NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?

Yes, it's based on that one episode of Stargate. Still an interesting question.

How the could it be moral?

How the could it be moral?

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.
so you would be okay with a group that went through and sterilized teenagers without their consent?

How the could it be moral?

Assume group 1 would die if they do not get the resources.

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.
Yes you are, I think you'll find.

You're damning a whole group of people, which is totally out of order.

Assume group 1 would die if they do not get the resources.
Well if they're that technologically advanced, then they can fly off to a different planet and say "hey, you up for trading?" and be done with it, no?

Assume group 1 would die if they do not get the resources.

So...that gives them the right to wipe out an entire race within a generation?

so you would be okay with a group that went through and sterilized teenagers without their consent?

Nope. But I'm wondering if anyone would.

Yes you are, I think you'll find.

You're damning a whole group of people, which is totally out of order.

I guess you were upset when humanity entered the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age, or the age of firearms, because the primary impetus of the technology was to damn other people.

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?

Yes, it's based on that one episode of Stargate. Still an interesting question.
It's immoral, but it's necessary so it should be done.

So...that gives them the right to wipe out an entire race within a generation?

Depends. Does group 2 have the right to deny them the resources, thereby condemning them to death ?

Well if they're that technologically advanced, then they can fly off to a different planet and say "hey, you up for trading?" and be done with it, no?

A drug to make people sterile, and a way to deploy it without alerting a less advanced group does not necessarily equal interstellar flight.

I'd say its not the moral thing to do (but there are no fixed morals HA HA!)

can't group 1 and 2 unite under the banner of a confederacy group 2 get technology and medicine whilst group 1 gets a better position to negotiate on resources everyone is happy :)

also oddly enough I've watched 2 stargate episodes in my life one involved this plot and the morale is you sterilise a population and other group might not be so friendly anymore

I guess you were upset when humanity entered the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age, or the age of firearms, because the primary impetus of the technology was to damn other people.
Yeah, pretty much, although I suppose some things to do with construction and industry also came out of those times.

Nope. But I'm wondering if anyone would.
I would not think it was a moral action.

I'd say its not the moral thing to do (but there are no fixed morals HA HA!)

can't group 1 and 2 unite under the banner of a confederacy group 2 get technology and medicine whilst group 1 gets a better position to negotiate on resources everyone is happy :)

also oddly enough I've watched 2 stargate episodes in my life one involved this plot and the morale is you sterilise a population and other group might not be so friendly anymore

Well, you've watched two out of 199, (not counting SGA, and soon to be two hundred. Yay!!!) You've got some catching up to do.

Is this supposed to be an analogy to something? In the situation you have described, it is immoral, IMHO.

A drug to make people sterile, and a way to deploy it without alerting a less advanced group does not necessarily equal interstellar flight.
I see.

How's about Stargate bust in and deliver a UN Aid package, instead, then?

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?


Genocide via coercive and clandestine sterilization. Most likely falls under "immoral."

I guess you were upset when humanity entered the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age, or the age of firearms, because the primary impetus of the technology was to damn other people.

these technologies where never meant to wipe out races of people (never mind the fact that all the technology you listed apart from firearms where originally meant for jewellery and such)

also the inventors of firearms meant for there weapons to be used for the good of there people much like today’s atomic scientists

these technologies where never meant to wipe out races of people (never mind the fact that all the technology you listed apart from firearms where originally meant for jewellery and such)

also the inventors of firearms meant for there weapons to be used for the good of there people much like today’s atomic scientists
Bronze and Iron were absolutely not meant for jewelery. They were developed to make ax heads, spear points, swords and daggers. Jewelery is what you made with the scraps of metal left over.

these technologies where never meant to wipe out races of people (never mind the fact that all the technology you listed apart from firearms where originally meant for jewellery and such)

also the inventors of firearms meant for there weapons to be used for the good of there people much like today’s atomic scientists
Birth control through medicine was invented for "the good of the people".

