Moral Dilemma (2): The Immortality Pill
A new post in this blog series. Imagine that someone invented a pill that prevents aging and death (source). The problem: the pill costs $150,000, and there is no way to produce a large amount of them. Hence, society cannot drain resources away from other, less rewarding investments, and provide the pill to those who cannot afford to pay $150,000. So only a few, namely those who can afford the pill and are fast enough to get hold of one, can live forever without aging. Assuming that we agree that everyone should have an equal right to immortality,
Standard note: Use the comment section in order to elaborate on your answer. As usual in this series, we don’t pronounce ourselves on our favorite answer. This series is about what the readers think. However, nothing in the statistics on the answers you give makes it possible to conclude anything about “public opinion”. The usual disclaimer about the quality of internet polls where participants can self-select is applicable. Read more. Also, the polls in this blog series will remain open indefinitely in order to allow accidental readers of this blog, or readers finding their way here through a search engine, to participate.
More on equality of opportunity. More on the free market. More on redistribution. More posts in this series.
Well, we cannot even take care of what we have. We have homesless, hungry, enfirmed and ignorance. I don’t think society is ready for this opportunity. It would be just one more excuse to illegally traffic something and create an additional field for crime.
We can’t even manage the freedoms we have, I say it would be yet another tease to rock society along with credit, drugs, unhealthy living, etc. I think you get my drift.
good point
Other: Democratic vote.
But how would you see such a vote? What would be the options the people could choose?
Sorry, I might actually change my answer. But I guess it depends on the circumstance. If the pill was developed by “someone,” as you say, or some corporation, then I think they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If they want to take it themselves, fine. If they want to sell it to the highest bidders, fine. Or if they want to destroy it, fine. That is, as their property, it is their choice. If the pill was developed by some government or some international organization (say, WHO, which doesn’t make drugs in reality), then perhaps the answer would be different. (The idea of “banning” is the most silly, in my mind, as governmental prohibitions of substances people really want almost never work.)
Some other comments from other people:
Ban it; immortality in a society is a terrible idea to begin with
I think it’s another excuse to create more crime!!!
I don’t quite understand the second one.