Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[The Merchant Of Menace]

Actually, you sacrificed millions to save billions

[Darvi]

Actually, you sacrificed millions to save billions

Then who watches the watchmen?

[Taricus]

Okay, I've thought of another interesting dilemma here.

You are a dictator over a very advanced nation (Compared to the rest of the world. and this is in terms of technology in use) in which any large organization apart from the government is banned outright regardless of views and the only conventional media is state-funded television and propaganda films. Said dictatorship has very little regard for human rights, often arresting people and sending them of to prisons and other facilities meant for incarceration. About a third will die within a week to scientific research (Due to that being the standard method of execution).

Due to the dwindling number of test subjects the scientist are calling for annexation of the neighboring nations, most of which have foreign aid coming in from a rival nation. Annexation would surly lead to another world war, however your scientist hold a great deal of influence among the secret police and the army and would try to overthrow you if you didn't follow through with their request, possibly leading to an even worse regime here. And to top it off said neighboring countries are likely to invade whilst your nation is embroiled in civil war in the hopes of taking some of your land and technology.

And to top it all off, a small amount of the scientist are fairly disgruntled about the human rights abuse, so if you do go to war for annexation your enemies would have access to some of your finer military equipment blueprints.

So, Invasion and have the rest of the world upon you?, or a civil war which would cripple your nation for decades?

(Edits are welcome to it)

[Grek]

Honestly, you need more information for this one.

I can tell you in advance what having that information would allow be to decide. Specifically, you should accept the general's offer if and only if

(expected mean rate of deaths per day of outbreak x expected duration of outbreak in days x cumulative poisson distribution of outbreaks over the interval of time between the expected completion of the forced immunizations in the event of an invasion and the expected date of the natural extinction of Ebola Reston, if any) exceeds (number of people in ebolaland x proportion of ebolandians that are currently infected) + expected casualties in the fighting on both sides of the invasion

which, for even the most genorous assumptions about the unknown values, is almost certainly true. But since I don't actually have the data, I can only put my vote in for Accept on a previsional basis.

I cannot assess Taricus's dilemma, as there is no possible dictatorship in which I have meaningful power and the details of the government (no free press, no non-governmental organizations, execution of 1/3rd of prisoners, state run media, scientific research as an execution method, etc.)

[Fenrir]

Taricus, it is not really an ethical dilemma if you are evil.

I am also wondering what kind of dwarfy research is being conducted that would kill a third of the population in a week.

[Taricus]

As I said, that dilemma is open for editing. In this case thought the dictatorship itself is reletivly grey in terms of morality.

Also, Neuroresearch Via cutting a hole within the patient/criminal's skull and sending eletrical shock or pulses into the nervous system, among other things.

[Grek]

The ethical solution is to do all of the following:
-Allow non-governmental organizations back into the country.
-Allow a free press.
-Order a review of the cases of all prisoners incarcerated during your reign.
-Cease destructive medical experimentation on human beings.
-Imprison all members of your secret police as well as the scientists that were performing the ethically unacceptable experiments.
-Invited United Nations peacekeeping forces into the country to prevent the civil war that doing the above would cause.
-Submit yourself to the United Nations for your human rights violations.
-If you aren't sentenced to life in prison, execution or some similar punishment, draft a constitution and hold free elections.
-Do not at any point start WW3.

[MorleyDev]

Or start WW3 and take as much of the world with you as you can, laughing maniacally the entire time.

I mean sure, what he suggested is probably more ethical and morally right, but which one sounds more fun?

[Muz]

Well, being consistent, my ethics would revolve around myself and those immediately around me. And leaving this country like this would more likely get closely related people affected. Now, it would be more worrying if I'd end up killing billions to save millions, but here, I'd be killing millions to save millions.

In this particular case, curing the infected nation would remove the deterrent to the warlords trying to take it over. The warlords would eventually break it in if it were disease free. And leaving Reston-H to spread in the region would just give more weakened targets for them to conquer.

My approach would be to threaten war upon the nation should they refuse to be immunized, and bring it if they're still stubborn. If this is not an option (like it would alert them to a point where war isn't possible or encourage the infected to flee), yeah, just wipe them out since they'd be dead anyway. Then do damage control after it's all done.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I guess I have to endorse the warlord. It sucks and I'll be so guilty I'll probably immediately resign (due to a combination of never wanting that responsibility again and not being sure I'm fit for said responsibility), but I think I'm morally obligated to.

