I don't know how I feel about Torchwood

[Starkers]

Take the NHS, it can't fund every drug that every person needs, so prioritisation is given to the drugs with the highest success rates that would help the many.

And people wonder why Americans hold the British health care system in such disdain. This is rediculous! The government cannot claim responsibility for the health care of all its citizens and then abdicate that responsibility to some of them just because it's not cost effective.

Apples and oranges, in many respects most Britains are appalled at the state of health care in the US.

Britain: B grade healthcare but everyone gets it.

America: A grade healthcare but only Americans who can afford it get it , is it 47 million citizens who don't have insurance these days?

Lets face it though, Cuba has better health care than either of us

Although we have universal health care, it is publicly funded through taxation and since the British (like Americans and everyone else) don't like to pay 100% tax, there is a finate limit to what can be done. Frankly though I'd take our system over yours any day of the week.

 

[Starkers]

I don't think it's a plot hole that the 456 can synthesise a virus but can't clone our children. Given humanity's current level of technology we can create all sorts of unspeakable biological nasties but so far we've never cloned a human being. And did it ever occur to people that what the 456 needed from the children couldn't be synthesised? I'm gonna have to watch it again but for all we know the 456 needed children with imagination?

As for whay they needed us to gather the kids togeather. I think that's just laziness on the part of the 456 to be honest. In the same way a rampaging band of brigands doesn't raid a village and colelct their own tribute, they get the villagers to do it for them.

 

[captcalhoun]

Take the NHS, it can't fund every drug that every person needs, so prioritisation is given to the drugs with the highest success rates that would help the many.

And people wonder why Americans hold the British health care system in such disdain. This is rediculous! The government cannot claim responsibility for the health care of all its citizens and then abdicate that responsibility to some of them just because it's not cost effective.

Apples and oranges, in many respects most Britains are appalled at the state of health care in the US.

Britain: B grade healthcare but everyone gets it.

America: A grade healthcare but only Americans who can afford it get it , is it 47 million citizens who don't have insurance these days?

Lets face it though, Cuba has better health care than either of us

Although we have universal health care, it is publicly funded through taxation and since the British (like Americans and everyone else) don't like to pay 100% tax, there is a finate limit to what can be done. Frankly though I'd take our system over yours any day of the week.

some US think-tank's done a study of the US, Canadian, UK, French, Dutch, German, Austrlalian and a few other health-care systems and our's was one of the best. UK Doctors were the only ones who thought the system was getting better.

so US health-care!

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Take the NHS, it can't fund every drug that every person needs, so prioritisation is given to the drugs with the highest success rates that would help the many.

And people wonder why Americans hold the British health care system in such disdain. This is rediculous! The government cannot claim responsibility for the health care of all its citizens and then abdicate that responsibility to some of them just because it's not cost effective.

Apples and oranges, in many respects most Britains are appalled at the state of health care in the US.

Britain: B grade healthcare but everyone gets it.

America: A grade healthcare but only Americans who can afford it get it , is it 47 million citizens who don't have insurance these days?

I could concede that perhaps society would benefit from providing free health care to its citizens. However, individuals should also be free to use their own resources to obtain whatever health care they desire. I recall hearing somewhere that, in the U.K., it's illegal for doctors to provide any privately funded medical care.

If you believe that free health care is a fundamental right, I find it appalling that you would be willing to settle for a B-grade right.

This is why I don't see the cabinet scenes as some sort of shocking comment on the depravity of those politicians that make it to the top. They were deciding what had to be decided, because they had to. It's only the obvious character assassination of the PM later that showed to me what RTD meant for the cabinet discussion to show about them.

Really? The fact that they were exempting their own children from the process didn't clue you in?

 

[Neroon]

The same applies to THIS thread that applied to the "Children of Earth" thread. In fact, it'd be a good idea if you tried to differentiate between the two and make one distinguishable from the other... instead of trying to turn this thread into the other to get around its closure.

 

[Bones2]

I don't think it's a plot hole that the 456 can synthesise a virus but can't clone our children. Given humanity's current level of technology we can create all sorts of unspeakable biological nasties but so far we've never cloned a human being. And did it ever occur to people that what the 456 needed from the children couldn't be synthesised? I'm gonna have to watch it again but for all we know the 456 needed children with imagination?

