Is it unethical to not kill those who are worse than you?

Is it unethical to not kill those who are worse than you?
Why does everyone think that even if someone has the mental capacities of a potato he still deserves to live?

You're right. You start killing and we'll follow!

I see potato downies cleaning the food court of a mall located adjacent to my office building. It makes me happy that they're working and not getting mac 'n cheese goo stuck to their legos in their poor mother's garage.

>Is it unethical to not kill those who are worse than you?
What do you mean by worse?
>Why does everyone think that even if someone has the mental capacities of a potato he still deserves to live?
Does that mean killing babies too? I'm interested....

They never chose their condition, yet you've chosen them not to live. It would be unjust.

If we killed all the tards who would be left to give (you)s

Humanism.
The human is the final goal in itself, but killing every person who are "worse" gives you a wide window of abuse and retardation.
Einstein was a fucking dumbass at school. Following this logic, we would have killed Einstein.
Baudelaire was a drunkward like no other, following this logic, we would kill Baudelaire.

This logic is flawed not only because the mistakes you would do, but also by the same paramethers you would use.
What is better? What is worse? What is the value of life anyway? Who would decide who needed to be killed? Who would be in charge of it?

All these questions have no true awnser yet, and if we followed a system like this, would only allow some groups of people enourmous power to rule over others.

This would be like Legends of the Galatic Heroes when there was that stupid Inferior Genes Act.

Truly, you're right. Some idiots would even go so far as to say, "Murder is wrong in all situations!", others (fence-sitting eunuch nancies, unlike us of course, pssshh), say, "Murder may be justified in certain extreme situations -- for self-defense, to prevent a greater evil, to execute the extremely psychopathic and deranged and violent criminals, etc." but obviously all ethical systems of mankind since the beginning of recorded history which have typically not seen murder as an ultimate good are stupid, and we should just kill people worse than us. Obviously.

I mean, it's not even a question of abstract notions of morality, it's just fucking practical! Whenever I come into the presence of someone better than me, I instantly want him to kill me, for instance, and I'm certain everyone feels the same way.

literally no species is retarded enough to systematically kill its own based on "I'm better than you"
that trait lies only with the us

And so you think that some completely functional human being should be unemployed so that people can feel good about themselves for taking care of vegetables who are incapable of gratitude?
>What do you mean by worse?
Less capable of achieving the good for society
> Does that mean killing babies too?
No, babies eventually grow up and acquire intelligence
The whole universe has never been "just". Up to 10000 years ago if you weren't strong enough, nature would have killed you.
Both Einstein and Baudelaire did more good than bad, but there are some people that are just leachers who drag everyone else down.

>only the best human survives
nice one you fucking donkey

This thread is worthy of putting you in the position you are talking about.

On what basis are you evaluating whether someone has the right to live?

>The whole universe has never been "just". Up to 10000 years ago if you weren't strong enough, nature would have killed you.
>natural selection is survival of the strongest not the fittest

Under your own philosophy, you should kill yourself.

Like I said contribution to society

How are you going to evaluate contribution to society? What if a potato has a job doing some simple menial work, but a perfectly healthy young man doesn't?

Amount of money generated minus cost of living

Well that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Why?

I would just deny their right to vote. If you dont pass a certain test of inteligence, you cant vote so you don´t fuck up other people´s lives.

Because you know full well that not only do many high earners not contribute more to society than lower earners, but because money isn't a good measure of actual value.

Then let me rephrase that:
Amount of actual value generated minus actual cost value of living

Perfectly healthy young men have better chances of getting a job than a potato.

The ones that should die are the ones that don't care or refuse to contribute to society, not the ones that are disabled.

Who hurt you user?

>Both Einstein and Baudelaire did more good than bad, but there are some people that are just leachers who drag everyone else down.

I never said that some people arent worse. What I said is: the reason why people dont kill anyone is humanism, and that the logics behind op question is wrong because the arguments are wrong.

Start by killing yourself OP
sage

Looks like we've got the next Kant here boys. Ethics are officially solved, we can now close down all uni ethics departments and go home. There's nothing to see here anymore.

Historically, the literary elite haven't been the ones doing the killing bub.

>Both Einstein ana Baudelaire did more good than bad

Ok, so at what time of their lives you decide if someone deserves to be killed?

