Ethical dilemma: Whose life is more valuable? - Rebecca L. Walker

preview_player
Показать описание
Puzzle through a classic ethical dilemma and decide: how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human?

--

To protect against a possible resurgence of smallpox, the US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines. And since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using monkeys as research subjects. But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat? Rebecca L. Walker takes a look at this classic ethical dilemma.

Lesson by Rebecca L. Walker, directed by Sharon Colman.

This video was produced in collaboration with the Parr Center for Ethics, housed within the renowned Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Parr Center is committed to integrating abstract work in ethical theory with the informed discussion of practical ethical issues, and prides itself on the development of innovative and inclusive approaches to moral and civic education.

Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Francisco Amaya, Daisuke Goto, Matt Switzler, Peng, Tzu-Hsiang, Bethany Connor, Jeremy Shimanek, Mark Byers, Avinash Amarnath, Xuebicoco, Rayo, Po Foon Kwong, Boffin, Jesse Jurman, Scott Markley, Elija Peterson, Ovidiu Mrd, paul g mohney, Steven Razey, Nathan Giusti, Helen Lee, Anthony Benedict, Karthik Balsubramanian, Annastasshia Ames, Amy Lopez, Vinh-Thuy Nguyen, Liz Candee, Ugur Doga Sezgin, Karmi Nguyen, John C. Vesey, Yelena Baykova, Nick Johnson, Carlos H. Costa, Jennifer Kurkoski, Ryan B Harvey, Akinola Emmanuel, Jose Arcadio Valdes Franco, Sebastiaan Vleugels, Karl Laius, JY Kang, Abhishek Goel, Heidi Stolt, Nicole Sund, Karlee Finch, Mario Mejia, Denise A Pitts, Doug Henry, Keven Webb, Mihai Sandu, Deepak Iyer and Javid Gozalov.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

It's well and good to say that it is unethical to sacrifice one life to save five, but what do you think happens in an emergency room when doctors and nurses perform triage? What about when we choose to fund research to cure one fatal disease vs another? Or whether we want to invest in infrastructure to protect against fire in California or flooding in Florida? Try as we might, the trolley problem is inescapable (and sadly, refusing to choose is also a choice).

SlightyLessEvolved
Автор

Ik it's a never ending dilemma but regardless of the fact if it's right or wrong, I think it's just that any certain species will try to protect other members of its own species.

thesublime
Автор

“Whatever you decide, your choice should be well justified.” This is a great rule to live by.

noahl
Автор

Humans will always think of humans as the main priority. Well, because we're humans. Our friends and family are humans. So I think in this case, the cause is more of an emotional one. When a lot of people would face a choice to save either their friend or a stranger, they'd certainly prefer the friend. So even in humans, lives are not equally important to everyone.

Snowman_
Автор

From what i can tell, assigning value isnt the problem at all. Anyone can dictate how valuable something is for themselves. The actual problem is forcing other people to accept a dictated value. The end goal is to have everyone agree that "yes, this is the value of something" which isn't going to happen for as long as people think for themselves.

newCoCoY
Автор

"I am too early I don't know what to comment..So just pretend like I said something meaningful "

Vazhipokkann
Автор

The philosophical content are always intriguing. thanks for the videos.

Ezel_
Автор

The animators must be praised as always.. how cool they make these animations shine

sarawatlism
Автор

About 5 years ago when I was 17 ted was a place for answers for me, but now as I grow older and get into them deeper, the videos are full of dilemmas and questions

EilrahCriS
Автор

The dilemma gets even crazier if we consider plants. I personally think that it would be impossible to consider every single species as an equal. Even you reading this right now, even, is killing thousands of microorganisms that are keeping you alive.

boringbilal
Автор

Well, to be honest there can be no conclusion to this argument because it is essentially our nature to keep ourselves safe. We are naturally biased in our opinions. We cannot turn away from the fact that in end we still want better medications and treatments for ourselves and for those close to us even at the cost of an animal 's suffering.

To be precise, moral ethics are only acceptable to a person if it doesn't go against his/her essential needs.

soultoucher
Автор

Every life is precious, wherever it’s a person, a cockroach, a bird, or even bacterium, every living thing has a will to survive, grow, and repopulate. Taking their life away is always heart breaking for me but we humans have to understand death is also just as important as life, but sometimes humans mess with that balance.

mamaluigi
Автор

timely, been pondering this for months. Unavoidable for now, like a carnivore eats another animal, but we should constantly innovate to slowly go away from animal abuse. I think there is a future for medical technologies that needs little animal testing and animal farming.

zodiacfml
Автор

The animation of these Ted Ed Videos always fascinates me. Thank you.

hehebwoy
Автор

Scoiety is inevitably built on the suffering of someone. Best we can do is try to lessen the suffering, we can never truly erase it.

lizardguyNA
Автор

Another good question is why the assertion that life can be valued like a commodity for its use to an economy - we've called non useful life pests.

toyotaprius
Автор

How is animal testing any different from animal farming? If it's not unethical to farm animals for human consumption how can we argue that animal testing is unethical, its the same conversation...

amelia
Автор

Morality is hard. It's hard to care about others when they are suffering and you can't help them. They only matter if they matter to you, but either way, they still suffer.
The belief that someone is going to come along and "solve" this moral issue for us by telling us who is and isn't worth consideration is naive and harmful.
Just as much as sexism, racism, and homophobia aren't "solved, " this issue will never be solved either. Waiting for some catch all solution only worsens the problem as we ignore it.

ParadoxProblems
Автор

There is no objective reason to consider other species' lives as equal or more valuable than ours. The morality is based in empathy; we care more if a dog dies than an insect. The problem is that empathy is relative since it varies so much between cultures and individuals. Since morality is not objective then I think its acceptable to construct the hierarchy of beings--the pyramid one.

butter_nut
Автор

It always bothered me when people get offend when described as animals in a scientific way.

ribbonfly