As for whay they needed us to gather the kids togeather. I think that's just laziness on the part of the 456 to be honest. In the same way a rampaging band of brigands doesn't raid a village and colelct their own tribute, they get the villagers to do it for them.

I think that's the biggest flaw of the piece, one that even undermines the entire thing. The 456, for all its obvious power and technological advancement, can't isolate the chemical and synthesise it. Putting aside whether the existence of such a chemical in children is realistic or believable, if there were such a thing, you'd think someone as advanced as the 456 wouldn't have to resort to asking for children to get it.

Really? The fact that they were exempting their own children from the process didn't clue you in?

Well, to be honest...wouldn't you?

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't think it's a plot hole that the 456 can synthesise a virus but can't clone our children. Given humanity's current level of technology we can create all sorts of unspeakable biological nasties but so far we've never cloned a human being. And did it ever occur to people that what the 456 needed from the children couldn't be synthesised? I'm gonna have to watch it again but for all we know the 456 needed children with imagination?

As for whay they needed us to gather the kids togeather. I think that's just laziness on the part of the 456 to be honest. In the same way a rampaging band of brigands doesn't raid a village and colelct their own tribute, they get the villagers to do it for them.

I think that's the biggest flaw of the piece, one that even undermines the entire thing. The 456, for all its obvious power and technological advancement, can't isolate the chemical and synthesise it. Putting aside whether the existence of such a chemical in children is realistic or believable, if there were such a thing, you'd think someone as advanced as the 456 wouldn't have to resort to asking for children to get it.

Maybe the drug is the child's, um...imagination!

Street slang for "human child" is "Neverland Pixie Dust."

 

[Bones2]

Well, that's just silly. Everyone has an imagination. Indeed, if children's imaginations were so much better, they'd be writing television. That's like that Doctor Who episode with Shakespeare in it, where he talks away the problem with words. Because he's Shakespeare. That was just absurd.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure it's said in CoE that it's a chemical children have that the 456 are after.

 

[Starkers]

And people wonder why Americans hold the British health care system in such disdain. This is rediculous! The government cannot claim responsibility for the health care of all its citizens and then abdicate that responsibility to some of them just because it's not cost effective.

Apples and oranges, in many respects most Britains are appalled at the state of health care in the US.

Britain: B grade healthcare but everyone gets it.

America: A grade healthcare but only Americans who can afford it get it , is it 47 million citizens who don't have insurance these days?

I could concede that perhaps society would benefit from providing free health care to its citizens. However, individuals should also be free to use their own resources to obtain whatever health care they desire. I recall hearing somewhere that, in the U.K., it's illegal for doctors to provide any privately funded medical care.

If you believe that free health care is a fundamental right, I find it appalling that you would be willing to settle for a B-grade right.

I think you've either been fed a fallacy, or a misinterpretation of the facts. Private healthcare is alive and well in the UK, and in fact many NHS hopsitals provide care privately as well as on the National Health Service. What you aren't, currently, allowed to do is top up your NHS Care. So you can go 100% NHS, or 100% private, but you can't got 50/50 (if that makes sense)

I'm with Andrew Neill on this

Link

But enough patriotic outrage. Brits know that the NHS can be slow, frustrating, bureaucratic and that there is still too much delay and waiting, despite the improvements that the extra billions pumped into the NHS have brought in recent years. But Americans might like to ponder that it is better to be in a queue for health care than not qualify for any at all -- which is the plight of those 47m Americans who have no health insurance.

Nor are the problems confined to them. Ordinary Americans with health insurance are finding that their insurance doesn't cover all the costs of their care -- 25m are deemed "under-insured" -- and are having to stump up for some of the cost of their treatment. Even those who think they are fully insured are having to dip into their own pockets to meet costa (payments called "deductibles").

As somebody who has benefited from health care on both sides of the Atlantic I'd have to say that US health care at its best is probably the best in the world. But often that "best" is not available to ordinary families -- and not at all to those under-insured or without insurance. For the Brits, there is something comforting and reassuring that, if you are struck down by catastrophic illness or in need of expensive operations, being able to afford your treatment will not be an issue.

