The value of life Options

[tkproduce]

A lot of debates seemed to be based on this, so I thought I might make a new topic out of it.

Obviously, life is a valuable thing. But how valuable is it to you? Different people have different opinions.

Say this kid at a school has somehow managed to pick up a fatal disease - maybe something like ebola, but worse. If he is not killed in the next 10 minutes, the disease is contagious enough to infect everyone in the school. You're a doctor with a needle in your hand and you are given the responsibility of making the decision of whether or not to kill this kid. What would you do?

Okay, a very unrealistic situation, but it is slightly similar to other situations. Like the war in Iraq. Do you think the lives of some are worth sacrificing for the welfare of others? The debate about abortion. Letting every foetus with a potential for life to live on, wanted or unwanted, may seem ideal to you, but looking at the big picture, I can see overpopulation and poverty.

So how much do you value individual life?

[Spirited Away]

I value my own life.. but that's an incredibly biased statement.

[*Kathleen*]

Well...the kid would die anyways...it sounds mean saying this, but it would be better for him to die sooner opposed to risking the lives of all the others who haven't caught the disease yet.

That was just your scenario. With Iraq, well, yes...it's better to be looking out for the future than to blind yourself from it. With abortion, it's life we're talking about here!

I suppose I value it greatly.

[*instantmusic*]

For the kid, they have those um, big bubble rooms they stay in. its a miserable life.

i appreciate life so much. now more than ever. going to bootcamp soon, and i might go to iraq. probably will. God help when the day comes when I'm face to face with an enemy and he points his rifle at me, because then it will be my God given right to defend myself.

i feel like the world is comming to an end.

[*CJ1*]

I dunno for the kid. For Iraq however, that's different. You die for the sake of others. To give them a better future and to help the next generations. If you're gonna die, die for something good.

[WildGriffin]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
-Wraith of Khan

Life is the most valuable thing, but nobody has the right to take it. If some kid in some school had a disease like that and you had 10 minutes to decide what to do; use that 10 minutes to get him the fark outta there and into some bubble.

[*Kathleen*]

Yeah, but he's going to die anyways...besides...I don't think it's a situation like that. You're willing to keep one person and kill [probably] more than ten to fifteen people? If this is the case, imagine if it were a larger amount of people...heck...are you willing to wipe out the whole human race at the expense of one person? I'm sure that person would rather die...I would. You're being selfish if you know you're going to die, but don't want to just yet...rather kill more people because of your selfishness. That's what I think of it.

[*instantmusic*]

haha, omg. um. well i guess everyone forgot. dead or alive, the boy is still contangious. cuz, its a body, and ok hes dead, but the body's still there and the disease is still there. so ... dont kill him.

[*kryogenix*]

let's see. you get life for free. but your birth is a symbol of your parents love of each other, which is priceless.

the value of life can be debated, but it's only as valuable as you think it is.

[strice]

"A single death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic." -Stalin

Stalin is one crazy bastard, but human life has never been a valuable thing in human history. life has always been traded for ideals and power.

A lot of debates seemed to be based on this, so I thought I might make a new topic out of it.

Obviously, life is a valuable thing. But how valuable is it to you? Different people have different opinions.

Say this kid at a school has somehow managed to pick up a fatal disease - maybe something like ebola, but worse. If he is not killed in the next 10 minutes, the disease is contagious enough to infect everyone in the school. You're a doctor with a needle in your hand and you are given the responsibility of making the decision of whether or not to kill this kid. What would you do?

Okay, a very unrealistic situation, but it is slightly similar to other situations. Like the war in Iraq. Do you think the lives of some are worth sacrificing for the welfare of others? The debate about abortion. Letting every foetus with a potential for life to live on, wanted or unwanted, may seem ideal to you, but looking at the big picture, I can see overpopulation and poverty.

So how much do you value individual life?

individual life is overrated.
in ss we were talking about this dam proj in china that could break because of refuse and it would kill millions. i said that if it so be it. we would have millions less mouths to feed and less people to clothes, electricity to be used and so forth. what happens happens.
abortion is a choice. you dont have to choose it. but this is the country of choices right?? should not we be able to have the choice. the women own the world. out of women come men. let the women choose. dont let bush[a man] choose. he doesnt know what it is like. he never will.

[Winter]

If the kid's gonna die soon, you don't have to kill him of right away. You can just keep him in one of those rooms...

I think the war in Iraq... Well if you're gonna die, die for soemthing good I guess. These people are out there fighting for other people's rights. So even if they die, I think everyone'll feel a bit better knowing they died feeling good.