Ask the victims of the Mongols about being wiped out.

Bronze and Iron were absolutely not meant for jewelery. They were developed to make ax heads, spear points, swords and daggers. Jewelery is what you made with the scraps of metal left over.

how about farm devices after all pretty much all the weapons of war back during the Iron and Bronze were used in either hunting or farming

how about farm devices after all pretty much all the weapons of war back during the Iron and Bronze were used in either hunting or farming
They used swords when hunting?

how about farm devices after all pretty much all the weapons of war back during the Iron and Bronze were used in either hunting or farming
I'll give you that, but scarcity of metal meant that you would, unless you held a very high position, use any metal you had to improve your chances of survival rather than decorate yourself.

They used swords when hunting?
Probably not, but bronze or iron spear tips would have been used for sure.

It's immoral, but it's necessary so it should be done.
Agreed.

They used swords when hunting?

a sword would come in handy if you wanted to cut through the jungle or needed a knife to remove meat off a body to sell at the butchers and such

a sword would come in handy if you wanted to cut through the jungle or needed a knife to remove meat off a body to sell at the butchers and such
Urmm why not just get a big knife, which will do the very same without taking a lot of time to make, like a sword does.

a sword would come in handy if you wanted to cut through the jungle or needed a knife to remove meat off a body to sell at the butchers and such

I am recalling an age where over a million people were hacked to death in a day. The sack of Baghdad in 1254. The sack of Aleppo or Delhi by Timur.

Lots of people sent on to Valhalla.

The OP seems to think there are only two possible solutions. There are many ways of resolving this without one of the two groups dying.

If the technologically advanced group sterilized anyone, it would be immoral and unnecessary.

Urmm why not just get a big knife, which will do the very same without taking a lot of time to make, like a sword does.

well I suppose early swords were just big knives but over time they became more specialised for killing

The OP seems to think there are only two possible solutions. There are many ways of resolving this without one of the two groups dying.

If the technologically advanced group sterilized anyone, it would be immoral and unnecessary.

It may be immoral, and perhaps even unnecessary. But, humans do things that are often immoral and unnecessary.

It wasn't, for instance, moral or necessary for the Mongols to sack cities and kill everyone who resisted. But they did it anyway.

I believe it is necessary to address all technically possible solutions when considering solutions to a problem, and not always restrict oneself to a high-minded set of solutions.

I voted moral.

But I meant to click immoral.

Damnit.

It would seem strange to be limited to only those two options, but it seems to me that the initial condition, Tech group A needs the resource or they will all die and Primitive group B refuses to let them use it, there's already a serious question as to the ethics of group B.

However, that doesn't justify the wholesale genocide of group B.

Would group B be willing to trade, or to consolidate with group A? Asuming not, then it would be justified, in the name of survival, for group A to take the resource by force. That doesn't mean genocide, however.

I voted moral.

But I meant to click immoral.

Damnit.
Dammit, you spoiled the perfect score! *shakes head*

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?

Yes, it's based on that one episode of Stargate. Still an interesting question.


How is this even debatable?

The actions of Group 1 against Group 2 would be neither moral nor immoral. It would be amoral. They need to survive, and the second group is preventing it? If it's a matter of survival, morality has no merit; survival was never links to morality. Humans only linked it because we came to that point.

I voted moral.

But I meant to click immoral.

Damnit.

So that's how the sole moral vote came to be . . .

How is this even debatable?

You are dying of thirst. The man next to you has an abundance of water, far more than he needs himself, but does not allow you to drink.

Are you allowed to take the water from him by force or should you respect his wishes and die ?

It certainly isn't moral.

But, depending on the exact details of the situation, sometimes there are times when stakes are high enough that we can no longer afford the luxury or morals.

You are dying of thirst. The man next to you has an abundance of water, far more than he needs himself, but does not allow you to drink.

Are you allowed to take the water from him by force or should you respect his wishes and die ?