As for the high-tech dicatorship, it seems like you're fucked no matter what you do unless you take a 3rd option involving bypassing one of your opposing factions. It doesn't sound like you're actually a very stable dictator, and may just be a figurehead; in this case, your decision is meaningless. If you're not... well, some purges are in order, most likely disguised as trials for unethical researchers in which they are sure to be convicted of crimes against humanity (or similar). After that, I can either rest on my laurels as a crusader for justice and not really change anything, or I can actually try to improve the nation, but starting WW3 is not an acceptable choice; the two basic options both necessarily involve doing so. If I'm forced to pick one option, then my duty would be to start invading neighboring nations; both scenarios start WW3 (the rival will necessarily get involved), so the only choice I have is "Avert civil war or no". The intel leaks are sure to happen, as well, since the scientists who want the invasions are, presumably, equally well-connected.

[shadenight123]

concerning the virus, the infected refused the vaccine. As the head of the rest of the world, and being responsible for the LIVES of the rest of the world, i wouldn't even wait for the dictator and his proposal, i would have ALREADY eradicated them away. they refused the vaccine for some stupid mumbo jumbo. It's like the fundamental islamist who had his wife pregnant, but since the only available ginecologist was a male, for religious reasons, he had the baby born wrong because they had to wait for a female ginecologist to come by and deliver the baby. Thus ruining an innocent live because of pure idiocy. (happened in italy in a clinic, he even tried to make a scene and went to trial, he lost it obviously)
the year is 2020 or onwards, they should be technologically capable of understanding what's needed. If they are not, and they insist in their ways which are proven to HARM the rest of the world (referring to the infectious outbreaks) then they must be neutralized. completely.
It's maybe excessive, but countless will be saved, and those who lost their dear family to the precedent outbreaks would raise you a statue, and honour you for the tough decision you had to take.

[Dsarker]

Shadenight, I point out that they are refusing it because of paranoia. They think that you want to kill them. They also don't have access to the vaccine itself. You could, you know, just PROVE TO THEM that it won't kill them.

[shadenight123]

Shadenight, I point out that they are refusing it because of paranoia. They think that you want to kill them. They also don't have access to the vaccine itself. You could, you know, just PROVE TO THEM that it won't kill them.

point is, they are systematically refusing to have it tried on them.
and they systematically refuse any sort of compromise.
And another point to be taken into consideration is that their own government, even though it has been showed as a Democracy, is in truth a dictatorship of the worst kind. First of all because they have no access to other sources of information except those of their own government, otherwise they would know the vaccine is not deadly, secondly, their own government in some sort of way refuses to acknowledge the vaccine isn't deadly. Because the point of the question is not wherever or not you can prove it to them (since it's obvious it was the first thing anyone would try, and it seems to have failed, or we wouldn't be in this dilemma) but wherever or not you forcefully immunize them, have them killed, or leave them be so they can infect somebody else.
So they are 20 Milions people who refuse. And you have billions and billions on your shoulders.
You decide to take no action, the next time ebola comes around in the world there will be people angry, there will be strike, and many will ask "why didn't you do something?" you decide to take action, but they are stubborn and refuse anything you show them. So in the end it's Let them be or Use violence. And if you have to use violence, better do it with your own hand, than have another dictatorship take the lead. At least you will give them a quick death.

[Dsarker]

Or, perhaps, they don't believe other countries.

Say, for example, that Hitler came to you, and said he had a cure for all the diseases, and it work only work on Jews, or Gypsies, or any of other groups of people Nazi Germany persecuted. Would you try it?

[shadenight123]

Or, perhaps, they don't believe other countries.

Say, for example, that Hitler came to you, and said he had a cure for all the diseases, and it work only work on Jews, or Gypsies, or any of other groups of people Nazi Germany persecuted. Would you try it?

wait. the question you're asking is:
Hitler comes with a cure that works only on jews and gypsies for all disease, and asks me to try it? I point out that i'm neither a jew nor a gypsies, and so it wouldn't work anyway, but if it doesn't have countereffects, and nothing bad would happen, and he insists, i drink it.
if question was instead referring to a sort of "famous evil person" who walks in front of you and says he has a cure for all sicknesses and wants to give it to you for free, no charges, i'd be dubious, but after testing it out i would drink it if no after effects were involved.
Point is, you did show the people of the african state it was not a lethal vaccine, they didn't still believe it.