Amazon.com Widgets

Is it ethical to kill off disease causing bacteria despite the fact that doing so is, in effect, genocide? Ex. Smallpox

Asked by: Linkeagleandzen
  • Are you serious right now?

    What kind of question is this? Are you actually asking whether it is ethical to kill bacteria? Because you of course wouldn't want to hurt the bacteria's feelings. I am hoping that there is not actual large scale debate on this topic or I will really start to question if there is any hope for humanity. Bacteria is alive but it is not living; it is a biological nanobot, similar to a human made robot, just made by nature.

  • Sure it is ethical

    It is ethical in the reasoning that if you do not kill off all of these things then they will kill all of us and they would not have the thought that it would be unethical to kill an entire species. So who in their right mind would think that killing them is unethical?

  • Yes, it is ethical.

    It is ethical because it is for the well being of people. Also it is NOT a fact that it is genocide. "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Bacteria/virus are not a race, nor are they people, so it is not genocide.

  • Yes, I believe that it is ethical.

    Bacterias do not have feelings. Saying that killing off bacteria is not ethical is like saying that it is not ethical to chop down trees. Bacteria do not have brains, therefore they are not capable of feeling fear or suffering. Even if you are just washing your hands, you are killing hundreds of bacteria already. Bacteria are single cells, so they are like skin or hair. Is it ethical to cut your hair? Of course! But hair is made up of cells, just like bacteria. Of course it is ethical.

  • Bacteria are not sentient

    Although an entire species of bacteria has been wiped from the face of the Earth, they are not conscious beings. Thus our status of life form is above theirs. I don't see how non conscious life can ever take president over conscious life and I don't see how bacteria can be conscious, so there seems to be no problem to me.

  • Yes it is ethical.

    It is ethical to kill of a species of disease causing bacteria. By doing scientists could be saving a multitude of other species, possibly humans. If this disease was deadly to the human race, then it would be, in effect, genocide to us, simply another species. We are simply "playing to our strengths," under Charles Darwin's theory of, survival of the fittest.

  • Read this argument. If you didn't understand, then read it again. Then read about the philosophy in ethics...Widen your views and minds.

    The fact that a hundred percent of the people here actually find no ethical/moral obligation about this question/issue is truly disturbing. Here is why..

    The genocide of any species is not "ETHICAL" in any sense. Every species should have the right to live and thrive despite the fact that some might cause diseases or even death to others. To say that” it is, in fact, ETHICAL to commit a genocide”, is highly immoral and un-ethical. Saying such a thing about other species indicates and reinforces our “god complex” arrogance that, undeniably, shows how us (humans) are species that think and believe we are beings of high order/divine and deserve the right for life even on the expense of another specie(s). This typical thought and understanding about ourselves and the beings around us are reinforced by religion and culture. And it is widely wrong!

    We live AMONGEST those species and NOT ABOVE them!

    Now, to say that “committing such a genocide is NECESSARY for our survival” then that would be a reasonable argument to commit to. The natural order is all about survival ship. The nature of survival-ship doesn’t recognize/acknowledge things such as “morals” and “ethics” and it only operates on a fitness principle. Thus genocide of that species for our survival instead of theirs would be reasonable.

  • Read this and if you didn't understand the difference, then read again. Then go read about the philosophy of ethics

    The fact that a hundred percent of the people here actually find no ethical/moral obligation about this question/issue is truly disturbing. Here is why..
    The genocide of any species is not "ETHICAL" in any sense. Every species should have the right to live and thrive despite the fact that some might cause diseases or even death to others. To say that” it is, in fact, ETHICAL to commit a genocide”, is highly immoral and un-ethical. Saying such a thing about other species indicates and reinforces our “god complex” arrogance that, undeniably, shows how us (humans) are species that think and believe we are beings of high order/divine and deserve the right for life even on the expense of another specie(s). This typical thought and understanding about ourselves and the beings around us are reinforced by religion and culture. And it is widely wrong!
    We live AMONGEST those species and NOT ABOVE them!
    Now, to say that “committing such a genocide is NECESSARY for our survival” then that would be a reasonable argument to commit to. The natural order is all about survival ship. The nature of survival-ship doesn’t recognize/acknowledge things such as “morals” and “ethics” and it only operates on a fitness principle. Thus genocide of that species for our survival instead of theirs would be reasonable.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.