes, even without the cure AIDS bit.

[points at Darkstar and Azeron]

~ver

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-07-28 09:18pm

Do the ends justify the means?

[Spock]The needs of the many, outweight the needs of the few. Or the one.{/Spock]

Except for a few exceptions (nice bit of grammar) IMO that rule applies all the time.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-28 09:26pm

in response to the 100k v 20m question, YES. Immediately and without
question. 100,000 die to save 20,000,000. No consent, no nothing. Just
slaughter them and save the rest. It would be immoral to NOT do it.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-07-29 12:39am

No. Who am I to end a hundred thousand lives? I don't think I would be able to face myself if I did that. Even with a cure, how long would it take to eradicate AIDS? A cure is not a magic bullet, it doesn't automatically make AIDS disappear.

People who get AIDS aren't volunteers either, but at least some of them got it as a result of their own behavior.

And if you started recruiting for volunteers, you'd probably get a good several thousand.

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-29 05:12am

kojikun wrote:in response to the 100k v 20m question, YES. Immediately and without
question. 100,000 die to save 20,000,000. No consent, no nothing. Just
slaughter them and save the rest. It would be immoral to NOT do it.

WTF !
Can you explain to me how killing 100.000 innocent people would be MORAL ! Many of the 20.000.000 have acquired the illnes by their OWN fault. So 100.000 because of the fault of many? If you only count the ones who have acquired it without their fault, the number would be much less. So don't make like your statment is SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-29 05:21am

well, if your going to argue their own fault, ignorance causes a helluva lot of stds.

Im told there is a theory that if you have sex with a virgin, aids goes away.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-29 06:20am

Wedge wrote:Can you explain to me how killing 100.000 innocent people would be MORAL ! Many of the 20.000.000 have acquired the illnes by their OWN fault. So 100.000 because of the fault of many? If you only count the ones who have acquired it without their fault, the number would be much less. So don't make like your statment is SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

Maybe.
But MOST have contracted HIV through ignorance brought through a lack of education in the third world.
Many more have contracted HIV through the only livelihood available to them in their situation and country.
Others have contracted HIV through sharing a placenta with a woman with the virus.
Others have contracted HIV through someone lying to them
Others have contracted HIV through a mistake by medical workers.

Innocent victims of HIV are still much much greater than 100k.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-29 06:25am

innerbrat wrote: Maybe.
But MOST have contracted HIV through ignorance brought through a lack of education in the third world.
Many more have contracted HIV through the only livelihood available to them in their situation and country.
Others have contracted HIV through sharing a placenta with a woman with the virus.
Others have contracted HIV through someone lying to them
Others have contracted HIV through a mistake by medical workers.

Innocent victims of HIV are still much much greater than 100k.

Let's not forget prepubescent girls who are raped by HIV infected men because they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS.

Stereotyping makes things so black and white...

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-29 06:32am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Let's not forget prepubescent girls who are raped by HIV infected men because they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS.

Stereotyping makes things so black and white...

Y'know I completely forgot the reason I had to go through HIV testing.
Whoops.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-29 06:43am

Exonerate wrote:No. Who am I to end a hundred thousand lives? I don't think I would be able to face myself if I did that.

If you don't you will have killed millions through inaction. How well would you be able to cope with that?

Exonorate wrote:Even with a cure, how long would it take to eradicate AIDS? A cure is not a magic bullet, it doesn't automatically make AIDS disappear.

True, but the cure would still save millions of lives in the long run.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-29 06:47am

Sir Sirius wrote:
Exonerate wrote:No. Who am I to end a hundred thousand lives? I don't think I would be able to face myself if I did that.
If you don't you will have killed millions through inaction. How well would you be able to cope with that?

Personally, although I cannot answer for Ex, obviously, I feel that actively murdering someone would be infintely harder for me to do than manslaughter by inaction. The maths just don't come into it.

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-29 06:59am

innerbrat wrote:Maybe.
But MOST have contracted HIV through ignorance brought through a lack of education in the third world.
Many more have contracted HIV through the only livelihood available to them in their situation and country.
Others have contracted HIV through sharing a placenta with a woman with the virus.
Others have contracted HIV through someone lying to them
Others have contracted HIV through a mistake by medical workers.