Me, I don't think I value life too much. If I were to get something like leukemia or whatever, I'd be cool about it. I wouldn't go for treatment, I'd just die off. And I'm totally okay with that.

[tkproduce]

"A single death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic." -Stalin

I love that quote. It's so true.

Say your dad died with a disease on the same day that a hundred people in a country far away with little connection with you were killed in a terrorist bomb attack. I think 99 out of a 100 people will agree that the death of their own father will feel more tragic to them than the deaths of hundreds of other people that they had no connection with. It's natural human instinct to think that way. I don't like to use this word to describe it, but if we put it simply, humans are selfish. I'm not saying it's wrong. Each one of us can't just go around helping everybody - it's impossible. That's why we help with the people around us. So we value the lives of some more than others.

Nature is goverened by survival of the fittest. Those who cannot survive do not get a chance to reproduce and therefore their genes are not passed on, so only the genes of the "fit" do get passed on. The weak die and the strong survive. However, with humans, maybe we value human life too much. There is a lack of survival of the fittest in the human population compared to the rest of nature. Most people believe that every potential life should be given one.

Hitler tried using the survival of the fittest argument. He thought that getting rid of the unfit - the Jews - will give more space and resources for the "true" Germans to live on. Obviously, this failed to work in the end because humans have feelings and these feelings lead on to "human rights". Feelings are what makes us human, but they may be the means to an end for us species in the end. Overpopulation, leading to a lack of resources, which may result in the end of the human race. Only God knows.

[jue]

since this kid is going to die either way; would say why not just have him die maybe a few seconds earlier beofer hte 10 minutes is up; have him spend time with his family and im sure that would be what he would wanted also; im sure that person wouldnt want so many people to die because of him. im not trying to sound mean or anything but if he ies earlier; ALOT of people would live; but if died just a little bit later; besides him passsing away, ther would be all his schoolmates passing along with him.

i wouldnt know what to choose if i were seriosuly in the situation.

[rOckThISshYt]

Either way the could would wind up dead.. In the next ten minutes. It's not like he's given ten years to live and he can still fulfill every one of his dreams. It's like.. he gets ten minute to a painful death. What's the point of putting him and hundreds (probably more because it would spread to others) of lives in the same pain and danger? It's only logical to kill him.

[Angel_Cece]

Well...the kid would die anyways...it sounds mean saying this, but it would be better for him to die sooner opposed to risking the lives of all the others who haven't caught the disease yet.

That was just your scenario. With Iraq, well, yes...it's better to be looking out for the future than to blind yourself from it. With abortion, it's life we're talking about here!

I suppose I value it greatly.

i agree. i'd put my life first. i mean he's going to die anyway and why risk others. its kinda a sucky situation though.

[ardck830]

kill the kid???

[sadolakced acid]

i believe it is 2 million dollars or so now...

[sikdragon]

the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one.

[not_for_anything]

I would kill him because hes going to die anyway, or live a miserable painful life
why should 2000 suffer for the life of one
the 3 muskateers isnt real life
Timothy McVeigh, the arabs sacrificing their life....
lots of people
i would die for the sake of mankind
cause if everybody in the school got sick, they would have to pass it on or die right?

[lickthepavement]

i personally would kill the kid. and as for the soldiers fighting in iraq, i think tahts fine and im very greatful, as long as the volunteer and know they have a chance of dying.

[TaintedDesires]

I would kill the kid. She/He will die eventually and dying without suffering and without killing the other people. For Iraq, the soldiers are getting paid for fighting so the soldiers lives don't really count as innocent lives. For the civilians of Iraq, they are innocent. Same with abortion. The kid you are killing, may become a great person and change the world.

[sikdragon]

Quarantine. Geez, you guys are heartless.

the Iraq war helps every one of our allies not to mention the iraqi people.

[RiddleMeWonders]

Quarantine. Geez, you guys are heartless. 

the Iraq war helps every one of our allies not to mention the iraqi people.

10 seconds is enough time to get the kid to quarantine?

Anway,

Wars make money. That is one of the reasons why there are so many of them. The value of life. It is obvious people want to keep themselves alive. If not themselves, part of them- Some one, or people to survive them. Going off to sacrifice yourself for others, if not a greater cause makes your life very valuable. It is not to say whether or not you are more valuable dead or alive. It's what you did with it that is valuable.

[sikdragon]

Not just him but those that get infected along the way. Actually quarantine the whole area like in outbreak. It worked for them.

[andriaalazing*]

well der, i value life. my own and others. but if this one boy could kill hundreds, including myself, id definately kill him. for his sake and ours.