I would start by questioning the morality of the man with water. To let you die when he could easily save you is actually a crime in the US. It's called depraved indifference. IMHO, that justifies taking some of the water by force.

However, it isn't necessary to kill him.

It would seem strange to be limited to only those two options, but it seems to me that the initial condition, Tech group A needs the resource or they will all die and Primitive group B refuses to let them use it, there's already a serious question as to the ethics of group B.

However, that doesn't justify the wholesale genocide of group B.

Would group B be willing to trade, or to consolidate with group A? Asuming not, then it would be justified, in the name of survival, for group A to take the resource by force. That doesn't mean genocide, however.
I thought the premise of this thread was whether the sterilisation and the slow elimination of Group B by Group A was moral or immoral. Alternate solutions have nothing to do with it.

I don't think it is moral, but in desperate situations morals take the backseat to survival. It's unpleasant, but morals are useless to dead people.

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?
I bolded the phrase that makes for my judgement of "immoral."

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.
There is still harm done.

It's immoral, but it's necessary so it should be done.Reminds me of a stargate episode playing in the future where earth was about to be assimilated by a different race that had managed to pull that scheme off...

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.
Irrelevant. Forced sterilisation = Denial of the right to self-determination. QED.

You are dying of thirst. The man next to you has an abundance of water, far more than he needs himself, but does not allow you to drink.

Are you allowed to take the water from him by force or should you respect his wishes and die ?
Of course you should take the water.

Reminds me of a stargate episode playing in the future where earth was about to be assimilated by a different race that had managed to pull that scheme off...
Was that race tunningout of resources though, I don't remember that one all to well, there was another one with the same race and I kepp getting the two mixed up. I know they were asking for gate addresses. IMS the black hole planet was top of the list.

Irrelevant. Denial of the right to self-determination. QED.
LOL!

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.


Yeah but you are, makeing people steriel means killing that gene pool.

Yeah but you are, makeing people steriel means killing that gene pool.

A gene pool is a sentient being now?

Was that race tunningout of resources though, I don't remember that one all to well, there was another one with the same race and I kepp getting the two mixed up. I know they were asking for gate addresses. IMS the black hole planet was top of the list.It was a time travel episode where the whole problem was eventually avoided by warning the Stargate Center of the past not to visit the homeworld of the aliens that were about to wipe out earth.

It's immoral, but it's necessary so it should be done.
I don't see how sterilisation would be necessary. It's possible to steal from people without killing them.

I guess you were upset when humanity entered the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age, or the age of firearms, because the primary impetus of the technology was to damn other people.
But not all of "the other people".

Is this supposed to be an analogy to something? In the situation you have described, it is immoral, IMHO.
It's about the vitally important matter of Stargate. ;)

Bronze and Iron were absolutely not meant for jewelery. They were developed to make ax heads, spear points, swords and daggers. Jewelery is what you made with the scraps of metal left over.
Well, mainly weapons and tools for construction of infrastructure and the production of wealth.

Certainly not jewellery, but it wasn't all military as you make out.

Ask the victims of the Mongols about being wiped out.
The lands that they "wiped out" are still populated.

I believe it is necessary to address all technically possible solutions when considering solutions to a problem, and not always restrict oneself to a high-minded set of solutions.
Why bother when you're not going to use the evil ones?

It was a time travel episode where the whole problem was eventually avoided by warning the Stargate Center of the past not to visit the homeworld of the aliens that were about to wipe out earth.
Ah yes. Well, when in doubt, go back in time and press the other button.

Ah yes. Well, when in doubt, go back in time and press the other button.I sorely miss a real life save function... :p

Forced sterilization = BAAAAAAAAAAAAADDD

Procreation is our most basic purpose in life, to remove it is to render someone worthless, meaningless and *insert something existenialist*

Procreation is our most basic purpose in life, to remove it is to render someone worthless, meaningless and *insert something existenialist*

So people that never had children are worthless ?
Lets tell that to the nuns :)

Since when has what one nation done to another had anything to do with morality?

