Viewing Thread:
"A question of morality"

A theoretical scenario: it is possible to locate every person who has HIV/AIDS and kill them simultaneously. All you need to do is to press a button and HIV/AIDS will be eradicated from the planet, but you will be resonsible for killing many many millions. They of course will never be given the chance to receive more effective treatment or a cure in the future. What should you do?

A theoretical scenario: it is possible to locate every person who has HIV/AIDS and kill them simultaneously. All you need to do is to press a button and HIV/AIDS will be eradicated from the planet, but you will be resonsible for killing many many millions. They of course will never be given the chance to receive more effective treatment or a cure in the future. What should you do?

I would round them up and find somewhere for them to go, away from the rest of the world.

(EDIT)What i have just said is crap, seriously think about it, and you will come to the same conclusion.

NO


nooooooooooooooo


why this thread man?

WHY!?

same could be said for any disease or infection ect! 'every one that suffers cancer could you please.....'

or 'all those that have glandular fever!'


whats the difference with AIDS!?

I wouldnt no no

the fact it's contagious and cannot be cured at all and will not recover over time

The title of this thread seems painfulyl ironic since it isn't a question of morality at all. In fact this is one of those questions that is best decided on facts not human emotions, ethics and morality. I would press the button yes because it would be for the greater good. No one can deny that and therefore I would do it. It would be a tragic loss of lives but to save so many more I believe it should be done despite it being morally despicable to me.

Lil Ginge wrote:
> NO
>
>
> nooooooooooooooo
>
>
> why this thread man?
>
> WHY!?
>
> same could be said for any disease or infection ect! 'every one that
> suffers cancer could you please.....'
>
> or 'all those that have glandular fever!'
>
>
> whats the difference with AIDS!?

HIV is a sexually transmitted disease, cancer is not. Therefore if no one was able to transmitt the disease then there would (probably) be no more HIV and AIDS (1 in 4 people with HIV develop AIDS).

Lil Ginge wrote:
> NO
> nooooooooooooooo
> why this thread man?
> WHY!?
> same could be said for any disease or infection ect! 'every one that
> suffers cancer could you please.....'
> or 'all those that have glandular fever!'
> whats the difference with AIDS!?
> I wouldnt no no

Oh that was so clearly aimed at me, I said it because unlike cancer it isnt passed on through being careless, and both can be cured, aids is a recurring death sentance, one person gets it and passes it on, it needs to be stopped.

Can't some people be born HIV+?

It doesn't effect them, they just carry it. So, unless you take out the gene or whatever that causes it, killing off all those carrying/ suffering will do little good for the price.

They are born with it because their parents transmit it to them when they are born. It does effect them and it shortens their life expectancy dramatically. I think it is possible though, if the mother takes certain drugs the risk of transmitting it can be minimised and the babies sometimes don't get it. The mother can't breast feed her child though because that'll give it HIV. It does effect the babies short lives a lot whether they contract it or have to grow up with a mother who has it.

I think it would be a difficult one.

Sure, it would be excellent to have Aids wiped from existence, but is the cost just?