To be clear, I’m not suggesting we do what I’m about to propose, I just think it’s an interesting ethical/moral thought experiment.

If we could find a lot of people who want to unalive themselves, and say to them: there’s been a disaster and there are a lot of people who are stuck (e.g. a mine collapse, or 9/11 or something like that) and it’s a dangerous situation for rescue workers to go into, since you don’t care if you die we’re gonna send you in… would it be an ethical or moral thing to do? To ask or make people who don’t care if they live or not, to go into a situation that there’s a known high risk that they won’t survive?

(Also, I not asking wether it is a good idea to send such people in or wether it would be effective — I’m only interested in the ethics/morality of such an idea)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

I see your point, but I wasn’t asking wether it would be effective, only wether the idea itself is ethical or moral

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    I say using ineffective rescue personnel as opposed to trained and effective personnel is immoral. You are further endangering the lives of those needing rescue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

    I do agree, although I think there’s ambiguity with either being used tbh. It’s like, take 9/11 for example: when the police helicopters saw the north tower sinking on one side, the fire department immediately ordered all firefighters to evacuate, despite knowing full well that there were a lot of people still trapped above. It’s undoubtedly ethical/moral to save your own life, but is it ethical/moral to leave them trapped? Even though it arguably is, it’s still questionable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments