Poll: Which one? The greater of two evils.

Recommended Videos

Everin

New member
Apr 15, 2009
624
0
0
If an evil man cures a deadly sickness. He had to kill 50,000 people to do it! Do we accept his findings or do we discard it? What if we discard it and it kills 200,000 more people before a cure is found in an "un-evil" way.

Is it more moral, to allow the evil mans findings go to pot and allow 200,000 more people die because his findings were evil? Which is more evil?
And why?
:)
 

th155

New member
Mar 4, 2011
73
0
0
Under no circumstances should someone be allowed to die because we don't want to accept a cure, no matter how it was found. So i would choose the "evil" way, if less people die, it is okay with me.
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
Well if the findings have already been found, then they should be used. Putting people's lives at risk because you are on your moral high-horse could be cosidered just as bad (if not worse) than the evil man's actions.

Basically, you need to be able to put the good of others before your own moral objections, because in the end the cure it isn't about you.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Only an idiot would pass up on a cure because of the methods of which the cure was obtained.

Those 50,000 people didn't deserve to die, but it's an even greater insult to simply discard the cure. At least their deaths wouldn't have been in vain.
 

Yuno Gasai

Queen of Yandere
Nov 6, 2010
2,587
0
0
Biosophilogical said:
Well if the findings have already been found, then they should be used. Putting people's lives at risk because you are on your moral high-horse could be cosidered just as bad (if not worse) than the evil man's actions.

Basically, you need to be able to put the good of others before your own moral objections, because in the end the cure it isn't about you.
This.

You also need to remember that the people who died so that the cure could be obtained are already dead; why boycott something based on events which have already taken place?
 

Alon Shechter

New member
Apr 8, 2010
1,286
0
0
Maybe...
Maybe you take people from all around the world that are on Death Row and kill them to save the innocents?
Sure, still not an entirely good solution, but it makes more sense than picking off people from the street.
 

The_Graff

New member
Oct 21, 2009
432
0
0
double effect principle, a lesser evil can be justified in terms of the larger good. if you disaree then tell me you would be happy to sit in a room with those 200K peole and say "we could prevent your daths, but we're not going to because we dont like how this cure ws discovered, have fun wheezing your last and going cold"
 

The_Graff

New member
Oct 21, 2009
432
0
0
also if the guy who came up with the original cure is tring to fix a deadly disease, how does that make him evil?
 

StormShaun

The Basement has been unleashed!
Feb 1, 2009
6,948
0
0
If the guy if trying to find a cure to something this does not make him evil its just that he is breaking the law for all of good, but if 200,000 people had to die so everyone can live I would have to do it. And im sure the people who are going to die would agree...if they are truly unselfish that is.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,371
0
0
If there's a cure, why not use it? I don't care how it was made.
 

Cazza

New member
Jul 13, 2010
1,933
0
0
If you accpect it someone later will that that as an okay. Starting the cycle again. But letting people die because of morals isn't right. We should use the treatment unless the people who is dieing doesn't want cruel research treatment.
 

Kiardras

New member
Feb 16, 2011
242
0
0
Needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

So yeah, 50000 die so that many more can live. Its not a happy decision, and not one that should be consequence free, but in the long run its the right one.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
Wait, they already died?

Well fuck it, jail the fucker and use the cure. I thought it was "50,000 had to die to get the cure" at first.
 

Theta49

New member
Apr 27, 2011
4
0
0
so, the cure was already discovered?
i.e. the 50000 people was already killed in secret.. and the villain just handed over the cure for free?
if so, kind of weird, but sure, use it!

and put him and his accomplices to be judged for their crimes against humanity


because we can't justify the way it was discovered, but can't let it go to waste either




[note: at first thought it was a choice of letting him kill 50000 or let 200000 die.. which would make it a different matter entirely]
 

LordFisheh

New member
Dec 31, 2008
478
0
0
The 50,000 people are already dead, and they aren't coming back if we don't use the cure. But the 200,000 will still die.

It'd be an insult to their memory not to use the cure; it would be throwing away their deaths as if they were meaningless.
 

William Keller

New member
Jul 25, 2011
39
0
0
A wee bit of philosophy:

There is no "good" or "bad", no "heroic" or "evil" way. There is no light or shadow, just the gray area between them (see Penumbra). I think that "good" and "evil" (same with God and Satan) are two radically opposing poles, created by man in an attempt to explain some behavioural patterns.

In my opinion, it is simply not worth comparing ourselves to these two polar conditions.
There is nothing which is exclusively good or evil, only a combination of these two, unique in every man. The Yin and the Yang.

What really matters is one's motives: did the man want to kill fifty thousand, or was he interested in healing the rest two billion?

Interesting subject. Food for thought.
 

JochemDude

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,242
0
0
Somehow I have serious doubts about the world accepting the findings of a man who murdered 50.000 people.

I would make un-evil choice by the way.
 

Jordi

New member
Jun 6, 2009
812
0
0
This is boring. I'll play devil's advocate:

The cure should not be used because it sends a message that you can accomplish your goal by killing so many people. Even if you punish the scientist, because he may not care about that. Other (insane?) scientists who are willing to sacrifice themselves may also start killing thousands, because they know that in the end it might lead them to their goal. You might not think that that is all that bad if those scientists also find cures, but what if they don't succeed? All those people will have died in vain.

Furthermore, the problem statement clearly states that discarding it has uncertain results. It says "what if 200k people die?". It's not a certainty. Maybe someone else would discover a cure the next day and nobody else would die. Sure that's a risk, but it's nowhere near as bad as the absolute certainty that you're dooming that number of people.
 

AnkaraTheFallen

May contain a lot of Irn Bru
Apr 11, 2011
6,323
0
0
It depends. If he kills the people and finds the cure, then yes, we should us it so no more people die. But we shouldn't kill people to find a cure.

So, if he has found a cure already, use it, if he hasn't yet, then don't let him kill the people to find it.