Well, I wouldn't really kill people with HIV or AIDS, technically our existence alone, as humans, has plagued the world and numerous creatures. I would however, enforce them to wear a condom. If they do not do such, then I would probably have to be cruel and throw them in a quarantine area. It's not due to them having HIV or AIds, but due to them being selfish and spreading it when there were clearly some precautions they could have used.

Now, to speak of value... Yes, indeed a bum named Harry could inflict and make a bigger impact then Harvey the brain surgeon. However, we must also consider money. Money it's self has no value, the things it can purchase however are. Our entire lives and being are dependent, and based off money so it's fair to assume money may actually be worth more then we are, Or so that's the capitalism way. Harry the bum could perhaps help others, and hell, he may have even saved someone.

However, money spawns the value of a person, even a person like Paris Hilton, would probably be considered worth more then a bum. And why would she be of more value? Well, simply because we'll identify bums as simply a homeless person, and we'll identify Paris Hilton as Paris Hilton, the stuck up spoiled brat. It's like identifying a Gibson guitar out of a bunch of other brand names, the gibson is definitely already worth known because it has a name and a title for its self, where as the other brands are entirely anonymous and will be labeled as such.

Technically if we were also to argue someones value in a capitalist way, humans would be pretty low in value. Any species that has less then 7 billion around is worth more then humans. And how? Well, with 7.7 billion if everyone on this very site suddenly died, it probably wouldn't have a very big impact on this world overall. As perhaps a particular species with only 500 left, and having 5 of them killed, will probably affect the world a lot more. Consider it the same as losing 5 100 dollar bills, as opposed to losing 300 1 dollar bills. In the long run though their is more 1 dollar bills, the five dollar bills were more valuable, and less in number.

And I'm sure we can agree Pennies are nothing but a pain in the ass, and most chances we won't keep them.

Why don't we all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of promoting bacterial growth? One dead carcass <<< 50000000+ Bacteria if a life is a life...
Or are people the only ones that matter...

Its strange that everyone jumped to the consequentialist argument in this topic.
Why isn't killing wrong in and of itself?

Well, if the folks committing the genocide happen to be from the society, chances are they're going to base their decisions based on what value a group of people has to that society. Now, this assumes that the decision makers have quantitized the value of the group of people who they are going to kill (unless they're stupid), and have decided killing them is more valuable than letting them live. My argument is actually that because the value of human lives to society are not equal, (and thus the "well 10 will die so that 100 may live" becomes invalid), and because it is extremely difficult to gauge the value of a human life to society, that these decision makers have based their decision on something they don't actually know, and can't really say whether the value of the consequences of killing the group of people will be positive or negative to the society.

Because this topic is about killing for the good of a majority, not killing in general.

A question we must ask, if their were perhaps really a god, maybe even two of them. If one of them requested us to start killing anyone that's not White, anyone that's a homosexual, and anyone that's atheist would we randomely begin killing people, whom we don't know? Would we really do it non questioningly, despite them all perhaps having excellent reasons, more reason behind their action then god himself? Would we assume god is right, simply because he is an entity we are quite unfamiliar of?

Or perhaps, would we kill every soldier, including our own just to ensure there is no war?

ShadowFox, TL;DR please. Fix then vs than. Also, your suggestion on enforcing the use of condoms before quarantine, is flawed deeply. A) If you've ever bought a box of condoms, the box has written, "No method of contraception can give you 100% protection against pregnancy, HIV or STI's" B) In the UK there are 25 000 people infected, but unaware. Controlling the problem is harder than just killing it off. Vrael, equal rights make us equal in the eyes of the law. Social impact is dependant on the individual, but the value of a human life is equal. Here's an example:
You have ten people, you kill two, you now have eight. You kill three more, you have five. You kill the rest you have none. No, one person holds more weight than another.

Rantent, we're made of cells and micro organisms. We provide life for bacteria and food to. Arguably we are worth more than 50 000 of another species, or less than 1 of another species. But, 'I've got ten friends and a crowbar that say they aint gonna do jack.'

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 6 2009, 7:41 pm by Vrael. Reason: combined posts

Actually, I just wanted to make a topic about something that's not discussed much. Anyone can talk about ''Is killing good or bad?'' Humans are just basically selfish. No one, and no species is an exception to selfishness. Shedding a tear for someone that you knew that died is as well selfish. For, did you shed any tears when those nameless, anonymous thousands of people died on the news, those people that were a statistic? Please do not assume this topic is selfish, for I find Vrael has posted plenty of things which sounded very, very aspiring.