 

[Starkers]

I don't think it's a plot hole that the 456 can synthesise a virus but can't clone our children. Given humanity's current level of technology we can create all sorts of unspeakable biological nasties but so far we've never cloned a human being. And did it ever occur to people that what the 456 needed from the children couldn't be synthesised? I'm gonna have to watch it again but for all we know the 456 needed children with imagination?

As for whay they needed us to gather the kids togeather. I think that's just laziness on the part of the 456 to be honest. In the same way a rampaging band of brigands doesn't raid a village and colelct their own tribute, they get the villagers to do it for them.

I think that's the biggest flaw of the piece, one that even undermines the entire thing. The 456, for all its obvious power and technological advancement, can't isolate the chemical and synthesise it. Putting aside whether the existence of such a chemical in children is realistic or believable, if there were such a thing, you'd think someone as advanced as the 456 wouldn't have to resort to asking for children to get it.

Really? The fact that they were exempting their own children from the process didn't clue you in?

Well, to be honest...wouldn't you?

It's not a flaw. As I pointed out in this thread or another one (they're all starting to merge now!) as a species humanity can create weapons that can destroy entire cities, yet there are some simple diseases that we cannot cure--this doesn't make humanity any less dangerous, it just means we're more advanced in some ways than others.

And you're right, I defy anyone who had the choice to say they'd happily give up their kids. I would have liked a bit more dissent in the cabinet but on the whole it was a realistic discussion, although when they started refering to children as units I got one hell of a chill down my spine.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Really? The fact that they were exempting their own children from the process didn't clue you in?

Well, to be honest...wouldn't you?

Yes, I would. But the fact that they were going to force other people's children to do something they were unwilling to force their own children to do demonstrates that they knew it was wrong.

 

[Bones2]

No, it demonstrates that they wouldn't be able to cope with making the difficult decisions while also knowing they'd be condemning their own children.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

If it's not OK to do it to their own children, it's not OK to do it to anyone else's children either.

The same applies to THIS thread that applied to the "Children of Earth" thread. In fact, it'd be a good idea if you tried to differentiate between the two and make one distinguishable from the other... instead of trying to turn this thread into the other to get around its closure.

In all fairness, the 2 threads are addressing somewhat different issues. In my estimation, "Children of Earth" raises 3 interrelated questions:
1.) Should humanity give in to the 456's demands and sacrifice 10% of the children to save the rest of humanity?
2.) Does the government have the right to decide which children will comprise that 10%?
3.) Once the government makes that decision, what measures should the people be permitted to take to defend themselves?

In this thread, I am addressing questions 1 & 2. The other thread addresses question 3 with a smidgen of backtracking to question 2 (because question 2 is a lot more controversial than I was expecting).

To put it in academic philosophical terms, it's a classic conflict between utilitarianism and Kantism. A utilitarian would certainly concede that it is better to sacrifice 10% to save the other 90%. Kantism believes that there are moral ideals higher than preserving life. It would be better for the 456 to destroy the world than to placate them with an act of injustice.

This conflict has been played out in sci-fi & fantasy several times. The Doctor has twice struggled with the question of whether to exterminate the Daleks in "Genesis of the Daleks" & "The Parting of the Ways." During the 4th season of Angel, Jasmine's world would have been a utilitarian utopia but a Kantian nightmare. I can, off the top of my head, think of at least 3 Star Trek episodes that illustrate this conflict as well-- "A Taste of Armageddon," "Where Silence Has a Lease," & "Tuvix."

I think part of what makes "Children of Earth" so shocking & distasteful is that it's one of the rare times that utilitarianism wins out. ("Tuvix" is the only other instance I can think of with a utilitarian outcome.) The rest of the time, our heroes always make a principled, Kantian stand against the bad guys.

 

[Neroon]

Well put, Corpse. I didn't mean to imply the two were identical in content. The primary concern in either thread is to as much as possible conduct the discussion within the context of the show. So long as that's done. everything's cool.

 

[Starkers]

^And they can do that because it's fiction. On the whole What makes CoE so brilliant is that it doesn't wrap everything up nicely with Picard making a speech. It feels a lot more real than most sci-fi.

I'm no great fan of Janeway, but frankly I thought her decision in Tivix was one of the gutsiest any Captain ever made in the history of Trek.

Most of the most basic hardwired instincs of human beings is to survive. To even consider that the whole human race would die before giving in to the 456 just doesn't make any sense.