[CrazayChristian]

Well...I value my life yes, but it's either your responsability to kill one kid or it's your fault for th infection of hundreds as well as the death of this kid.

The war is benificial for everyone, the reason the whole thing came about is because Clinton took the CIA budget away so we couldn't track Osama and then we pulled out of the gulf war so quickly and let all this escalate again. I don't like war, but some times you have to do things you don't want for the benefit of everyone. Like the kid, if we had let this go, there would have been even worse consequences, possible a nuclear attack.

[xlauren73x]

if i were the boy, i would want someone to kill me. i cherish other peoples lives over myself, mostly my family and 7 best friends. i would give up my life for theirs anyday, so if i had to give up my life to save my school i would. however i still dont agree with abortion.. there are other ways to stop poverty and overpopulation..

[illumineering]

This isn't a real dilemma. (Based on the scenario that started the thread.)
Killing the host of the virus won't contain the rate of infection. The whole area needs to be quarrantined and decontaminated. Killing the kid in 10 minutes won't change anything. The likelihood of infection is based on proximity to the carrier. Isolation, sterilization and education are the most effective ways to contain an outbreak.

[SillyCourtney]

This isn't a real dilemma.  (Based on the scenario that started the thread.)
Killing the host of the virus won't contain the rate of infection.  The whole area needs to be quarrantined and decontaminated.  Killing the kid in 10 minutes won't change anything.  The likelihood of infection is based on proximity to the carrier.  Isolation, sterilization and education are the most effective ways to contain an outbreak.

No, it's not a real dilemma. It was just a made-up example. It was just for you to answer on what would you do.. not really to be taken seriously.

But yes, I would kill the child. No reason to infect others.

As for abortion.. I'm with you. Give a lady a choice for crying out loud! This world is already so overpopulated, why have another baby you can't take care of or that you don't want? AND, if you don't want the baby and you have to keep it, you're not exactly going to love it and take care of it. This will definetly hurt the child's self-esteem and self-value. And who would want that?

[Paradox of Life]

No, it's not a real dilemma. It was just a made-up example. It was just for you to answer on what would you do.. not really to be taken seriously.

But yes, I would kill the child. No reason to infect others.

As for abortion.. I'm with you. Give a lady a choice for crying out loud! This world is already so overpopulated, why have another baby you can't take care of or that you don't want? AND, if you don't want the baby and you have to keep it, you're not exactly going to love it and take care of it. This will definetly hurt the child's self-esteem and self-value. And who would want that?

I was afraid you'd start saying "BUT IT'S MURDER!!"

Anyway, how is this about life value? How much value in life can a kid have when he's a safety threat to everyone around him and his last option is to die? Um, is it not obvious? Kill the kid so you can save everyone else and end his misery. I have value in my own life; perhaps less than others, but there are things in life that I value and wouldn't want to give up. I think I'm getting sidetracked now. How's this a debate?

[sadolakced acid]

This isn't a real dilemma.  (Based on the scenario that started the thread.)
Killing the host of the virus won't contain the rate of infection.  The whole area needs to be quarrantined and decontaminated.  Killing the kid in 10 minutes won't change anything.  The likelihood of infection is based on proximity to the carrier.  Isolation, sterilization and education are the most effective ways to contain an outbreak.

killing a host usually kills the virus.

viruses need living cells.

dead people aren't useful for viruses. therefore; the virus will attempt to spread in any way possible.

but killing the person and incinerating them (don't let them drip anything) will kill the virus.

[Shahin]

Right off the bat, I would kill the kid. Just like that. Hell, if the needle broke I'd club him to death with the closest geometry book.

Do I value life? Yes, I treat it preciously because you never know when it's going to be taken away from you. But I would do absolutely anything to protect the lives of my friends. I would kill for them, I'd die for them. If anything were to threaten one of my friends lives I would step in the way or get them out of it. I value their lives far and away above my own. Loyalty. My number 1 attribute.

[illumineering]

QUOTE(illumineering @ Jul 12 2005, 10:46 AM)
This isn't a real dilemma. (Based on the scenario that started the thread.)
Killing the host of the virus won't contain the rate of infection. The whole area needs to be quarrantined and decontaminated. Killing the kid in 10 minutes won't change anything. The likelihood of infection is based on proximity to the carrier. Isolation, sterilization and education are the most effective ways to contain an outbreak.






killing a host usually kills the virus.

viruses need living cells.

dead people aren't useful for viruses. therefore; the virus will attempt to spread in any way possible.

but killing the person and incinerating them (don't let them drip anything) will kill the virus.