Their are numerous problems which can only be vanquished by being entirely destroyed, or taken away. However, it's also worth questioning if these things we see bad really is. It's more then apparent that some of us in this topic believe that HIV/AIDS people should be killed, because of course, their disease will obviously affect others. I also wish to state, even if we were to kill them all, their would be another virus, then we'd have to kill everyone with that virus. And besides, in the grand scheme of things, further then a humans comprehension, our population definitely needs to be balanced. Consider this, will you.

Would you kill everyone human, if we were nothing but a disease? Technically, isn't being "white" a disease? Look at how our way of life was enforced on other people. Our ideals, our religion, our way of life. Should we die? We exploited the hell out of other groups of people in our history, and we still do. In the eyes of some, killing all white people (this of course includes my self who would die) Would definitely help a lot of other people in this world.

TL;DR (I honestly don't know what this means or does!)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 6 2009, 8:40 am by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

If all the bugs were removed from earth's surface, we humans would die in 50 years. If all human's were removed from earth's surface, everything on earth will flourish.

I like your view on this matter, I agree entirely. It does appear we're nothing but a burden, doesn't it? And in numerous ways this world would be much better without a human such as my self. However, if all humans had to die for the benefit of every other species would we actually help them, and allow our selves to be deceased.Or would we continue to selfishly indulge in this world while we have it, exploiting it's resources like a parasite? The answer is quite obvious though. We can kill 40, 000 birds with a disease in a second, for the better good of other humans. But we have troubles executing a man who has a brain disorder, and this man in particular raped his daughter.

TL;DR Should all humans, and only humans die to save every other species? Despite it clearly being too hard for us to take the life of another human, regardless of what horrible things they could have done?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 6 2009, 9:21 pm by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

We could. But we won't. But we can change our way of life.

I certainly agree that in the eyes of the law we are held to be equal, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about a situation in which one group of people decides to kill another smaller group of people for some perceived benefit to the larger group.
Secondly, if you measure only the quantity of people remaining in your example, then since each person has the value "1" it is certainly true that no one person holds more weight than another. However, that's only if we're measuring the quantity of people. Now, take a scenario in which these ten people are stranded in the middle of some dangerous jungle. Let us say for the argument that:

one is sick with some infectious disease,
one is a doctor,
one is a computer programmer,
two are secretaries,
one is a fitness instructor,
one is an astronaut,
one is a marine,
one is a mathematician,
and one is a child.

Now, if you were one of those stranded people (let's say you are anyone except the sick person), what would you want done? Perhaps you are noble and you say "we have a doctor, so let us try and cure this man rather than kill him off so we don't become sick." Or perhaps, you are more concerned with survival and you say "let us abandon this sick man to death so that we may survive."

Clearly these people are not equal in their value to the miniature "society" Who among them is most valueable to the group? Certainly not the sick man or the child, since it is reasonable to assume that to survive in the jungle a great deal of phyiscal labor must be done. If that is true, then the fitness instructor, astronaut, and marine already have a value to the group, since they must be fit for their professions. I'm sure that everyone would value the doctor since he would be able to help with wounds, illness, ect, but what about the secretaries, computer programmer and mathematician? What is it they offer in terms of capability to survive? The marine is clearly most valuable, since he has training in survival techniques, including first aid and myriad other things. The secretaries probably won't be of much value (please note, that this is assumed this group is just starting off and hasn't yet had time to learn all the skills necessary for survival that they might be able to do if they survive long enough), and the child will probably be a burden. How is it that you claim these people are all equal?

Also, in regard to "TL;DR please" Please don't use such ambiguous abbreviations.


Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 7 2009, 7:10 am by Vrael.

Social impact would be social value. Greater positive impact, would hold more social value, Greater negative impact would hold less value. Quite easily I could argue an infected would be a burden, thus a negative impact. But rather I'll ask this, 'In deciding to commit genocide, would you ask yourself a question such as, "Will it benefit our group, or others, more than it will hurt our group, or others?" As opposed to asking "Well what if one of thems' a doctor? Or an astronaut?" In my example of genocide, that we've chosen to use. The question would be, "Would killing the infected (minority), help the non infected (majority.)" The answer is yes, and so the genocide -- as I stated -- could be justified. I don't neccesarily agree we should just go around comitting genocide, but I can see the benefits it may bring.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 8 2009, 12:39 am by Vrael. Reason: combined

Vrael, you're always measuring the 'value of someone's life' with how much use they have in a certain situation. Let's just call it this. There is no situation. There is no job. And they don't have to be of any use. They're just equal. And everyone's life is just as important as anyone else's. Its called being 'humane' and 'just'.

