NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

Murdering is always bad press and definitly not a solution.
But natural disasters or industrials accidents happens , no? remember Tchernobyl?

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?
Alright then-stand still, this won't hurt a bit.

What, not ready to go? But it's for everyone elses good-don't be selfish...oh, I see-as long as it's not you.....

thats why.

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

Josef Stalin's quote comes to mind here : "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

Murder is wrong because every sentient life form has a right to life, and forcefully taking it away is wrong.

However if the is an emergency such as a famine and they they voluntary choose to die for the sake of the community, I see no problem with it. In fact this system has been reported in number of cultures such as the inuit, in which the old and infirm voluntarily get on boats out to sea to die in the event of food shortages.

Edit: It should be noted that this practice is consider highly honorable and those who have sacrificed themselves for the sake of the community are highly praised and celebrated.

I can't beleive that we are debating whether or not state supported murder is wrong. Sheesh...what is the world coming to?

I think it's all a tad tongue in cheek, NewClarkHall. But while we're giving one, here's a suggestion - you'd be making everybody complicit in the action of government, be they voters, civil servants, or your own party, mass-murderers. They might not like that...

"Is the nation of Pinkle-Purr suggesting that the culling of the population will benefit the environment and other burdening governmental systems? If so, Derminia whole heartedly agrees with the nation. Overpopulation can destory a nation as barren as Derminia and the culling will help keep the population at its peak. It understands that this is an accepted practice among many nation with non-human beings.

I wonder if those who have voted against the current proposal regarding Equality For All realise what they have voted against. Allowing one being to die does not protect another."

Minister Vitay
Ministry of Cultural Affairs

I wonder if those who have voted against the current proposal regarding Equality For All realise what they have voted against. Allowing one being to die does not protect another.


Would Derminia's Minister Vitay please care to expain this statement.

Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Diplomat

Alright then-stand still, this won't hurt a bit.

What, not ready to go? But it's for everyone elses good-don't be selfish...oh, I see-as long as it's not you.....

thats why.

whatever your name is.....you are slightly missing the point along with a lot of the others. I said 'IF' you don't believe in an afterlife. And you have to be absolutely certain. In practice, people don't want to die because they're afraid of what might happen afterwards. That's why this idea can only ever be theoretical.

I wonder if those who have voted against the current proposal regarding Equality For All realise what they have voted against. Allowing one being to die does not protect another.


Would Derminia's Minister Vitay please care to expain this statement.

Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Diplomat

They might mean that because the right for beings human or otherwise to live is voted against, then there is nothing to stop a nation culling its population. Although, i would argue against that.

I wonder if those who have voted against the current proposal regarding Equality For All realise what they have voted against. Allowing one being to die does not protect another.


Would Derminia's Minister Vitay please care to expain this statement.

Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Diplomat

They might mean that because the right for beings human or otherwise to live is voted against, then there is nothing to stop a nation culling its population. Although, i would argue against that.

Now people are questioning the immorality of murder? It should be obvious why it's wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat in the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

You've just taken away the victim's entire future.

Why is anything evil? If I think it's ok to set fire to a cat, castrate a young boy, or strangle your mother, who are you to tell me it's wrong?

"There is nothing wrong, but what thinking makes it so." - Bill Shakespeare

"Without God, all things are lawful." - Teddy Dostoevsky

Alright then-stand still, this won't hurt a bit.

What, not ready to go? But it's for everyone elses good-don't be selfish...oh, I see-as long as it's not you.....

thats why.

whatever your name is.....you are slightly missing the point along with a lot of the others. I said 'IF' you don't believe in an afterlife. And you have to be absolutely certain. In practice, people don't want to die because they're afraid of what might happen afterwards. That's why this idea can only ever be theoretical.
I really should never have gotten started, as this is really ridiculousness parading as philosophy, but hey.

Since you missed the point, here it is. It's alright to kill? Then you first. First we kill you. Wait, doesn't seem like as good an idea when it's you? That's the point I was making. No where am I mentioning an after life, I'm mentioning your own, and most everybody elses, desire to live. If you decide to give yourself the imperical "who lives, who dies" power, then see if you're comfortable giving it to someone else-anyone else. Not as comforting when I might decide that for the good of us all, you gotta go.

And, IF you don't believe in the afterlife, then the current life is all the more precious, isn't it? 'Cause once it's gone, that's it. Why would we be more comfortable with death if there wasn't anything after it? That's just not clear thinkin' there, kiddo. Religion didn't add an after-life to make death seem worse, they made it to make death seem better. That's why they had to add the part about "don't kill yourself, we won't let you in if you do." The punishment part was just so people wouldn't slap each other silly waiting for death.

How many athiest martars have you seen? How many people willing to 'die for their god?' Pretty big ratio, eh? Because an afterlife makes death easier to take.

On the subject of Murder, I have always thought it strange how a Premeditated murderer is punished more severly than a random killer, personally I think if you are going to assign levels of severity to Murder, an already deplorable act, the most henious should be the random killer as he doesnt know when or who he is going to kill, much less does he even care , however, the premeditated murderer, he knows who he is going to kill, he knows when he is going to kill, and well as long as you are not the one he is going ot kill, you are pretty safe, compared to the random killer, therefore he should begiven a slight bit of leniency as compared to the random killer.

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

What about the fact that you may be killing millions of individuals?

Well... in a Laissez-faire system human life is seen as an asset, rather than a liability, and thus there is no such thing as over-population. Not all system's are based on Laissez-faire, and very often suffer "over-population". The solution is for them to try and find people who will take them in as refugees.

