Hacker News Reader

Comment by LocalH | Hacker News Reader

Not sure why this is being downvoted. It may be a macabre way of looking at it, but it is a valid viewpoint. Poster didn't specify whether they actually felt that way. I agree, in the following sense. A different way to put it - if human rights are to be violated, there better be a damn noble reason for it.

View on HN

It's a point of view that makes no sense. Murdering one person to save another is not "noble". It negates the entire point of "human rights" in the first place.

You might as well suggest that people who need organs should be able to kill a random person on the street to get them.

I think the OP was merely opining that they'd rather see this, than people dying for pure profit motive. I know that, were I provided a choice between killing someone for forced organ donation that could potentially save lives, versus killing someone for greed, profit, or punishment, with no way to say "no", I'd choose the former. Making it clear, however, that I'd rather never have to make that choice in the first place.

I see where you're coming from.

I guess to me, it makes no moral difference. The means corrupt the end. The Nazis managed to get some useful science out of the Jews during the Holocaust, but it's hard to see that as a silver lining.

I think that if you're at the level of making those kinds of choices, you're already living in hell.

I'd agree there. I don't think humans are at a point (nor will they ever be at a point) where they're capable of making such decisions without corruption clouding things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com