Mad Scientist vs. humanity
By BourderHouse
@BourderHouse (749)
Philippines
March 5, 2007 2:10pm CST
Imagine there is a misanthropic scientist, who truly believes that the planet would be better off without humanity continuing to mess it up. The earth would be better off if every human were eradicated, leaving it back to the animals to live in peace, etc.
So he develops this super-deadly virus, that is genetically engineered only to kill humans - yet not touch another animal - and it is a perfectly virulent virus - it is guaranteed to spread throughout the entire population of the world and kill every human within 72 hours.
Would he be immoral for doing so? And if so, on what basis?
2 people like this
6 responses
@aries_0325 (3060)
• Philippines
5 Mar 07
I don't think the Earth is such that it could be "better off" with or without humanity. It's just an object, it isn't alive, it doesn't have interests, it's not such that it can be benefited or harmed.
Animals, however, might, from their perspective, be better off without humans. But they don't live in peace with one another. And besides, they don't have the cognitive capacities to imagine alternate scenarios of action, predict with reasonable accuracy the consequences of those actions, and select how to act on that basis, so though they are capable of being benefited or harmed they are not themselves capable of making moral judgments.
Humans, however, from their perspective, would indeed be much worse off. They would, from their perspective, reasonably judge it as a very immoral act.
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
5 Mar 07
See, here's the tricky thing wih morals. We have a moral obligation to our planet as well as our own species. Considering the scientist is human he'd probably get killed off too. THEN possibly it'd be a noble gesture. It however would be very immorral and biased of him if he used the cure only on himself and/or possible people he loves.
It's one thing to kill off your entire species including yourself..another to try to destroy the entire species minus some based off of a personal opinion.
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
5 Mar 07
P.s. I'm NOT saying that its right the Scientist attempts or wants to kill off the whole human race, I'm saying the moral reasoning of the afformentioned said scientists can be somewhat sound and not entirely evil.
@DavidReedy (2378)
• United States
6 Mar 07
Are you serious? I would have to say it's immoral in that he's simply committing speciel-wide genocide.
@raphael_volts (1131)
• India
6 Mar 07
Perfectly immoral I must say.
For he judged few and punished everyone else as well.
For he didn't gave the chance to live and experience to who ever wanted it.
For he never gave any body the chance to try and change whats wrong.
For killing people just for his own beliefs and on the beliefs that would on no basis be usefull for someone else.
He is totaly immoral if he even thinks that he has the strenght and ability to be God and punish people.
He is totaly immoral as he never tried to change anything or contribute but only distructed.
@rahulgoel (31)
• India
6 Mar 07
yes he being the immoral want to kill the every human being on the earth beacuse the humanity in todays world is not matter to any one. human is killing each ohter so its, bettre to start from the begning so that a whole new world can be created. where the meaning fro hmanity is changed fully.