You guys got it wrong, it's not about killing potatoes. It's about killing anyone sub 130 in the IQ scale. The sooner our societies is filled with Geniuses, the sooner we'll create a second golden age of humanity.


Look at Ashkenazi Jews, the smartest people in the world and they are everywhere that matters despite the low population numbers. By all metrics, you make more progress having 1000 Askhenazi Jews in a society, than a million 70 IQ South Africans.

The more people you kill the lower your IQ will become and eventually we'll have to kill you as well.

the world needs strippers.

this is true

Kek

Smart people are individualistic by nature, kill all the smarties but leave one left to rule the retards

>killing anyone sub 130 in the IQ scale.
I hear people suggest that and I'm not convinced by it. I don't think people who are actually over 130 IQ propose it. That leaves 1/44 people left. You depopulate that quickly, you're going to ruin modern society. Second, you're overvaluing IQ greatly there, I would want to introduce some people with long lifespans, who are hardy, aesthetic beauty, and all that. Third, I'm skeptical that having everybody high IQ is nessecarily a good thing, I think it's not going to make the garbagemen of the world any happier or more useful, it makes more people scheme, I believe an underclass of lower IQ serfs is still useful. Third, with CRISPR coming out, we may be able to simply select for genes associated with high IQ and boost it that way without having to murder most of society.

If anything, a slow and steady and moderate approach to eugenics is much more sensible. Even cutting out 10% of the chaff every generation and you'll be speeding things along nicely. However, what you eugenics fags should realise is what actually happens after you kill off the population, you get immigrants. How can one create the master race with a constant influx of unrefined genetic material?

Why do you use so many unnecessary negatives?

You could've just said, "is it ethical to kill those who are worse than you?" and it would've been significantly easier to read.

>einstein was a dumbass at school
yeah, no

>Crtl+F
>Rawls
>0 Results

Rawls probably has the most convincing answer to this kind of question. If you didn't know who would be considered 'better' and who would be considered 'worse' before you entered society, and you had to draw up the contract by which society had to live, would you really consent to a contract whereby you might be killed for being worse? No you wouldn't. Stop lying.

this

OP is a genetic failure and should be culled from the herd

Just kill anyone who can't answer, What Socrates Thinks of dogs.

A man is only worthy of the merits ascribed to him. Where does it end? What if you ascribe no merits to anyone?
We should kill retarded babies though

breddy gud

Because strictly ordering all people and all potential people is literally impossible; you'd end up with either equal people or just incomparable people.
Because even if that order existed, there's no way you can dessiminate it throughout the population.
Because the quality of ordering people in that theoretical order is dependant on subjective position of the one who orders in the eyes of the rest, and their positions are dependant on his - we end up at paradoxical "the position in the order is determined by the ability to properly order", which not only as multiple solutions, but becomes basically incomputable at n>=5.

then define actual value

>And so you think that some completely functional human being should be unemployed so that people can feel good about themselves for taking care of vegetables who are incapable of gratitude?

OP doesn't understand capitalism, guys. What a buffoon.

>there are some people that are just leachers who drag everyone else down.

Phonies, amirite? The world is thick with 'em. Packed to the gills with phonies. Fuck this gay earth op.

Yes, the best person is obligated to kill us all.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, if you were stuck with a potato and had a group of normal people there as well, by a rule its a good idea to keep him, because if any circumstance should befall your group where many die and he happens to live it would be useful to have one more person capable of doing anything around.
Pretty much like "we've got this guy just in case".

what about stopping them from reproducing surely if they make the conscious effort to bring someone into the world knowing they are going to be in a bad way is not right, right?

>Up to 10000 years ago if you weren't strong enough, nature would have killed you.
You're sending mixed messages. You claim the worse are those less capable of achieving the good for society (which is subjective as fuck and nearly impossible to define, is the lecherous banker better than the genius homeless?). But you say nature would have kill you if you weren't strong, the "strong" generally aren't the ones that achieve good for society, often they're the ones who got lucky or exploited others for personal, short-term gain.

>Killing the vast majority of humans is good for humanity
This is your brain on anime

he is right though

Evolution does the job of culling the weak well enough. Its like the free-market, inputting your own decisions on it will only pervert the natural outcome and end badly.

If you're talking about literal retards then generally they wont reproduce and eventually their genes will no longer be there. Meanwhile chad will have nothing to worry about.

Also its usually a bad idea to normalize murder and eugenics. Golden Standard and all that.