Poll: Which one? The greater of two evils.
- Thread starter Everin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
no scientific achievement should be discarded because of the method it was achieved. we should however kick and beat the guy who got it and not give him/her any credit. That way after a generation no-one will remember him/her.
The US and soviet union did not bury the advanced rocket technology of the nazis just because the prototypes were build by slaves, they grabbed up the people involved like delicious candy.
The US and soviet union did not bury the advanced rocket technology of the nazis just because the prototypes were build by slaves, they grabbed up the people involved like delicious candy.
Since everyone keeps citing the Nazis, I'll just leave a link to the most infamous one. Josef Mengele.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
He's most known for his experiments on children and twins in Auschwitz.
OT: The means in getting the cure may be dispicable, but the cure itself can do more good than harm. That's not to say that measures shouldn't be put in place to ensure nobody does things like this again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
He's most known for his experiments on children and twins in Auschwitz.
OT: The means in getting the cure may be dispicable, but the cure itself can do more good than harm. That's not to say that measures shouldn't be put in place to ensure nobody does things like this again.
Labeling it as "Evil" and "Un-evil" then asking us "which is more evil?" is something of a leading question. Really you should present it as two options and not already pre-suppose the morality of the people who take either course of action. Watch/read ZP's views on labeling moral choices; putting "Evil" and "Good" is stupid.
OT
If we KNOW the consequences of the course's of action then the clear, obvious winner is Option B; Less people die. Hell to call "Saving 150,000 people's lives" the "Evil" option is almost ridiculous.
If we don't know any of the consequences (Ie how many people will die in each scenario before a cure is found) then "Both" is my option. Volounteers can come forward for experimentation, but nobody should be forced.
I imagine we'll even out at 150,000 deaths in that scenario and everything turned out better than expected.
OT
If we KNOW the consequences of the course's of action then the clear, obvious winner is Option B; Less people die. Hell to call "Saving 150,000 people's lives" the "Evil" option is almost ridiculous.
If we don't know any of the consequences (Ie how many people will die in each scenario before a cure is found) then "Both" is my option. Volounteers can come forward for experimentation, but nobody should be forced.
I imagine we'll even out at 150,000 deaths in that scenario and everything turned out better than expected.
I'd have killed the 50,000 as a sacrifice. The lives of many must always come over the few, if we have to sacrifice that many to get a cure - all the better. Of course use the bloody cure.
I wouldn't let a potential advantage go to waste, just because it was discovered in a "bad" way. Yes, punish the person(s) responsible if the deaths weren't justified (e.g. he could have avoided killing people, or killing so many), but turning your back on a cure just because it wasn't discovered in the "right" way just doesn't seem sensible to me.
If he's already killed the 50,000 then there's no reason not to use the cure. It's like saying: "Someone saved someone else by killing a third person, do you kill the person that was saved because the person who saved him killed someone?"
This would be a harder choice if it was either allow him to kill 50,000 for a definite cure very soon or not allowing him to and having an unspecified number of people die in the time it takes for you to discover one without him.
*Edit* Judging by the number of people who picked "The 'evil' option" for the poll compared to the number of people saying the 'evil' option is better, it seems that nobody noticed that the question was: "Which is worse?" not: "which is better?"
This would be a harder choice if it was either allow him to kill 50,000 for a definite cure very soon or not allowing him to and having an unspecified number of people die in the time it takes for you to discover one without him.
*Edit* Judging by the number of people who picked "The 'evil' option" for the poll compared to the number of people saying the 'evil' option is better, it seems that nobody noticed that the question was: "Which is worse?" not: "which is better?"
How exactly is the "evil" option in any way evil? Good and evil are meaningless terms anyway, the man you describe as "evil" wouldn't consider himself evil, but rather someone who makes the "hard choices" for the "greater good", a'la Ammon Jerro from NWN2.
Anyway, I'd choose the "evil" option. It'd be downright criminally stupid to not use the cure just because of how it was acquired.
Anyway, I'd choose the "evil" option. It'd be downright criminally stupid to not use the cure just because of how it was acquired.
Gah fuck I miss clicked on the poll. Never mind anyway the 'un-evil' way is the more evil; this is assuming you accept the concept of "good and evil".
The un-evil way kills more people so it's the stupid one. The guy's findings will cure now and that's what counts; punish him for the deaths by all means but use his work.
See good and evil can be manipulated and argued where as stupid decisions based on a rigid moral code will always be such.
Here's somethings to remember about good and evil. Both sides think they're good and the other one is evil, the victor is always good and villains in real life don't know they are villains.
The un-evil way kills more people so it's the stupid one. The guy's findings will cure now and that's what counts; punish him for the deaths by all means but use his work.
See good and evil can be manipulated and argued where as stupid decisions based on a rigid moral code will always be such.
Here's somethings to remember about good and evil. Both sides think they're good and the other one is evil, the victor is always good and villains in real life don't know they are villains.
A cure is a cure. I don't care who made it.
As long as the cure doesn't require more deaths to produce, I say use it.
As long as the cure doesn't require more deaths to produce, I say use it.
I think the issue with this is that people who hurt or kill to do research are usually sadists who are in truth actually not interested in finding a cure. That's why there was basically no useful medical research to come out of the nazi medical experiments conducted at Auschwitz or from the infamous Japanese unit 731.