What makes CoE so scary is that human being would act like that. Take the Holocaust. It makes us feel better to think of the evil Nazis but most of the people running the camps weren't some kind of demonic offspring. They were people like Green, people like us for whom the horrific became the norm, for whom gassing thousands of innocents became just another day at the office. They didn't do those things because they were German, they did them because they were human, and the same thing could have happened in the UK, America or any other nation of Earth. Take the US view of torture under Bush. Moral high ground sacrificed because compromising our morals saves lives (or so the theory went).

I'm not saying its right, and if I ever found myself in such a situation I like to hope I would do what was right, that I'd be PC Andy not PM Green, but it's easy to be Andy, harder to be Green, harder to be any leader who has to make horrible decisions like that for the greater good. Where I hate Green is not so much for making the call, but for making sure his kids were safe whilst sacrificing Frobisher's . I could have almost forgiven him before Frobisher because it would have been a very abstract concept, he could have kept it at amrs length, refered to them as units and they'd just be numbers. But invovling Frobisher makes it far more personal and makes him a repellant character.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Kantism believes that there are moral ideals higher than preserving life. It would be better for the 456 to destroy the world than to placate them with an act of injustice.

I can see that point, if only for one reason: Any alien race who would make those demands of humanity in the first place is clearly not to be trusted, and would probably wipe us out anyway no matter how many children we gave to them. So given the certainty that the entire human race is toast, better to go down with our principles intact.

 

[Starkers]

Well thanks for making that decision for the whole human race

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

^Thank you for condemning other people's children to a fate worse than death just to save your own ass.

Alternatively, if it's really for the greater good, no one is stopping you from volunteering yourself or your children.

Most of the most basic hardwired instincs of human beings is to survive.

True enough. I think that can sometimes be used as an excuse for making very difficult, split second decisions, like what Jack did with his grandson at the end. But if you have time to discuss it and bureaucratically plan out the selected extermination of the "least valuable" children, then you have no excuse for not giving more thorough consideration to the moral implications of your actions.

What makes CoE so scary is that human being would act like that. Take the Holocaust. It makes us feel better to think of the evil Nazis but most of the people running the camps weren't some kind of demonic offspring. They were people like Green, people like us for whom the horrific became the norm, for whom gassing thousands of innocents became just another day at the office. They didn't do those things because they were German, they did them because they were human, and the same thing could have happened in the UK, America or any other nation of Earth. Take the US view of torture under Bush. Moral high ground sacrificed because compromising our morals saves lives (or so the theory went).

You've got a couple very different analogies here which must be addressed in very different ways.

The Holocaust was such a senseless loss of life. Only a despicable racist could even begin to see any "greater good" there. The only way anyone associated with the Holocaust could sleep with a clear conscience is if he was so despicably ignorant that he didn't view Jews as human beings to begin with. PM Green claims no such ignorance or racism.

As to torture of al-Qaeda suspects during the Bush administration: While torture is generally a distasteful practice and not part of the American ethos, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that torture is immoral in all circumstances. Is it immoral to torture bad people who deserve it?

The problem with the "Children of Earth" scenario is that none of the children being selected deserved to be sacrificed to the 456. It is immoral to force innocent people to do anything that they do not want to do and would not consent, even in principle, to do to anyone else.

It is the purpose of government to protect all of its citizens, not just the majority of them.

I'm not saying its right, and if I ever found myself in such a situation I like to hope I would do what was right, that I'd be PC Andy not PM Green, but it's easy to be Andy, harder to be Green, harder to be any leader who has to make horrible decisions like that for the greater good.

I don't know about that. I'd say that, if you're able to exempt yourself & your loved ones from the rules that you enforce onto everyone else, being the leader is a damn cushy job.

Here's a question: What if, rather than demanding 10% of the children, the 456 demanded every single member of the British Royal Family? What would the government's reaction have been then? Surely the Royal Family above all understands the concept of personal sacrifice in service to the nation, right?

Where I hate Green is not so much for making the call, but for making sure his kids were safe whilst sacrificing Frobisher's . I could have almost forgiven him before Frobisher because it would have been a very abstract concept, he could have kept it at amrs length, refered to them as units and they'd just be numbers.

On the contrary. It's repellant when a leader imposes horrific demands on his people and thinks of it only in the abstract. A truly good leader must personally feel every single human tragedy that arises from his policy decisions. Only when he personalizes it can he truly say whether a cause is worth fighting for or dying for.

