Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[GePap]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
It is precisely this screwing around that has motivated us to combat diseases, natural disasters, and countless other calamities. Nothing that human beings can potentially improve is ever "natural".

Absurd. Man can change what is natural, making it artificial (by means of art).

Direct and indirect murder are the same thing. The survival of those 100 people is humanly possible; hence, allowing them to die is equivalent to murder.

That something is possibile does not make it moral, first of all. Second, allowing the sick to die is not murder, never has been, and never will be. Murder = unlawfull killing. There is no law mandating that sick people live. There are laws making it a crime to murder someone.

Rule of law is subjective for any society. You yourself agree, in your previous posts, that rule of law may sometimes result in sh!t for some people in society.

Rule of law is not subjective. And yes, the law does not mandate equal results for all human beings. But it does set about a set of things that are acceptable and others that aren't. Murder is in the later set.

You also have a right, as a human being, to expect that if you have a disease, others will treat you to the best of their ability - because anything else would be murder. It's not merely the pathogens - anyone else who stands aside and fails to treat the 100 people to the best of their ability is also commiting murder. (As I said, direct and indirect murder are no different in terms of morality.)

Again wrong. It is your duty to porvide the best medical help possible, within the scope of the law. Murder is well outside of it.

In this case, the rights of the 1 and the rights of the 100 clash, and the rights of the 100 clearly should dominate.

Again (for the millionth time), the sick do NOT have a right to survival if the disease is sufficiently bad. They have a right to expect the best mdecial care possible, within the scope of the law. But every human being has the right not to be murdered. We don;t put doctors who failed to cure if they gave it their best (without breaking the law) into prison.

So be it? Is that your best argument? I'm sorry, but a society that condones favouring 1 ordinary man over 100 ordinary people is hardly one that is bound by "laws and conventions, rights and responsibilities".

"Favoring"? I really fail to understand how you can not get it! I as a human being DO NOT have the responsibility to make sure every single other human being live. I only have the responsibility to make sure I do not cut short the life of any (ANY) human being unless in a situation where legally it is allowed. You do not have the responsibility ot save the 100, but you do have the responsibility not to commit a crime. Murder is a crime. Letting 100 people die of disease ebcause you had no way of helping them, short of murder, is not a crime. It is tragic, but not criminal, not wrong.

You yourself are advocating the immoral murder of 100 people. Since we are faced with two immoral choices, the only thing a moral person can do is to take the less immoral choice - i.e., murdering the 1 to save the 100. You, unfortunately, are not choosing that.

For the millionth time (it seems), those 100 people dying of disease are not being murdered. All that is tragic is NOT immoral. It is tragic to see 100 people die when there was a way to save them, but if that way involves the gross violation of another person who was otherwise healthy and happy, then that way is grosly immoral and horribly wrong.