+11

If you have the knowledge of something that could benefit the world, you have a duty and an obligation to share what you know, amirite?

68%Yeah You Are32%No Way
BlindMists avatar Language
Share
0 10
The voters have decided that BlindMist is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

On April 12, 1955, the day the Salk polio vaccine was declared “safe, effective and potent,” legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Morrow interviewed its creator and asked who owned the patent. “Well, the people, I would say,” said Salk in light of the millions of charitable donations raised by the March of Dimes that funded the vaccine’s research and field testing. “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” Lawyers for the foundation had investigated the possibility of patenting the vaccine but did not pursue it, in part because of Salk’s reluctance.

Anonymous +10Reply

That is anti-Capitalist

I would agree except it is impossible. All things are equally god and evil. You cannot benefit the world without harming it in equal measure. The harm maybe not be obvious but it has to be there. Likewise you cannot harm the world without benefiting it in equal measure.

So yes, if you did have such knowledge you would have a duty. But you could never have that knowledge.

@VicZinc I would agree except it is impossible. All things are equally god and evil. You cannot benefit the world without...

I don't believe that everything harms and benefits the world equally, although I can believe that everything can have a positive and a negative side. I think that if it does more good than harm then it should be shared.

For example, if someone knows the cure for cancer, then they have a duty to share it in order to save millions of lives. Even if the cure has a negative effect, if the good outweighs the bad then it should be shared.

BlindMists avatar BlindMist Yeah You Are +2Reply
@BlindMist I don't believe that everything harms and benefits the world equally, although I can believe that everything can...

I get that but I suspect that the good never outweighs the bad and vice versa. A cure for cancer then results (for example) in longer lives, which increase the health care cost to society, and prevents younger people from getting jobs that would have been vacated by older(sickly) people, this also increase the strain on food supplies and adds to population growth, &c., &c.

We are incapable of measuring (with any accuracy) the net utility to society of any action [and all of the ramification of that action] but I strongly suspect that, if we could, we would see that it all a zero-sum game. i.e. no net gain to utility at all, ever.

@VicZinc I get that but I suspect that the good never outweighs the bad and vice versa. A cure for cancer then results (for...

Doesn't that mean that basically there is no good and evil?
I'm going to have to give that some thought before i could agree or disagree but it's one of the few times this site has given me something to ponder. Thank you.

I don't think we're born with any duty and obligation to the world. That's something we accumulate by living in it. If we don't feel that we've truly lived, then we have no obligation to the world we've supposedly lived in. The world has supported the rights and freedoms of someone in our body, but it has not been us; it has been a useless wreck, who has done nothing but useless things; who does not deserve to live, and who we would gladly banish from our minds and replace with ourselves any day of the week, if only we could.

In short, I feel that we should not be obligated to help the world until we are satisfied with our own maturity and are convinced that we are adult enough to handle the task.

Yes, but keep it safe from idiots who can copy you and claim your idea.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.