At the end, Jack makes the most personal sacrifice possible because destroying the 456 and saving the earth was a cause worth dying for. What's more, Jack would have gladly traded places with his grandson if he could have.

 

[Starkers]

^Thank you for condemning other people's children to a fate worse than death just to save your own ass.

Actually I'm not thinking about me I'm thinking about the entire human race. Seems what you're suggesting is that the whole human race dies along with a bunch who were going to (effectively) die anyway because of what exactly? Honour? Pride? Moral certainty? We're not Klingons you know...

You've got a couple very different analogies here which must be addressed in very different ways.

The Holocaust was such a senseless loss of life. Only a despicable racist could even begin to see any "greater good" there. The only way anyone associated with the Holocaust could sleep with a clear conscience is if he was so despicably ignorant that he didn't view Jews as human beings to begin with. PM Green claims no such ignorance or racism.

Ya see you're kinda reinforcing my point here. What events like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia, The Sudan etc show us is that human beings have no compunction in massacring their brothers in huge numbers, and that's evrn without a greater good excuse (for want of a better word)

As to torture of al-Qaeda suspects during the Bush administration: While torture is generally a distasteful practice and not part of the American ethos, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that torture is immoral in all circumstances. Is it immoral to torture bad people who deserve it?

Aha, yes the Bush defence. It's ok to torture bad people if they deserve it. Right, so back to the Holocaust, presumably any rapists, murderers, Peadophiles etc amongst the six million deserved their fate? If you believe your form of thinking of moral certainty has validity then you have to apply it consistantly. And these "bad people" one assumes they've had the benefit of a fair trial, due process, that they are in fact proven guilty rather than in the wrong place at the wrong time? Seriously you've tried to hold the moral high ground this entire discussion but, for me, you just lost it with that statement.

The problem with the "Children of Earth" scenario is that none of the children being selected deserved to be sacrificed to the 456. It is immoral to force innocent people to do anything that they do not want to do and would not consent, even in principle, to do to anyone else.

Can't disagree with this, in principle, but logically those kids were going to, effectively, die anyway.

It is the purpose of government to protect all of its citizens, not just the majority of them.

To imagine that a government can protect all its citizens under all circumstances is ludicrous. Take World War 2, the Battle of Britain, most of Britain's air defences were concentrated on protecting London rather than other cities. All governments have finite resources (yes even America) and they will only stretch so far. I would imagine people die all the time due to things the Goverment weren't able to put in place because they just didn't have the resourses, even if it's something daft like not affording traffic lights at a really busy junction.

I don't know about that. I'd say that, if you're able to exempt yourself & your loved ones from the rules that you enforce onto everyone else, being the leader is a damn cushy job.

Here's a question: What if, rather than demanding 10% of the children, the 456 demanded every single member of the British Royal Family? What would the government's reaction have been then? Surely the Royal Family above all understands the concept of personal sacrifice in service to the nation, right?

Well you're actually right, Prince Andrew decoyed exocet missiles in the Falklands and Prince Harry went out of his way to serve in Afghanistan with his fellow soldiers (before the press ruined it). Actually I suspect a lot of the Royal family have more of a sense of duty than many members of Government.

On the contrary. It's repellant when a leader imposes horrific demands on his people and thinks of it only in the abstract. A truly good leader must personally feel every single human tragedy that arises from his policy decisions. Only when he personalizes it can he truly say whether a cause is worth fighting for or dying for.

At the end, Jack makes the most personal sacrifice possible because destroying the 456 and saving the earth was a cause worth dying for. What's more, Jack would have gladly traded places with his grandson if he could have.

Wrong, Jack decided that saving the Earth was worth killing for.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

^Thank you for condemning other people's children to a fate worse than death just to save your own ass.

Actually I'm not thinking about me I'm thinking about the entire human race. Seems what you're suggesting is that the whole human race dies along with a bunch who were going to (effectively) die anyway because of what exactly? Honour? Pride? Moral certainty? We're not Klingons you know...

But which group will die in place of the many? There is absolutely no just way for any government to select the members of such a group. The only just way to assemble such a group would be to ask for volunteers. Would you volunteer to be sent to the 456?

