Today I had an idea. Read it. It’s all fiction.
There is a world renowned scientist. He is working on cures to the worst diseases out in the world and eradicate them. He has come upon an idea that does not sit well with his ethics. Being a man of science and his search for the ultimate glory leads him to influence the officials into using biological warfare and not use bullets at all. In the war, only one kind of virus is used. This incapacitates the enemy soldiers killing them all except a few who were immune to the virus. They are captured as POW. This is what the scientist was hoping for. He knows that these POW are immune to that virus and he figures out why by taking samples from their bodies. He makes the vaccine and releases it to the world. It works perfectly. He receives all sorts of awards for his achievements in medicines. He has everything he wanted.
Now I have questions. It is all moral dilemma.
- Does it matter if the soldiers die by bullets(quick) or by disease(painful)?
- In order to make the vaccine, the scientist killed more men than the disease would have ever killed. So did he make the situation better or worse?
- The disease killed less people in the war than bullets would have. But they suffered more painful deaths. Is it ethical?