My point was that the likelihood of contamination would have already been established through close contact with the kid. The possibility of infection remains even if someone kills him. You are misinterpreting my statement. Look at the CDC protocol for the virus.

[aznxdreamer]

i think its fair that we should sacrifice one life in order to say many others, no matter who that one life is. whether its the president of the united states or some bum on the streets. 2+ lives are better than one.

[starlette]

I value my own life, only for the fact that I feel I was put thru shit and crap thru my shildhood, and I feel I have a reason for existing. Because of the abuse andloniness I epericened thru my childhood, I feel that I have a purpose...a mission. So I value my life immensly. I feel I survived what I did to make a difference. Having said that, I also do not value my life over that of others. I also think that sacrificing some for the greater good isnt always right, because, using the example of the war in iraq, who the hell are we to dtermine the greater good? Who are we to play God? I mean, to kill a psychopath just to stop him from murdering many innocent people, sure, but sacrificing a few for what someone beleives to be a step towards progress??? I don't know about all that. But then again, I don't know much about progress. I think violence should be avoided at all costs. I think everylife should be valused. I mean, I feel like I was put here for a reason...whos to say there arent others that are being murdered who also had a purpose in life that can never be fufilled?

[dao]

ok... he will die anyways.. if you dont get somewhere ... he got ebola.. i watched something on that... it was freaky...

[starlette]

ok... he will die anyways.. if you dont get  somewhere ... he got ebola.. i watched something on that... it was freaky...

You wanna learn some scary facts about ebola?? Read the book the hot zone. One of the best book I ever read. All based on actual events in history, assembled in story format by a man who came in contact with different people studying the virus. Arguably one of the most dangerous organisms on the plante.r No exact prigin, but deadly as hell. Its called he hot zone. the crazy thing about ebola, is that breathing the same air as a peson with ebola, you can catch it. There is a strand of the virus that will kill 9 out of 10 people exposed to it. This means, if somone got on an airplane, had it, and didnt know it (they usually dont find out until you die) most of those people would catch it, ten they would all spread out, and it would wipe out 90% of the worlds population. The crazy thing is it could, but it never has. Scary huh? So yeah. If that little boy did have ebola, u might as well give up now lol. :D

[*Weird addiction*]

1. About the boy...i wouldn't call it killing...there's actually nothing to debate about in this case. The boy is going to die anyways, and if the right action isn't taken, thousands of people will die...so you get the picture.

2. As for abortion, i think it's wrong. Overpopulation?
a. you had unprotected sex...sure it was fun, now you aren't even thinking of the consequences (a baby). That's stupid. Like it or not, the baby is YOUR responsibility...if you don't want it, give it up for adoption but don't take it's life...because it's murder.

b. let's say you were raped...not your fault at all...but still...you have no right to take a baby's life...like i said earlier, give it up for adoption...but don't abort it...it's just wrong...

[sadolakced acid]

1. About the boy...i wouldn't call it killing...there's actually nothing to debate about in this case. The boy is going to die anyways, and if the right action isn't taken, thousands of people will die...so you get the picture.

2. As for abortion, i think it's wrong. Overpopulation?
a. you had unprotected sex...sure it was fun, now you aren't even thinking of the consequences (a baby). That's stupid. Like it or not, the baby is YOUR responsibility...if you don't want it, give it up for adoption but don't take it's life...because it's murder.

b. let's say you were raped...not your fault at all...but still...you have no right to take a baby's life...like i said earlier, give it up for adoption...but don't abort it...it's just wrong...

go to the abortion thread. we'll talk about that there.

[*Weird addiction*]

^ LMAO... believe it or not, i had a feeling someone was going to say that...

[aznxdreamer]

i dont think this topic is about the boy and the school but about the value of life people...

[sadolakced acid]

there's an easy way to find out.

apply for life insurance.

the value of life is very, very cheap.
another thing wrong with society.

[*anubis*]

i would be willing to sacrafice my own life to save or prevent others from harm or even death, themselves.

it just depends on how things are for each individual i guess.

[nesquik]

If this was a real situation, a trained doctor would not kill anyone simply because of legal issues. The thing is 10 minutes in an emergancy is a long time, the kid would be immediately quarantined especially if the doctor could diagnose the disease on the spot.

As far as the developing human fetus. I personally would not consider it murder until the fetus was self aware or in another words, almost fully developed if not fully developed.

[Sumiaki]

Egg ZackTLee

I believe this debate is over.

[sikdragon]

a baby isn't self aware.

[Spirited Away]

Egg ZackTLee

  I believe this debate is over.   

I'm sorry? What?