Would you accept that you would willingly be abandoned in a jungle if you were in the pants of that sick man? Would you accept that you would be willingly be killed as a child because you'd be only a burden, and not live out the future?
This is not logic. Its being truly selfish and animalistic. Life isn't simply math, how much something values and what not.

The cure for aids IS quarantine, the problem is we don't give them enough incentive to get themselves tested, and turned in. If we can seriously convince any infected person that their best option is to report to a quarantine center, then you have your cure. "How do we do that?" well you make the quarantine zone a sort of paradise. All of their needs will be taken care of, the best available medicine will be used to help them enjoy their stay longer. Right now some people don't see the sense in getting tested, they think "well, I'd rather live a normal life for a few more months/years than start this walking-death now."
Now it would have to be a pretty awesome paradise for this to work; like "omg my life sucks, I wish I could just get aids and sip margaritas on the beach shore for the rest of my life"-kind of good. This would be especially effective in countries in Africa where AIDS is not only rampant, but the quality of life is unbearable.

Sounds crazy, but I think it works. The only downside would be any possible medical advancements we might develop while trying to cure this incurable disease, but who says we need to have an actual infection catastrophe to continue working on it? Scientists can still work for a cure if it they're curious.

I understand what you're saying and I agree that it's completely logical for this case. However, there is one difference between this case and the larger case; namely, the difference between murder and genocide. In our little jungle the case is really "murder" since it's limited to the one sick person, but if we expand our case to the scale of say, 1000 sick people and 9000 healthy people, we can no longer use the same logic, because the effects are not so clear cut. In the limited case of 10 people, my argument really doesn't make that much sense. It's obvious that the 1 sick person is a detriment to the society. However, in the case of 10,000 people, my argument becomes more clear, my argument being that we can not know for sure whether or not killing the 1000 people will be a "positive" or "negative" effect, by the terminology you used earlier.



If there is no situation, there is no job, and they don't have to be of any use, then there is no life. You may not want to accept it BeDazed, but the hard fact is that reality is well, real. There is always a situation, and there is always something to be useful for.
Secondly, you're using terms like "of use" or "important" without referencing what these people are "of use" or "important" to. President Obama is "important." Well, why? The natural answer is because he's the President, a vital role in the American government, the institution which happens to play a large role in most American lives. Since a vast majority are affected by this, we might label him "important." There isn't some magic null state whereby you can simply become "of use" or "important" rather there has to be some function to be performed that the "of use" thing is used for.
If I were the sick man abandoned in the jungle, I would not like it. Very simple. However, I would understand why I was being abandoned, and I wouldn't blame them really.
As for this being selfish and animalistic, you really haven't shown in any way how it is. Also, unless you are willing to assert and prove precisely what "Life" is, then your assertion that "Life isn't simply math" is extremely unfounded.

And since you have taken the liberty to block my PM's BeDazed, I will respond here briefly to this:
Check the mod list for SD. You might be surprised.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 8 2009, 4:43 am by Vrael.

5. the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that. 8. a living being: Several lives were lost. Life is equal, for every man, woman, and child. Sure Life isn't fair, but anyone with the right mind wouldn't measure the value of life. Because you can't. No. Any person would take it personally. I don't think you'd be the one to be the saint. You're a mod? Someone who asserts that life can be measured? Someone who had to assert I had to prove what life is, even though you yourself is walking talking proof? Someone who decides to measure something you cannot? Dear god. Its really time to ignore you in everyway I can.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 8 2009, 4:44 am by Vrael. Reason: fixed your quotations

First off, this lacks citation, but I have found it for you, and here provide it: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life?qsrc=2888
Secondly, perhaps you are correct. The error was in my terminology (and yours by extension). What I actually meant was, that you need to prove precisely what exactly the factors are that show "life isn't simply math," or even more basic, in application to the conversation we were having earlier, that the concepts of greater value and less than value cannot be applied to the situation.

