Right to life

piercehawkeye45 · 12-12-2007, 05:06 PM

For those who haven't read the thread that started it, there has been a debate on the absoluteness of rights so I will give an ethical delimma to hopefully further my point.

You are the leader on an isolated island (that means NO outside contact) that can only support 1,000 people. For the past few hundred years your population has expanded from its initial 100 people (we are ignoring incest) and we are nearing the 1,000 people limit. Do to the poor leadership of the following leader, there was no movement to limit population expansion and you are going to be facing the major problem of overpopulation.

During last year's census, there was a recorded population of 990 people but due to boom in the natural ocesslation of childbirths, it is predicted that the population is currently at 1200 people. Since you are living in a small island with no outside resources, your island is facing economic collapse because it physically can not support the additional 200 people. If you do nothing, there it is more than likely you will overuse your resources, dropping the number of people the island can support even further and there will be war and an unrecoverable collapse of the economy in result that will certainly lead to the demise of everyone on the island.

Now you, being the responsible leader of the island, have the decision of either killing the excess 200 babies to keep the population in check or do nothing and hope, most likely in vain, that your whole island will not collapse.

So the decision is, in the eyes of greater society (the island), do those extra children have a right to life or not?

View Poll Results: Do those children have a right to life
Yes	13	72.22%
No	2	11.11%
Other (explain)	3	16.67%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

12-12-2007, 05:06 PM	#1
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Right to life For those who haven't read the thread that started it, there has been a debate on the absoluteness of rights so I will give an ethical delimma to hopefully further my point. You are the leader on an isolated island (that means NO outside contact) that can only support 1,000 people. For the past few hundred years your population has expanded from its initial 100 people (we are ignoring incest) and we are nearing the 1,000 people limit. Do to the poor leadership of the following leader, there was no movement to limit population expansion and you are going to be facing the major problem of overpopulation. During last year's census, there was a recorded population of 990 people but due to boom in the natural ocesslation of childbirths, it is predicted that the population is currently at 1200 people. Since you are living in a small island with no outside resources, your island is facing economic collapse because it physically can not support the additional 200 people. If you do nothing, there it is more than likely you will overuse your resources, dropping the number of people the island can support even further and there will be war and an unrecoverable collapse of the economy in result that will certainly lead to the demise of everyone on the island. Now you, being the responsible leader of the island, have the decision of either killing the excess 200 babies to keep the population in check or do nothing and hope, most likely in vain, that your whole island will not collapse. So the decision is, in the eyes of greater society (the island), do those extra children have a right to life or not?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)