In a world with dwindling resources, is it moral to kill the sick and crippled?
With dwindling ressources, the weak won't be able to secure its share of resources and they will die anyway. No need to kill him.
>>53019954
No, but it's necessary.
NEXT!
>>53019954
Where else would people get corpse sandwich?
Though depending on what you mean by dwindling. If it is truly desperate then the best option is to cut them off or exile them from the group. If things are really bad, you could use them as rations.
>>53020093
But what if you are in a group and someone suggests moralfagging, like for example rescuing a group of sick patients.
>>53020145
IT'S FLESH ON A WAFFLE, IT'S NOT A SANDWICH.
>>53020159
Blow their heads off, cast a vote or tell 'em to go at it alone.
>>53020180
ITS BETWEEN TWO OF EM 'INNIT?
>>53020145
>eating aids meat
Crippled is fine through.
>>53020206
Its not aids meat if you don't fuck it first.
>>53019954
It's never morally right to kill at any time, but it's the only option in some scenarios. It doesn't make the killer a bad person though, a lot of times in life there just isn't any way out of a bad situation without doing something bad yourself, moreso in a setting like you're envisioning.
>>53020301
>It's never morally right to kill at any time
>>53020368
morally right no, morally justifiable and acceptable yes
>>53020301
>It's never morally right to kill at any time
"Kill" and "murder" are not interchangeable, anon.
>>53020400
Where did murder come from though no one mentioned it.
>>53020431
My point is killing is not morally wrong in and of itself. A murder is a killing that is morally wrong.
>>53020396
>endless games of semantics
Hello Sam Harris
No, it is not moral.
But it must be done.
We're making a better world.
>>53020301
>babby who doesn't distinguish between killing and murder
>>53019954
Well, you could pussy out and just cast them out to die on their own, and then you could justify it to yourself that you didn't actually kill them. Lots of people have done that throughout history.