I mean euthanasia of the disabled and unhealthy. Let me explain:
Most people reject the idea; they'll say it's immoral, or monstrous; they'll say it's unfair. However, logically speaking, in the interest of the survival of the species these people contribute nothing. They take up space, and consume resources. And yet most, especially the mentally disabled ones, literally contribute nothing.
Perhaps the only value that can come out of them is live research, but once again on strictly emotional grounds, we defy logic and don't allow this to occur.
The reason people reject these kinds of ideas is not on logical grounds, it's on emotional grounds; it's because they defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals instead of because of any practical utilitarian value.
Now one could turn the argument around and say "well, you don't contribute anything either"...and you're free to think that. Although nonetheless one can't deny that there is definitely a difference between the healthy and unhealthy, the mentally fit and mentally insane. A very objective difference. Thus if human beings are to be purely logical, efficient beings, then why do we sustain the useless and defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals?
The reason? Compassion. Human beings are not strictly logical beings. We don't view the world mathematically and in a utilitarian sense; and that's fine. My argument isn't that logical actions are always moral actions, but rather that sometimes humans can be illogical. But then, don't claim to be a logical person and yet defend illogical things.
Most people reject the idea; they'll say it's immoral, or monstrous; they'll say it's unfair. However, logically speaking, in the interest of the survival of the species these people contribute nothing. They take up space, and consume resources. And yet most, especially the mentally disabled ones, literally contribute nothing.
Perhaps the only value that can come out of them is live research, but once again on strictly emotional grounds, we defy logic and don't allow this to occur.
The reason people reject these kinds of ideas is not on logical grounds, it's on emotional grounds; it's because they defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals instead of because of any practical utilitarian value.
Now one could turn the argument around and say "well, you don't contribute anything either"...and you're free to think that. Although nonetheless one can't deny that there is definitely a difference between the healthy and unhealthy, the mentally fit and mentally insane. A very objective difference. Thus if human beings are to be purely logical, efficient beings, then why do we sustain the useless and defend ideals for the sake of defending ideals?
The reason? Compassion. Human beings are not strictly logical beings. We don't view the world mathematically and in a utilitarian sense; and that's fine. My argument isn't that logical actions are always moral actions, but rather that sometimes humans can be illogical. But then, don't claim to be a logical person and yet defend illogical things.