"The Greater Good"
In the
SMH today, there was an interesting opinion piece on embryonic stem cell research, and why it's a moral (not scientific) issue:
Science is good at telling us how to do things. It can tell us how to achieve certain ends and provide the means to do so. However, the decision as to whether those ends are good ends or whether the means to achieve them are ethical is not a scientific question ... For example, scientists were good at telling us how to build nuclear weapons, but whether to use them or not is a moral, not a scientific, question.
Reading this got me thinking about the concept of "the greater good". Most powers today believe that killing innocent people is justified if more people are saved through it. This is true whenever Israel bombs civilian areas in Lebanon, or America bombs towns in Iraq. If we have to kill civilians to get the terrorist, we will, because we believe that we will save more lives in the long-run. It all about "the greater good".
But it gets you thinking, doesn't it: how far can this concept of "the greater good" go? Think of WWII, when America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing at least 214,000 people. The bombs ended the war, and thus saved many lives. So good was served, right?
I think it's really interesting that the SMH article compares killing embryos for stem cell research to dropping nuclear bombs. It begs the question: when is it ok to take innocent human life? What if the research into these stem cells finds a cure for cancer, and thus saves millions of lives? Is it ok then?
Yeah you say, but we're not certain that the research will save anyone. Fair point - but what if we were sure? What if we knew that killing 1 person would cure cancer. Would it be ok then? What about 10 people? 1 thousand? 1 million? Where do we draw the line?
Comments welcome.