The Choice

[freewilly]

If my son didn't know Jesus, then I wouldn't be able to make the sacrifice, and I would save his life.

And then, suppose he never accpets Jesus, you have just doomed thousands.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

And then, suppose he never accpets Jesus, you have just doomed thousands.

But that same rule applies; there is nothing that says others would accept Jesus either... although it would be a higher possibility due to the probabilities involving more people and chances, but still... for the most part they doomed themselves. Now the attempt is made to blame someone else.
Besides, AIDS is preventable and if the shadow of death doesn't knock some sense into the person, why would a man's cure for AIDS suddenly cause them to give God His praise?

 

[Silent Bob]

I would give it to my child and spent the rest of my life regreting the concequences.

 

[freewilly]

But that same rule applies; there is nothing that says others would accept Jesus either... although it would be a higher possibility due to the probabilities involving more people and chances, but still... for the most part they doomed themselves. Now the attempt is made to blame someone else.

Given the outline of the OP yuo either save your child and doom thousands or not. This isn't a morality judgment on why peole have AIDS.

Besides, AIDS is preventable and if the shadow of death doesn't knock some sense into the person, why would a man's cure for AIDS suddenly cause them to give God His praise?

Yes AIDS is preventable but that has nothing at all to do with the OP. Change AIDS to cancer if like if the moral implications bother you.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Given the outline of the OP yuo either save your child and doom thousands or not. This isn't a morality judgment on why peole have AIDS.

Yes AIDS is preventable but that has nothing at all to do with the OP. Change AIDS to cancer if like if the moral implications bother you.

The outline of the OP is a forced condition and choice, therefore it's a manipulated morality; I merely played devil's advocate rebutting your objection to another member's post.
And to be fair, some cancer issues are likewise a result of choices i.e. smoking, sun bathing, etc.

I'm sure some think it heartless to simply point out that some hardships are brought about by our own behavior, but to ignore these facts would be the real disservice IMO.
IOW - there is no Good News if there wasn't bad news to avoid and living a little longer here in this world isn't all that the world makes it out to be. The time for people to repent is now.

 

[freewilly]

The outline of the OP is a forced condition and choice, therefore it's a manipulated morality;

Yes it is a forced condition /choice, manipulated morality, what exactly does that mean?

I merely played devil's advocate rebutting your objection to another member's post.

I don't recall objecting I do recall questioning, which like you did was merely to play devil's advocate.

And to be fair, some cancer issues are likewise a result of choices i.e. smoking, sun bathing, etc.

That is very true but it still has no bearing on the OP. We do not choose to save or save people becuase we approve or disapprove of their morality. If you were a doctor and a murderer/rapist was brought in your hospital emergency surgery would you refuse that person treatment? Sounds ike a good thread question.

/me runs off to make new thread.

Im sure think it heartless to simply point out that some hardships are brought about by our own behavior, but to ignore these facts would be the real disservice IMO.
IOW - there is no Good News if there wasn't bad news to avoid and living a little longer here in this world isn't all that the world makes it out to be. The time for people to repent is now.

I don't think it is heartless, I just don't think it really has any bearing on the OP.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Yes it is a forced condition /choice, manipulated morality, what exactly does that mean?

You have limited the conditions and results, that does not reflect morality in action - that's all. It happens a lot in these OP's.

I don't recall objecting I do recall questioning, which like you did was merely to play devil's advocate.

Perhaps I misread it then, because I saw the statement of:
"you have just doomed thousands."
as being a strong objection.

That is very true but it still has no bearing on the OP. We do not choose to save or save people becuase we approve or disapprove of their morality. If you were a doctor and a murderer/rapist was brought in your hospital emergency surgery would you refuse that person treatment? Sounds ike a good thread question.

* freewilly runs off to make new thread.

I don't think it is heartless, I just don't think it really has any bearing on the OP.

Well, since you are the author of the OP, I'll leave it up to you as far as what you intended to be the theme.