Innocent victims of HIV are still much much greater than 100k.

As I told in my first post here, the BIG numbers of Aids are people in Africa who contracted HIV without their fault, but in the first world countries it's mostly your own fault (I repeat, MOSTLY, I know it's not always). Whe can not even generalize that all third world countries are bad informed, because I lived in Peru and you get as informed as good as in Spain.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-29 07:04am

Wedge wrote:As I told in my first post here, the BIG numbers of Aids are people in Africa who contracted HIV without their fault, but in the first world countries it's mostly your own fault (I repeat, MOSTLY, I know it's not always). Whe can not even generalize that all third world countries are bad informed, because I lived in Peru and you get as informed as good as in Spain.

Soo... you admit that the majority of the 20m are faultless, then.
Concession accepted.

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-29 07:15am

innerbrat wrote:Soo... you admit that the majority of the 20m are faultless, then.
Concession accepted.

Hahahaha, why concession accepted?
I always told that the mayority where faultless, in Africa. In Spain for example (IIRC it's the country with most percent of HIV infected here in europe) I doubt that's the case. Most people contract it by their own fault. But since the numbers in Africa are WASTLY more, of course that of the total population who contracted HIV are not responsible for it, like I said since the beginning.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-29 07:17am

Wedge wrote:Can you explain to me how killing 100.000 innocent people would be MORAL ! Many of the 20.000.000 have acquired the illnes by their OWN fault. So 100.000 because of the fault of many? If you only count the ones who have acquired it without their fault, the number would be much less. So don't make like your statment is SO FUCKING OBVIOUS.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-29 07:24am

innerbrat wrote:
Y'know I completely forgot the reason I had to go through HIV testing.
Whoops.

I did not mean to imply anything; but rather, to merely add to the weight of the argument, for indeed, in Africa, that belief is very common, and it is also very commonly acted upon.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-07-29 07:27am

Wedge wrote:
innerbrat wrote:Soo... you admit that the majority of the 20m are faultless, then.
Concession accepted.
Hahahaha, why concession accepted?
I always told that the mayority where faultless, in Africa. In Spain for example (IIRC it's the country with most percent of HIV infected here in europe) I doubt that's the case. Most people contract it by their own fault. But since the numbers in Africa are WASTLY more, of course that of the total population who contracted HIV are not responsible for it, like I said since the beginning.

There are also places like South Africa and India where the infected men try to get rid of it by passing it on to innocent virgin girls with the belief that that is the cure, thus passing it on. Then you also have all the blood and plasma transfusions, and the use of dirty needles of drug addicts (not alway speople who necessarily know they have the disease) that are infected that way. There are many different ways to go about getting the disease and still be faultless. Moreover, people are ignorant and don't use protection, either out of lack of education or their own stupidity, and contract HIV. Then there are those that did not have a choice from the beginning, those that were born with it. Your concession IS accepted. You said that the largest number of AIDS is in Africa. Where they are uneducated. Thus, it would be more moral to take out the 100,000. However, not all third world countries are that way, as you have demonstrated. But that is in South America, as opposed to Africa and Asia, where simple educational standards can be much lower, and where not as many people can even AFFORD to send their kids to school.

Now, I can't answer for anyone else, but it WOULD be easier to cope with leaving the millions to die out of inaction. Hell, look at your life NOW, and tell me you don't already. Would you be able to kill 100,000 people and live with yourself? I honestly don't know if I could.

~ver

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-29 07:28am

Wedge wrote: Hahahaha, why concession accepted?
I always told that the mayority where faultless, in Africa. In Spain for example (IIRC it's the country with most percent of HIV infected here in europe) I doubt that's the case. Most people contract it by their own fault. But since the numbers in Africa are WASTLY more, of course that of the total population who contracted HIV are not responsible for it, like I said since the beginning.