The Holocaust was such a senseless loss of life. Only a despicable racist could even begin to see any "greater good" there. The only way anyone associated with the Holocaust could sleep with a clear conscience is if he was so despicably ignorant that he didn't view Jews as human beings to begin with. PM Green claims no such ignorance or racism.

Ya see you're kinda reinforcing my point here. What events like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia, The Sudan etc show us is that human beings have no compunction in massacring their brothers in huge numbers, and that's evrn without a greater good excuse (for want of a better word)

To my knowledge, none of these instances involve a government slaughtering people that they considered to be "their own." These massacres were perpetrated against some "other" that they had convinced themselves was the enemy or in some way inhuman. PM Green orchestrated the deaths of what were, ostensibly, his own people. In historical terms, this might make him even more horrific than Hitler and perhaps on par with Stalin or Pol Pot.

Personally, I don't share your grim assessment of humanity. I think it takes a special kind of monster to conceive the plans for an orderly genocide.

Aha, yes the Bush defence. It's ok to torture bad people if they deserve it. Right, so back to the Holocaust, presumably any rapists, murderers, Peadophiles etc amongst the six million deserved their fate?

Yes, they did. It was a sickly ironic side benefit. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say.) However, it certainly did not justify the deaths of the overwhelming majority of Holocaust victims who's only "crime" was being Jewish.

And these "bad people" one assumes they've had the benefit of a fair trial, due process, that they are in fact proven guilty rather than in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I never said that the Bush administration acted appropriately when administering torture. I suspect there were numerous imperfections in the process of determining the guilt or innocence of the suspects. All I was arguing was that there is nothing wrong, in principle, with torturing people who deserve to be tortured.

The other question is, "How do you determine who does or doesn't deserve to be tortured?" It's a separate, much trickier issue (and irrelevant to the argument at hand, IMO, although I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject).

Seriously you've tried to hold the moral high ground this entire discussion but, for me, you just lost it with that statement.

What exactly is "the moral high ground"?

To imagine that a government can protect all its citizens under all circumstances is ludicrous. Take World War 2, the Battle of Britain, most of Britain's air defences were concentrated on protecting London rather than other cities. All governments have finite resources (yes even America) and they will only stretch so far. I would imagine people die all the time due to things the Goverment weren't able to put in place because they just didn't have the resourses, even if it's something daft like not affording traffic lights at a really busy junction.

In practice, can a government protect all its citizens at all times? Of course not. However, at the very least, I think it is imperative that we have equal protection under the law. There is a difference between a government failing to protect its citizens due to limited resources and a government specifically singling out citizens to die for the "good" of the "whole." Otherwise, what's next? In times of great famine, shall the government also be permitted to determine which citizens shall be cannibalized and turned into soylent green?

Here's a question: What if, rather than demanding 10% of the children, the 456 demanded every single member of the British Royal Family? What would the government's reaction have been then? Surely the Royal Family above all understands the concept of personal sacrifice in service to the nation, right?

Well you're actually right, Prince Andrew decoyed exocet missiles in the Falklands and Prince Harry went out of his way to serve in Afghanistan with his fellow soldiers (before the press ruined it). Actually I suspect a lot of the Royal family have more of a sense of duty than many members of Government.

I suspect you're largely right. However, what of the lazier, more reluctant members of the Royal Family? If they refuse to cooperate, will the government go to their houses with guns and force them to surrender their lives for the greater good? Somehow, I suspect the government's outlook would become far less utilitarian in such circumstances.

On the contrary. It's repellant when a leader imposes horrific demands on his people and thinks of it only in the abstract. A truly good leader must personally feel every single human tragedy that arises from his policy decisions. Only when he personalizes it can he truly say whether a cause is worth fighting for or dying for.

At the end, Jack makes the most personal sacrifice possible because destroying the 456 and saving the earth was a cause worth dying for. What's more, Jack would have gladly traded places with his grandson if he could have.

Wrong, Jack decided that saving the Earth was worth killing for.

Do you seriously think that Jack wouldn't have sacrificed himself instead if that were possible? We've already got at least a couple clear examples of Jack risking his life to save others, such as when he went up against that giant death-shadow monster in "End of Days." Or, for a pre-immortality example, he was quite eager to put himself on the front lines fighting the Daleks in "The Parting of the Ways."