Episode of Sliders several years ago had an episode where people could get free lottery tickets, would be granted a special party and wish to live it up for a limited time, and then capitulated into killing themselves. Their heirs would receive the funds and live a better life economically.
Positives:
1. Acted as population control
2. Limited the number of people through wealth distribution (rich people through out history often have fewer children)
3. Consent was given with a short and long term reward of the individuals as a form of social sacrifice and gave economic power to the family
Negatives:
1. Death of a sentient human being
2. Society using pressure to kill off people that are sick
3. No guarantee that the wealth will be used correctly
So would it be moral and/or ethical to allow a human being by lot to win a chance to kill themselves for a pot of money that could be left to whatever benefactors of their choice?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I think it comes down to choice, as long as the person made that choice of their own accord without undue influence put on them, such a program could be benfial too socity as a whole. However its an something to be approached and completed with extreme caution. The main thought here is choice, Free will, no undue influeance, of sound mind. if ANY of these are compermised then this is SO ripe for corruption then it could be VERY VERY bad.
I'd have to say no. The main problem is making sure these people are sane, doing it completely under their own power, and I'm sure a plethora of other things that would arise. What happens if I go through this, and have all the money go to my family, and they get robbed, or are put in danger solely because of the money?
There are too many loose ends that would appear with something like this.
Additionally, I think it's morally wrong, human death is not something you can regret later on. The option is too "final" to be morally correct to offer to anyone. Plus, it'll give people who are depressed, or are inflicted with some un-diagnosed disorder to find a reason to die.
The best solution to over population is to raise the quality of life for all, and to have better education about sex, birth control, etc,...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Depends on (1) whether this is the foundation for how that society deals with overpopulation. (2) how desperate is the society? How much need does society have for such population control measures?
I'm... having a problem with the base assumption of the Death Note scenario: how does giving one person a million dollars reduce the population? And how are we assuming that a male in this scenario won't procreate like there's literally no tomorrow?
It wouldn't be ethical, because just like the real lottery there are subgroups that would disproportionately be affected by this (there is a reason it is called the 'Poor Tax'), and claiming to make it available to everyone is intellectually dishonest. The wealthy wouldn't need to participate, it's only the rich that would. The military is another great example.
I doubt such a scenario would even feasibly work, especially if there are beneficiaries after the person's death.
Typically War, Famine or Disease have always been the best forms of population control mankind has had. Thanks to modern science, it's not as much of an issue anymore, so there are very few natural selectors of populations. Eventually we will be hit by a pandemic strong enough to thin the population (especially since we have the capability to make super-bugs), but there is are very few ethical means of population control.
I will, however, concede that Captian Morgan is awesome for giving a Sliders shout out. I remember the episode you are discussing.
In my mind, Jay13x is mostly correct. The best ways to limit world population have been disease and war. It has also gone to show that richer countries are more educated in the area of birth control and have the money to support these forms of birth control. It is not necesarrily who becomes rich, for one rich person who is uneducated in birth control could still have a large amount of children, but rather what nation would have the money and whether or not that nation woild use the money for educational purposes. This is no short term solution to over population, nor would it have a predictable outcome. We can always stick with killing everyone as a viable option >: D
Episode of Sliders several years ago had an episode where people could get free lottery tickets, would be granted a special party and wish to live it up for a limited time, and then capitulated into killing themselves. Their heirs would receive the funds and live a better life economically.
Positives:
1. Acted as population control
2. Limited the number of people through wealth distribution (rich people through out history often have fewer children)
3. Consent was given with a short and long term reward of the individuals as a form of social sacrifice and gave economic power to the family
Negatives:
1. Death of a sentient human being
2. Society using pressure to kill off people that are sick
3. No guarantee that the wealth will be used correctly
So would it be moral and/or ethical to allow a human being by lot to win a chance to kill themselves for a pot of money that could be left to whatever benefactors of their choice?
At the risk of stating the obvious: it's not suicide if you force death upon someone.
It wouldn't be ethical, because just like the real lottery there are subgroups that would disproportionately be affected by this (there is a reason it is called the 'Poor Tax'), and claiming to make it available to everyone is intellectually dishonest. The wealthy wouldn't need to participate, it's only the rich that would. The military is another great example.
Not to derail the conversation but the poor tax argument is severely flawed in our society. I see no difference between poor people playing the lottery or slots versus a rich person playing the stick market.
Now in this suicide lottery you do have a point in that unless there is something out there that would give the rich a reason to participate in something similar it would basically just be an out to give poor people a way to make their families "rich".
Positives:
1. Acted as population control
2. Limited the number of people through wealth distribution (rich people through out history often have fewer children)
3. Consent was given with a short and long term reward of the individuals as a form of social sacrifice and gave economic power to the family
Negatives:
1. Death of a sentient human being
2. Society using pressure to kill off people that are sick
3. No guarantee that the wealth will be used correctly
So would it be moral and/or ethical to allow a human being by lot to win a chance to kill themselves for a pot of money that could be left to whatever benefactors of their choice?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
There are too many loose ends that would appear with something like this.
Additionally, I think it's morally wrong, human death is not something you can regret later on. The option is too "final" to be morally correct to offer to anyone. Plus, it'll give people who are depressed, or are inflicted with some un-diagnosed disorder to find a reason to die.
The best solution to over population is to raise the quality of life for all, and to have better education about sex, birth control, etc,...
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
I doubt such a scenario would even feasibly work, especially if there are beneficiaries after the person's death.
Typically War, Famine or Disease have always been the best forms of population control mankind has had. Thanks to modern science, it's not as much of an issue anymore, so there are very few natural selectors of populations. Eventually we will be hit by a pandemic strong enough to thin the population (especially since we have the capability to make super-bugs), but there is are very few ethical means of population control.
I will, however, concede that Captian Morgan is awesome for giving a Sliders shout out. I remember the episode you are discussing.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
At the risk of stating the obvious: it's not suicide if you force death upon someone.
Not to derail the conversation but the poor tax argument is severely flawed in our society. I see no difference between poor people playing the lottery or slots versus a rich person playing the stick market.
Now in this suicide lottery you do have a point in that unless there is something out there that would give the rich a reason to participate in something similar it would basically just be an out to give poor people a way to make their families "rich".