Is the answer to these questions the same or different? Why?
-
Suppose there is a collection of cells making up a human being. Some of these cells are behaving abnormally: they are resisting apoptosis (self-destruction), consuming too many resources, generating toxins, etc., forming a tumor. The human decides that these cells must be destroyed through chemo or surgery, for his well-being. Is the human being is morally justified in doing this?
-
Suppose there is a collection of human beings making up a society. Some of these human beings are behaving abnormally: they are refusing compulsory military service, taking drugs and not producing, or preaching religious memes that are perceived as harmful etc. The society decides that these human beings must be executed for its well-being. Is the society is morally justified in doing this?
Basically, are people priviledged in deserving freedom over cells or societies? My attempt to answer these questions is to say, at a basic level, that there are no objective morals and everything acts freely according to its preferences. At a higher level, I strongly suspect that spreading the meme of human liberty would be better for satisfying both my (and society’s) wants in the long run. So I believe in natural law but the belief is at a “fake” (memetic / outer) level and is only partially justified (I have say 90% confidence in the benefits of it).