 

[butterfoot]

If giving a tiny portion to my child would not affect the ability to make more that is what I would do. Hopefully two things would happen. I could still produce more of the cure and what little I gave to my child would either cure him or keep him alive long enough to be able to administer a full dose and cure him.


-cw

 

[freewilly]

You have limited the conditions and results, that does not reflect morality in action - that's all.

What choices would you have added to OP?

It happens a lot in these OP's. Perhaps I misread it then, because I saw the statement of:
"you have just doomed thousands."
as being a strong objection.

Well given the outline of the OP that would be the result.

Well, since you are the author of the OP, I'll leave it up to you as far as what you intended to be the theme.

Just wondering what people would choose, no nefarious intentions.

 

[levi501]

honestly, I don't know...
I'd probably end up sacrificing my child.

Other factors should be included in this hypothetical.
- will people know that I chose to save my child instead of millions of others?
- will I become insanely wealthy for having a cure?
- will I receive recognition for my sacrafice?

 

[freewilly]

Other factors should be included in this hypothetical.
- will people know that I chose to save my child instead of millions of others?
- will I become insanely wealthy for having a cure?
- will I receive recognition for my sacrafice?

why would they affect your decision?

 

[lawtonfogle]

If it would be anything to know why they had aids. Being I do not have a child, and I will not for many years, I cannot tell you what the black white choice is. But a ethics book I had to read says one thing, find the middle ground. Will giving 90% of it to my child not save them. Is not 10% enough to make more. Also, biologicaly speaking, one could give it to their kid, and then have some of the kids blood be drawn for reasearch.

There is a middle ground. Try to find it.

 

[Chajara]

I'd probably leave it up to my child. Unless somehow he or she is unable to answer?

 

[David Gould]

I would probably give it to my child, being a human being ruled in general by emotions. But reason would tell me to give it to the many.

 

[seebs]

Your son/daughter is dying of AIDS and if a cure isn't administered within the next 24 hrs he/she will die. You hold in your hand the cure. You have exactly one dose, but this dose can be used to create countless others but the process will take weeks and requires the use of all of the initial dose. What do you do?

I spend three or four pages of posts arguing about loopholes in the dilemma rather than answering your question.

<-- has been on the internet too long

Seriously, I'm just going to assume the point here is the dilemma, not the actual hypothetical (in which case we could ask about things like other sources), and say that I guess I lose, because I can't save one person and condemn thousands.

 

[Jetgirl]

I spend three or four pages of posts arguing about loopholes in the dilemma rather than answering your question.

<-- has been on the internet too long

Seriously, I'm just going to assume the point here is the dilemma, not the actual hypothetical (in which case we could ask about things like other sources), and say that I guess I lose, because I can't save one person and condemn thousands.

I agree with you seebs, I would suffer greatly to let that person die, but I can't condemm the rest of the world to suffer likewise because of selfishness.

Best I suffer and get on with it, than everyone else has to too.

That's just my take.

 

[David Gould]

I agree with you seebs, I would suffer greatly to let that person die, but I can't condemm the rest of the world to suffer likewise because of selfishness.

Best I suffer and get on with it, than everyone else has to too.

That's just my take.

I of course agree in theory. I am pretty sure, though, that in practice that would be too difficult a decision for me to take. I might be wrong - maybe reason would overcome emotion in this case. But I would not bet on me sacrificing my child to save others.

 

[freewilly]

I of course agree in theory. I am pretty sure, though, that in practice that would be too difficult a decision for me to take. I might be wrong - maybe reason would overcome emotion in this case. But I would not bet on me sacrificing my child to save others.

I have to agree, I would want to save others but when the rubber hit the road would I be able to just let my child die, I just don't know.

 

[Aimee30]

Write down the ingredients to the cure and make more later, then give the dose to the child.

 

[Seeking...]

I would discuss it with my child and allow them to make the choice (guiding them if neccesary). I don't think either of us could live with the consequences of keeping a cure from the general public.