I don't care if they're guilty or not, to be honest. I've decided to remove the disease from humanity and save twenty million people at the cost of a hundred thousand. You can judge me for it later; that's fine. But if the power is mine, I'll do it. Execute me for it. So what? The decision was mine to make and I made it. I'm the one who would have to deal with it. Guilty of what, anyway? I'm the one who would be the mass murderer. These people you're condemning merely to save your principles, what exactly have they done? Sleep with the wrong person, at the worst? Do drugs? Are those crimes which suddenly warrant a slow and painful death? I don't think so. It's still twenty million against a hundred thousand, and I'd do it and then gladly pay whatever price society decided to dish out for my doing so.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-29 07:52am

I think that in a way, this scenario is quite simple. If you know what will happen if you decide to go one way or the other, then your inaction to go ahead at the cost of 100,000 lifes is an action that puts the (+20 mil?) deaths that could have been prevented into your hands...

... Was this thread happened to be inspired by religions with supposedly omnipotent God(s)?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-29 08:22am

I honestly dont remember. it occured to me during one of my IMs, but I dont know which one.

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-29 08:50am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I don't care if they're guilty or not, to be honest. I've decided to remove the disease from humanity and save twenty million people at the cost of a hundred thousand. You can judge me for it later; that's fine. But if the power is mine, I'll do it. Execute me for it. So what? The decision was mine to make and I made it. I'm the one who would have to deal with it. Guilty of what, anyway? I'm the one who would be the mass murderer. These people you're condemning merely to save your principles, what exactly have they done? Sleep with the wrong person, at the worst? Do drugs? Are those crimes which suddenly warrant a slow and painful death? I don't think so. It's still twenty million against a hundred thousand, and I'd do it and then gladly pay whatever price society decided to dish out for my doing so.

First of all I don't have a problem with that, I totally accept your opinion, because it's that your opinion, but I was against what kojukin said, that it would be inmoral NOT to kill those 100000.

Second, I want to clearify (sp?) some things, I always said that most of the ill people contracted the HIV without their fault, so innerbrat and verilon, I never contradicted you on that point, since we knew that mostly it wasn't their own fault I don't know why concession accepted because I didn't contradict that fact. What I meant was that if you take all the people who contract it by their own fault it would be greater than 100.000 innocent people; and you should subtract said number from the 20.000.000. ([OT]and where that number came from? can I please have the source, just interest[/OT])

Now back to the what Duchess said.

(snip)...what exactly have they done? Sleep with the wrong person, at the worst? Do drugs? Are those crimes which suddenly warrant a slow and painful death?...

Nobody deserves it, but I won't kill a innocent man/woman to safe that life, if he/she would have been more responsible that wouldn't have happened.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-29 09:45am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Who said it was a vaccine? It said that it was a "cure", not a prevention.
HIV/AIDS is a virus, the only good way to "cure" it is via prevention. Unless we are talking about magic medicine that you snap your fingers and the virus disappears.

Antiviral medicines exist, Gil. They are not well known, but some varients (for example) can cure a large family of viruses including the common cold.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-07-29 04:50pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Exonerate wrote:No. Who am I to end a hundred thousand lives? I don't think I would be able to face myself if I did that.
If you don't you will have killed millions through inaction. How well would you be able to cope with that?

Then let somebody else do it. I'd probably antagonize after, wondering if I should've done it or not. By having the non-volunteers killed, I would be actively committing murder. Does letting people die make me a murderer? In this case, I would be forced to pick the two of the lesser evils. Do people with AIDS want others to die for their life?

Exonorate wrote:Even with a cure, how long would it take to eradicate AIDS? A cure is not a magic bullet, it doesn't automatically make AIDS disappear.
True, but the cure would still save millions of lives in the long run.

At the expense of a hundred thousand lives immediately. Their life is their own, who am I to take that away?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-29 05:07pm

Problem with me is that I really cannot see this situation occuring....I have read many places where people feel that the ends justify the means and I question the logic every time. Can you imagine that you have a cure for Aids that means killing 100 k people and then you find out it does not work.

Look at the stories of Terrrorists, the ends (whatever their goal - Religious control / Rebellion) justify the means (Murdering civilians)