Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Cicero, Feb 29, 2008.
Or at least, what could be bought with that one billion dollars.
who can say what that person could have done for the world.
money is a thing that can be replaced.
a human life is precious for all that it can be.
But a human life can be replaced, too, and who knows what the money would have been spent on?
No one should be under the illusion that lost funds do not themselves cost lives.
That's what I'm saying!
Hmm. This is a hard one.
How about clarificiation? Would this person be like a drug addict, a sucide bomber, a serial killer cause I'd trade them for one billion dollars. Whats this person's worth to society?
We don't know who the person is, or what the money will be used for.
I agree with Lord of Hats. This question doesn't explain enough because I hate to say it but only certain human lives would be worth more than a billion dollars. How mundane of me...
Oh wait, your serious...
Well fi we don't know better to air on the safe side and not risk killing the next einstien.
And how many lives would be forfeit BECAUSE of the billion dollars? How many AIDS patienst would be unable to get medicine? How many people will die because a bridge repair gets pushed back another year? How many die because there wasn't enough vaccine to go around, or because a few dozen hospital operating rooms had to be closed?
Economics is not just dollars and cents.
What makes you think I'm not?
But, what are the chances of the next Einstein coming along? Would it be safer to put one billion dollars into the Physics we already are working on?
maybe the person who lost his life was going to be the one to come up with a cure for aides.
think of the lives and the money saved with that discovery.
life is more precious than gold.
but not that humans life. you can make another body sure but it would not have that persons brain or feelings. it would just be another person to take up the spot left open
Money isn't the only factor in these things. AIDS? Money is vital but you need researchers too. What if the person you just killed off for that billion dollars was going to become an aids researcher?
Bridges? You need laborers and engineers.
Vaccine? My understanding of the vaccine isn't that there is a lack of money its that with research, developement, and production there is never enough time to produce all the vaccine needed. Plus you still need researchers.
Money is a single factor in all these things, a vital one, but still a single factor. If you have no idea what this person does how can you possibly make the neccessary cost benefit analysis? Would you trade Isaac Newton or Galileo for $1,000,000,000?
This is honestly a pointless question. With no knowledge of what your trading its like agreeing to give China billions of dollars for a cargo ship full of who knows what. Now if you knew that ship carried lead painted toys its not worth it. If your getting China's secret supply of Alien technologies retrieved through the Star Gate thats well worth it.
This question is basically asking us to play russian roullete and only an idiot plays russian roullete.
If you take a revolver and put one bullet in it, spin the cahmber, put the gun to your head and pull the trigger what are the chances your about to die? 1 in 6. Chances are your going to lvie but only a fool would play with fate like this.
Einstien. "God doesn't play with dice."
It's not as stupid a question as you are making it out to be. The amount of great scientists compared with the amount of normal people is a much greater than 1 in 6 chance.
A better analogy would be someone playing Russian Roulette for double-or-nothing with a gun that has over a billion chambers, and only one of them doesn't have a bullet in it. That one bullet is Einstein. What are the chances he's going to come out? Would it be simpler to not play at all, and take what you have?
A better question is: would you have a million dollar, knowing it will kill someone?
That is a much better question.
Scientists arn't the only ones with value (They're just the ones I've been using as examples thus far). What about Musicians? Artists? Political and Military Leaders? Business leaders and organizers? You'd trade a billion dollars and risk losing any one of these vital aspects of our world? Then theres the need for skilled laborers, craftsmen, community leaders, and all the other folks needed so the big geniuses can make their plans and ideas work.
All these things are not found in everybody. There are far more people in society with value than people in society without value. Its not 1 in a billion chance your going to lose someone who could have done something, its probably closer to a 75% chance your going to lose someone who can do something important.
I'm sorry I fail to see the point in such a question. Money is like fuel. If you don't have the people who form the engine its worthless. Trading off engine parts for fuel is stupid because when you get the fuel you don't have the engine parts for the car to run.
Unless you know what your giving up your making a fools descion assuming what your giving up isn't as valuable as what your getting.
Your asking the same question, you've just changed the wording and decreased the amount you get which makes the trad eoff even less valuable considering you have no idea who your killing.
Why is that better? The original question asked if it was worth losing a life instead of a billion dollars. You're asking if you'd take a million dollars, if you knew that it would kill someone. What...?
I guess I keep coming back to, what if it was your life? If I knew my life was going to make someone lose one billion dollars, I wouldn't just eat a bullet, or go peacefully if they sent someone to kill me.
To begin with, human life is priceless. Qura'an says that if one saves a human, it is as though he has saved the whole of mankind - and if one kills a human, it is as though he has killed the whole of mankind (i.e., an innocent person.)
Then, the idea of 'the billion dollars could've been spent on something else'. This reminds me of that morality test in which they give a situation, such as: your boat will sink, and you have to throw over one person. You can through this sick person who will probably die anyway. So will you?
For those who don't believe in God, people will consider my choice fatuous, but I will not throw him over. Because, I am not God, I cannot kill an innocent man even if science says he'll die. Science, maths, or anything, is never 100%. Anything can happen. I am no one to pass my judgment. Maybe this is how it is better? I also believe that everything happens for the better. (Yes, even WWs, 9/11, etc). You cannot always look at the good side of things in normal circumstances, but you never realize that things could be worse.
So, to save I man I would take any step. God knows whether he is intended to live or die, and maybe those billion dollars would have not benefited anyone else otherwise. Similarly, I am against suicide - this is not MY life, this is a gifted life, a present from God. I have no right to do anything to it, because it's not my own anyway. Mercy killing, in my opinion, is also wrong. Like I said, we do not know anything about the dying person's fate, and we do not have any right to kill him/her. Even if he is to die, eventually, we have no right to take the life away ourselves. (Now, you'll ask, why make him suffer. Because, if there's a slightest chance he'll live, you're going to murder the whole of mankind because of it. I don't want to do that, personally.)
EDIT: If my million dollars would kill someone, I'd let go of them. One should have the human heart to do that. And in your case, Connolly, since I can't suicide, I'll simply look into possibilities of perhaps not using that money on me, and instead use that for a good cause. Or something like that. Let's hope I'm never faced with that decision.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. I by no means advocate killing someone to save one billion dollars. That's what I was trying to convey with my post.
In response to that, I said:
I take that you're trying to say that you would use those billion dollars to save a life, considering it would be needed by you if you were in such a case. I have nothing against it - duh - I'm just saying that I won't commit suicide or anything.
That's not what I was trying to say. I'm trying to say that if I was going to cost someone or some group one billion dollars in the future, and they wanted to kill me so that they didn't lose their money, I would fight them until the bitter end. I think almost anyone would.
And why wouldn't anyone? Either way, I agree with Connolly.
Separate names with a comma.