The Brilliant Scientist Dilemma
Imagine just for a moment the following scenario. A brilliant scientist by the name of Edward Gettysburg is revered by his colleagues as a modern day “Albert Einstein”. He has already at the age of twenty discovered two new laws of science through empirical evidence, turning physics inside out. He has had dozens upon dozens of his scientific papers published for peer review, all of which has been met with awe and glowing commentary. He has received international attention, he has been described by the Denmark prime minister as “one of the most inspiring, ingenious scientists that mankind has had to offer”.
Catastrophe happens at the laboratory that he works in, from a chemical accident the building is now in flames. He is trapped inside and unless someone can help him, he is doomed to die either from infrastructure not upholding or smoke inhalation. If something is to be done, it must be done now. On the other side of the building there are ten homeless people that aren’t able to escape the blaze either. You are in charge of a rescue squad, you must do what you feel would be the best course of action. There is not enough time to save everyone; you have to make a choice in which to save between the two. Which will it be, the scientist or the group of homeless people? There is a third option, you can do nothing and let everyone die. Which of these choices is morally sound?
This little exercise is an important case in point: Do you feel that some people by self worth and merit, can honestly be said to be better than other members of a given society? Meaning they are inherently superior to others, in their productivity and the lifestyle that they lead. If not, the only choice that seems to be left standing is that everyone is equal. This would mean that no one for any reason what so ever can be regarded as inferior and no one should be treated differently, no matter how much they have accomplished or have done nothing.
Think of what this would mean for society, everyone to be regarded as equals just for the sake of being equals. This is not even delving into respect, which every decent human being deserves. This is not about equal rights, as this is something that every free society must enjoy for it to exist. What I’m simply asking is do you feel some people are more important than others? I am going to illustrate how a belief in the equal worth for all mentality is to descend into chaos.
The scientist has proven that he is a productive member of society, a self sustaining individual that is helping in the progress of scientific advancement. Already through hard work and dedication to his field, he is seen at his young age a symbol to progression. The ten homeless people if they are using any social services are a burden on society. They are halting with others of their kind from mankind going forward. To say that this is to no fault of their own, is to gloss over what these people did in their spare time to prosper in society and instead blame others who may have just made life more inconvenient. When these people were younger, did they spend time goofing off rather than working hard to become successful in life?
Even as a united collective in compiling their positive works, these ten men are highly unlikely going to surpass the scientist. Not only would they have to do more to repay back what they took, they would have catch up on all the time they wasted. The scientist would still be pushing ahead if rescued, expanding himself and the minds of others. Now we could argue doubtful circumstances such as the scientist dying early compared to the likelihood of living out the average life span. Maybe one of the homeless people winning the lottery or somehow getting a mass sum of money. The possibility is so low that you might as well consider it non-existent. A non-factor if you will.
The final option being the allowance that everyone must die since not all can be saved, is pure idiotic folly. If everyone can not win, then all must lose? Underachievers in our society are the ones to argue for importance equality, since they did not take the time to maximize their potential and are failing in life because of it will depend on others. They feel that they are entitled just by natural birth to what others have earned. As one of the more extreme Liberals I know said, “All property is theft.” By this he is acknowledging his vulnerability in being left behind; he unfairly blames this on others instead of keeping up with others or even moving past them.
With all that has been said, there really is an easy answer for this dilemma. I have no sympathy for the people who feel everyone should win, or if not everyone then the largest amount of people for the short term as these people do not look at the bigger picture. What they do not comprehend is that the scientist will bring the most happiness out of all the choices; he will bring with faster speed more conveniences in life which will lower down the price of older products. He will help obliterate superstitious answers and make things safer. This may not be directly, but with each new technological or scientific invention there comes alterations that become available to the general public. We can not have the “everyone must win or lose” approach without reaching continuous standstills of waiting for others to catch up and we’ll all suffer together as a consequence.
pa ete ti 9 kjar
