This is exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying that although the utilitarian approach is the most logical, it is not one that fully considers the emotional consequences of such an action.
We're on the same page here.
Just because one has the power does not mean they have the obligation to exercise it. Using my prior example, you have the power to go to Africa and volunteer your time/money to help impoverished communities. Are the lives of those dying because you chose not to go your responsibility? Hardly.
"You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do? (This was on a friend's final.)" The scale of importance makes going to Africa to help impoverished communities completely irrelevant. This is saving humanity by the hundreds of millions. You are the only person who in the entire world who has this sort of power, it seriously puts forth the significance of this responsibility. The value in the circumstances of the "cure" and the "African community cannot be compared. They are in totally different universes. Even then, for any "normal" human being, the guilt will ride you forever, for not undertaking or considering an action to such an enormity as this. As I have said before, taking action or not action, is a subset of responsibility. But to be completely disregarding is a large concern. Yes, granted, you can dismiss, not consider upon this issue, and have no obligation, but is this truly the pursuit you want to take? Cowardice I say.
And here's where we disagree. I do not place the life of an animal (non-human) on the same level as that of a human. The crux of the argument you are making here seems to be that animals are sacrificed therefore humans should be to. By the same token then, we eat animals, should we not eat humans? The value of the life of a rat is much less than that of a human in my opinion. Yes, we should make every effort to ensure that the way we treat animals is ethical, but no, we should not apply the same ethical code to both humans and animals (non-humans).
Let me dissect this for you.
I do not place the life of an animal (non-human) on the same level as that of a human.
I agree, and this is the reason why we are omnivores. We eat animals, we abuse animals and we treats animals as lesser species. This is sadly the state of our world - in a majority sense.
The crux of the argument you are making here seems to be that animals are sacrificed therefore humans should be to
Here, the question poses "One human" as it has stated "cost of killing a single innocent child." Now, lets put the assumption that it only takes "one child" to find the cure, and remove all the ambiguities that science fruitfully creates or discovers. To sacrifice a
single child for a greater cause that will lead on to a benefit that lasts for eternity, the trade off is in one way or another, understandable.
If we consider the value in the life of a rat much less than that of a human, then how many rats does it take to equal the life of a human then? There must be a figure value for life, no? But this is not the main concern I am trying to tackle here. The concern here is that, either way you look at it, we already sacrifice "life" for medical science. And in this case, it is a large breakthrough that can lead the human species to greater heights in terms of longevity and other benefits that such cures can manifest. One life for science's advancement - what a bargain! We already do it with so many other animals already. Come On! Take a kid in the middle of China or India. Make sure no one knows about it, cover it up with no media, everything will be perfectly fine like we do with all the experimentally tested animals.
Yes, we should make every effort to ensure that the way we treat animals is ethical, but no, we should not apply the same ethical code to both humans and animals (non-humans).
I am not saying that animals and humans should co-exist with one another in a utopia, but I am saying that if animals can feel pain, physically and emotionally as us, a child in many respects is similar to animals (non-humans). Therefore, in many ways, there is parallels that can be seen. If many animals are sacrificed for science, surely a child, merely nothing in a world of a few billion people can be sacrificed for the pursuit of science - one child like speck of rice.
As I have said before, we have inadvertently committed the crime, of sacrificing life for science. Sacrificing one more, in this case, a human being, for the benefit of society is something to seriously consider as a most likely alternative.
Home
Help
Search
Login