All you have done here is reassert your original claim without any of the following:
1). showing material to weaken my argument
2). providing an alternate explaination for my argument
3). showing my argument is inapplicable
4). providing another argument in parallel to your first claim

You are not God. Until you are God, to substantiate this claim you must either
1). Prove you are God (not recommended)
2). Prove that no human has ever sacrificed him or herself for another, or others, and that no human ever will

But really, what I said isn't even saint-worthy. I said that I would understand why they abandoned me, and that I wouldn't hate them for it. I certainly wouldn't like it though.

1). You're being overly dramatic
2). If you unblock me, we can continue this with PM's rather than waste topic readers' time with this.
3). I have made reasonable claims, and showed through scenarios and actual argumentation why it is I claimed these things.
4). This is Ad Hominem. I advise you to be careful with further posting, as it is a violation of the SD rules.


Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 8 2009, 5:25 am by Vrael.

Vrael is once again kicking asses and taking names.

Vrael, though it may not be of huge importance, you never stated what the sick people, are sick with. This is, I suppose, the deciding factor... Is it contagious, how contagious? Is it fatal? Does it render the person inmobile? Does the person require more food? Same applies on the larger scale, but with obviously tweaked values.

It boils down to HIV is transmitted by blood, it leads to fatality, but doesn't require additional resources. So no geno.

I like how every one says that negative impact is less important than positive impact. Why is negative impact less important than positive impact? Everyone can agree that Hitler's direct actions were negative, but the technology and aftermath from Hitler's actions could be seen as positive -- it took the U.S. and the world out of recession, it gave us a new form of energy (nuclear), and helped develop medical aid. Everyone's life is equal, everyone has an impact which is important, whether it be negative or positive.

So... Vrael, I believe everyone is equal because everyone has equal impact. Now, you can argue that one person is better than another because of their profession -- to that I say, "what about their impact?". You can argue how one person's impact is positive and one's is negative -- to that I say "doesn't a negative impact still have impact? Can't it have as much impact as a positive one?" To that you may even say that what if someone makes no impact? To that, I say,"No impact to whom? Everyone makes an impact, whether you know it or not."

....This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Judging someone because of what they contribute to 'society' is just plain wrong, and very unmoral in all aspects.

Society is just that; Society. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Society?qsrc=2888)

So explain to me, how judging someone by their contributions to a standardized set of mundane rules set forth by a 'board of representatives' is JUST in trying to play the hand of 'God'?

How can you logically, or even thoughtfully condemn someone to death just because they can't function in Society? Who are you to play 'God' and choose who dies and who lives, based off a set of standards?

All I am saying is, that if you support the unjust procedure of choosing fate for someone based off of rules that a Society (1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.) has created, you are mental and need help. Who are you to try an play 'god'? Who are THEY to choose who lives and who dies? Are they The Creator (no, The Creator and God != in my beliefs) who has created the Universal Laws of Creation? No.

Man the ignorance, arrogance, and selfishness of Americans, scratch that: Humanity makes me absolutely sick.

Man is not 'God'. Man is not The Creator. Man is an insignificant speck in this Universe.. Why do we believe we have an obligation for playing "god"???

In response to this and anyone else who was claiming that all humans must be treated equally, no matter what. My answer to you: we are animals.

We maintained the two most basic behavior patterns (rephrased to fit the current situation): love and hate/fear, with love dedicated to survival of the entire species (a.k.a. reproduction) and hate/fear dedicated to individual survaval (either destroying a threat or avoiding it). Absolutely everything we do and think is a direct consequence of those two main forces. Society is trying to smooth the sharp edges of those two extremes and make our everyday behavior as blurry in the love/hate spectrum as possible, because such behavior is the most reliable solution for the said society, which is simply a derivative of how animals live in groups to increase the chances of suvival of both an individual being and the whole species, so those groups in themselves are just a mix of the two main factors I spoke of earlier: love and hate/fear.

Life isn't a precious thing in the cycles of nature, it is precious only from our own perspective, because we are made for survival. Thus it all boils down to choosing a perspective: either look at things from the point of view of mother nature or an individual being. So I can understand people who chose to see the bigger picture (not that it's better than the other option in this situation).

In most cases, all morals dissapear when we are stripped to our very essence - survival. Would be nice to achieve a state of mind that would dictate our behavior to the very last breath though... something similar to a set of rules the samurai followed... that would be a great thing from an individual perspective - knowing that you will always be looked after, no matter what. Probably most people today aren't capable of that though.