>>12185485>is it immoral to force somebody to do something that has a non-zero chance of deathnow that is a very interesting way of putting it. shor answer, no, i guess not, you might be right. then again... are you forced to take the bus? or drive a car? no, but you are forced to take part in society, and so you need to commute. all things that can kill you. you have to eat, and that can kill you. also yust standing around and doing nothing can kill you. and were in many ways forced to do these things.
unless yo are raped, you are not forced to get pragnant. (i understand its not that simple of course) but the danger of another human is not reason enough to kill them,
it might yust be this non zero chance of killing them thing thats bothering me abot your argument
or that its hard so we shouldnt do it. i mean iff its posible to save them, (and it is, i can culture pure fucking neurons in a broth, its posible to grow meat, incubators can be developed further) shouldnt we, isnt killing things beacuse there existance is inconveniante immoral?
the kidney example. you arent giving up your kidney. its not a nondescript amount of time, and iff monitored, it can be safe. it can also be costly, which is bullshit, but could be subsedised