Hong Kong, was believed to be going under when millions of Chinese fled across into its boarders. Yet Hong Kong practiced Laissez-faire, and welcomed these immigrants. They did not provide them with welfare. They offered them low paying jobs. In the 1950's it was not uncommon for cheap products to be made in Hong Kong, these products were often produced by these refugees. Some of them likely died because they were unable to support themselves, this is the law of nature. Most could, and did, and Hong Kong became very wealthy and prosperous despite having at one point a very large unskilled, poor, refugee labour market. Hong Kong has since become a major economic powerhouse in the region, without welfare, without Social Security. This unfortunately will not last long given the Chinese Communist rule.

The magic of Laissez-faire.

-Morgan

The unlawful killing of human beings with malice aforethought violates the right to life, and a government doing it to thousands of its own people (even painlessly to lonely people) would be a crime against humanity according to the Nuremburg judgement.

Even if the infliction of death is painless you are depriving people of their natural life without legal reason (e.g. self-defence, due process of law in a country with the death penalty, killing a combatant in an armed conflict). And if there is no after life (which no living person can ever really know) then you are ending the consciousness--and, effectively, the universe--for the person you are murdering.

I wonder if those who have voted against the current proposal regarding Equality For All realise what they have voted against. Allowing one being to die does not protect another.


Would Derminia's Minister Vitay please care to expain this statement.

Charles H. Garland
Patoxian Diplomat

They might mean that because the right for beings human or otherwise to live is voted against, then there is nothing to stop a nation culling its population. Although, i would argue against that.

What about all the other, much older and much better worded resolutions which already guarantee the human being's right to life? The current proposal is redundant at best and idiotic at worst. We hardly need be concerned with mass genocide taking place if it doesn't pass! One thing we should be concerned about however is a discussion over whether murder is wrong.

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

Other options:
War (great at reducing all populations)
Sterilization
Homosexuality
Colonization
Inverse tax deductions (larger families pay more)

You know if you really wanted to reduce your population significantly just add female hormone to your water supply it will:
1) Increase the number of homosexuals.
2) Course more females to be born therefor resulting in inbreeding and for the long run create incurable genetic diseases.
3) Seem natural since that’s what happens in nature (the UK's population is 51% females at the moment and the UK’s government is trying to convince the people in the UK to have more kids I believe)

^ That seems like a very good solution. ^

The reason that we believe murder is wrong is that it is built into us. It is instinct, to protect ourselves and the species, to ensure our genes are passed on. I'm not entirely sure on that statement, but I'd like to hear your opinions on it.

Tum-tee-tum.

The way I think about it, killing isn't evil primarily because of the denial of a future to the person killed. What do they care? They're dead.

It's evil because of what it does to those they leave behind - and we all, or almost all, have loved ones, close friends, dependents. And we many of us have something to give even to random strangers, by an ethical life led and a compassionate attitude maintained. Even if the individual killed doesn't have anybody linked closely to them, or act upon their compassion, or pursue an ethical course, you threaten the lives of others and hazard the suffering their loss would cause by condoning the very act of murder itself and loosening the protection the law provides by making laws against murder themselves hypocritical. The state should not kill, or in so doing it sacrifices much of its authority to stand judgement over killers (of course, most nations do or are prepared to; most by warfare, some by executions, and more than we'd like to think by assassinations - but that's not to say the taboo should be further eroded by truly random killings).

I have a proposal. If a country finds itself overpopulated, what are the moral objections to simply killing off large proportions of the population (particularly the least useful elements)?
In terms of individual murder, three possible disadvantages present themselves.
1) Mourners would be in pain.
2) There may be an unfavourable afterlife.
3) The process of death may cause pain to the victim.

Suppose all of these could be avoided. Given that you are certain of NO afterlife, the victim has no friends or relations, and you have an instant pain-free method of killing, why is murder wrong?

There is the obvious of course, that we all have a right to life regardless and to abrogate that right consitutes murder. Can we argue that murder is wrong purely on a utlitarian basis without resorting to rights though?
Yes, we can. A 'preferential utlitarian' argument can be used to show the immorality of the above. Simply put, it is a psychologically natural state for humans to value their own autonomy, that is freedom. Further to this, we all value our own survival, all things being equal. It is against the wishes of those being murdered to die (euthanasia is an entirely different argument). To cull the population then, we must be thwarting the preferences of those people. Since ALL humans value their autonomy, it is for the GOOD of ALL then that we uphold that value in society, and of all preferences that humans have, the desire to live is the most important (not much else matters if you are dead).

On the subject of Murder, I have always thought it strange how a Premeditated murderer is punished more severly than a random killer, personally I think if you are going to assign levels of severity to Murder, an already deplorable act, the most henious should be the random killer as he doesnt know when or who he is going to kill, much less does he even care , however, the premeditated murderer, he knows who he is going to kill, he knows when he is going to kill, and well as long as you are not the one he is going ot kill, you are pretty safe, compared to the random killer, therefore he should begiven a slight bit of leniency as compared to the random killer.
I think your misunderstanding the point. Generally "random" killings refer to crimes of passion or manslaughter. In the first case the murderer is not considered to be in their right mind at the time, and in the second case the killing was not intentional. An example would be the differance between stealing something because you realized you were taking it and stealing something because it fell in your bag. So there usually is a differance. [Refering to US although it may be different elsewhere]