There's no violence involved. You're not killing anyone.
Yet something is being introduced into their bodies without their consent which damages them, and is done with malice.

Since when has what one nation done to another had anything to do with morality?
Since politicians started using the word to sell their policies.

Honest bad guys > Treacherous good guys.

I respect those who tell it like it is, and can't stand people who bullshit.

I honestly don't think it matters. Unfortunately, morality is simply not useful in international affairs because it gets in the way of political reality...neither side is honestly more moral than the other, so you have to take the path that benefits you the most in both the long and short term.

Group 1 should try and take the resources if it can't trade for them because it stands to lose a lot more from taking the moral path than it does from taking the immoral path. The losses to Group 2 are necessary for Group 1 to survive and grow. Group 2 is no more moral when it allows Group 1 to die from lack of resources by refusing to trade so neither decision is actually more moral than the other. However, since Group 1 has the technology necessary to develop a solution to the problem it makes more sense in the long term to prioritize them over Group 2...in a pragmatic sense, Group 1 is simply a better investment for the future.

Actually, it's a lot like oil.

I honestly don't think it matters. Unfortunately, morality is simply not useful in international affairs because it gets in the way of political reality...neither side is honestly more moral than the other, so you have to take the path that benefits you the most in both the long and short term.

Exactly my point.

I honestly don't think it matters. Unfortunately, morality is simply not useful in international affairs because it gets in the way of political reality...neither side is honestly more moral than the other, so you have to take the path that benefits you the most in both the long and short term.

Group 1 should try and take the resources if it can't trade for them because it stands to lose a lot more from taking the moral path than it does from taking the immoral path. The losses to Group 2 are necessary for Group 1 to survive and grow. Group 2 is no more moral when it allows Group 1 to die from lack of resources by refusing to trade so neither decision is actually more moral than the other. However, since Group 1 has the technology necessary to develop a solution to the problem it makes more sense in the long term to prioritize them over Group 2...in a pragmatic sense, Group 1 is simply a better investment for the future.

Actually, it's a lot like oil.

Okay, if you accept the premise that one of the two groups has to die, then morality doesn't have anything to do with it anymore. It's all about survival at that point.

But that's only if you accept the premise that all other solutions are impossible. Those who espouse realpolitik as the only way that countries interact make this error in their assumptions. There is, theoretically, an infinite number of solutions to this problem. And morality plays a part in deciding which of these solutions are brought to the table.

Reality is more complicated than a game.

Reality is more complicated than a game.
The problem being if one side has already concluded that the only solution is the annihilation of the other side.

Kind of hard to escape that viewpoint, if you view the world as Dar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb (the world of war).

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?

Yes, it's based on that one episode of Stargate. Still an interesting question.

Given the superiority of group 1, what precludes their forcibly acquiring the resources?

I honestly don't think it matters. Unfortunately, morality is simply not useful in international affairs because it gets in the way of political reality...neither side is honestly more moral than the other, so you have to take the path that benefits you the most in both the long and short term.


Bloody good point.

Let's say that there's two groups of people. Group one is very technologically advanced, but is running out of resources. Group Two is just the opposite. Not very advanced technologically, but sitting on a huge pile of resources.

Group Two is unwilling to allow Group One to exploit their resources.

Group One develops a drug that will render all members of Group Two sterile, with no side effects whatsoever. They also can introduce this drug to Group Two without Group Two's knowledge. Is this moral, or immoral?

Yes, it's based on that one episode of Stargate. Still an interesting question.
It depends on you moral code. Group two would consider it immoral, group one would probably consider it moral. That is why morality is subjective crap that should be disregarded. It is practical, for group one, and detrimental for group two. According to my moral code (Which favours practicality over irrelevant social rules) it is moral.

No, genecide is immoral.