Ethical question
- Thread starter The .50 Caliber Cow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sounds kind of like the atomic bomb. I wouldn't use a super weapon to erradicate a human culture, that is essentially genocide. Even if it erased them from existence and thus preventing the war, it could also prevent so much more than that. The people you erase may do something great for humanity.The .50 Caliber Cow said:
I wouldn't use the weapon personally. War is a terrible thing but I would never consider wiping an entire culture out of existence.
Depends.
If you were to use it, would you even know that you had used it?
Because if it works the way that I'm thinking of, that is, removing the enemy from the entire timeline, the enemy never would have been there to begin with. Which raises the questions of would this weapon have even been made? Would those people ever lived for them to die?
If it works based on removing a subject from the timeline, there is no repercussions for using such a weapon because you wouldn't have ever used it.
Now, after having typed that, I've read through what has been said so far, and I'm glad I'm not the only one with this line of thought.
If you were to use it, would you even know that you had used it?
Because if it works the way that I'm thinking of, that is, removing the enemy from the entire timeline, the enemy never would have been there to begin with. Which raises the questions of would this weapon have even been made? Would those people ever lived for them to die?
If it works based on removing a subject from the timeline, there is no repercussions for using such a weapon because you wouldn't have ever used it.
Now, after having typed that, I've read through what has been said so far, and I'm glad I'm not the only one with this line of thought.
Funny the number of people that proclaim erasing something from existence entirely is better than genocide.
It's not. It's just more comfortable, because if it never existed, nobody will remember. But it still amounts to the same thing in the end.
With the added horror that nobody will even remember what was lost.
Just think about it; Eradicating something so thoroughly, that even the memory of it's existence is gone?
How is that in any way, shape or form better than genocide? (destroying an entire group of people as thoroughly as you are able to.)
It seems more like genocide taken to it's logical extreme.
It's not. It's just more comfortable, because if it never existed, nobody will remember. But it still amounts to the same thing in the end.
With the added horror that nobody will even remember what was lost.
Just think about it; Eradicating something so thoroughly, that even the memory of it's existence is gone?
How is that in any way, shape or form better than genocide? (destroying an entire group of people as thoroughly as you are able to.)
It seems more like genocide taken to it's logical extreme.
Agreed. This question was posed at my Highschool. I was disturbed by how many people would use it there too.CrystalShadow said:
It's better in the sense that it never happened in the first place.CrystalShadow said:
It's an odd way to look at it, I know, but that's the logic behind it.
The problem with genocide is the aftereffects, the repercussions, the worldwide retaliation.
Call us twisted and sick if you want, but who would grieve for something that never was?
(Note: I know you didn't say sick and twisted, but that's the general vibe I get for choosing that answer.)
Well if you used this weapon to erase them from existence ... your people would never have gone to war, hense. No Crimes are being committed in that timeline. But it also stands to reason you'd never have come up with the weapon designed to destroy them if you hadn't been fighting them. So essentially you would have a Paradox on your hands. Beyond ethical concerns it would probably screw something up pretty seriously.The .50 Caliber Cow said:
You're right. I'll change the OP so that we'll assume that this weapon is paradox proof.Antari said:
Yes. Wiping out the other culture would allow a unified culture that would last much longer. If I let the other nation off with just a war, there would be more wars later.
Question: Would I and my country remember the enemy if the weapon were used?
Assuming we do, I wouldn't use it, ending a war is not worth the cost of wiping out hundreds of innocents, no matter our losses.
Still... tell the scientists to get back to me when they have a miniature version, for removing the leader behind the war.
Before that, though, make a device showing what effect on the timeline using the weapon will have. No good if a worse leader comes to power.
Assuming we do, I wouldn't use it, ending a war is not worth the cost of wiping out hundreds of innocents, no matter our losses.
Still... tell the scientists to get back to me when they have a miniature version, for removing the leader behind the war.
Before that, though, make a device showing what effect on the timeline using the weapon will have. No good if a worse leader comes to power.
Go watch "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara"
Actually, there's a link to the entire documentary. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6733596013688235740&ei=V29BS7vxJJKF-QaYt-ynBg&q=movie+agent+-Charlie+-Waco+-year&view=3&dur=3#
This question, and many others, answered by a guy who, well...faced this question, and killed and let die thousands in the process.
My thought: Same as any other life and death ethical dilemma. If the lives saved exceeds lives destroyed, then it is a moral imperative to do so. However, you have to look at ALL the consequences of your actions, not just the immediate and obvious ones.
Actually, there's a link to the entire documentary. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6733596013688235740&ei=V29BS7vxJJKF-QaYt-ynBg&q=movie+agent+-Charlie+-Waco+-year&view=3&dur=3#
This question, and many others, answered by a guy who, well...faced this question, and killed and let die thousands in the process.
My thought: Same as any other life and death ethical dilemma. If the lives saved exceeds lives destroyed, then it is a moral imperative to do so. However, you have to look at ALL the consequences of your actions, not just the immediate and obvious ones.
I'll have to change my answer on that then since you clarified the post. I wouldn't use it if that was the case then, if it was superlazers from space I would have at it but to go back make it were these people never existed then I wouldn't.
Well since I assume this is supposed to be a total war then when do I get to press the shiny red button sir?