Me to. That would add a new spin to the debate. Right now they almost always seem to be criminals and even with someone like Barry Allen and Caitlin Snow the idea of fighting crime in the streets is itself not exactly normal healthy behavior. Does Barry Allen feel the need to fight crime because a feeling of responsbility or because deep down he likes to feel powerful in a way he never could when he was just a regular human. Which made worst because we saw a future Barry Allen who became a villain as well. We don't see just regular meta folks living ordinary lives. Jason
Even if that's true, it doesn't justify using the cure on them indiscriminately or as a weapon. Their civil rights need to be respected. That is quite wrong. People have a right to their identity whether they were born that way or not. People who became blind or deaf later in life are as much a part of those respective communities as people who were born that way. People who are American by naturalization deserve to be recognized as American just as much as natives. Using birth as a dividing line is just another trick that bigots use to exclude and discriminate. People's identities are their own choice. That's a slippery slope, and ethical standards for when such a thing could be attempted should be defined first, with full consideration for the patients' rights. Because they're not causing trouble that Team Flash has to get involved with. A show about crimefighters is naturally going to have them interacting with criminals more often than with law-abiding civilians, just as a show about doctors is going to show them mostly interacting with sick people rather than healthy ones.
I do agree that it should be done with caution and i'm sure Team Flash are not the people qualified to be making those choices. I think maybe as a last resort thing while in combat. There is some beyond normal risks involved when trying to capture someone with powers that are beyond even someone having a gun as to the amount of carnage they can do. Otherwise this something that is really something figured out by scientist and the courts. Also when you think about this is something that should also have some impact on all the Arrowverse shows since they deal with meta's as well. The other issue though is it okay to give the government this cure drug. Can you trust them not to use it unethically. If they had this on Supergirl's earth I think their would be some pressure this year to weaponize it. I think it would make for some interesting drama even though it's basically the main plot of X-Men 3. Jason
What if the courts mandated the cure as a part of sentencing? Or offered a convicted meta a significantly reduced sentence it they voluntarily submit to the cure and complete a rehab program?
Being a LBGTQ is not a crime here in the USA so that doesn't apply by any stretch! Nor does your stealing analogy. And as far as meta criminals go they are made not born, and, in any event, when they choose to use their powers against society then they've demonstrated it is too dangerous to allow them to keep them. Many rights get suspended indefinitely upon a felony conviction. They can lose their right to vote or have a gun or drink alcohol, etc.
I think there's a difference in what is legally right and what is morally right. While several American states take convicted felons' voting rights away, it is a moral debate on whether it is right to keep it from them, especially after they served their sentence. The same goes for the matter of physical integrity of people. In some countries, convicted criminals do not lose their right for physical integrity, so giving them drugs that would change their physical condition would not even be legally possible. So, while there might be legal possibilities for the meta-cure to be used against a person's will, Cisco and Caitlin obviously have strong moral convictions against it.
True. Though any crime, any destruction or loss of life at the hands of a criminal meta after the opportunity to strip away their powers would be on the heads of refused to act when they could have. If they had a chance to neutralize a meta threat without loss of life and don't take it then that criminal's future crimes are on them. No ifs, ands , or buts about it.
Sorry, no. You are not responsible for somebody else's actions, certainly not their future actions. That's the same kind of argument that superheroes should kill the villains so that they'll never kill again. That kind of thinking does not lead to a healthy society. As Kant said, always act by a maxim which you may want to become universal law. A universal law calling for the meta-cure against a persons will is very questionable, and a moral decision against such a practice is nothing if not responsible behaviour.
Rights aren’t rights if they can be suspended. They become perks for being good by societal standards.
That's a tough one. First I think it needs to be established what exactly it means to have powers thrust on someone. Is it the same as a kind of mental illness that makes it impossible for these people to be able to make rational judgments. It could even be worst if they find out some people are mentally impacted to a point where they really shouldn't be making choices for themselves while others it doesn't effect them at all. What if a kid or teenager gets powers? Does the parent have a say. I think I would side on allowing people to keep powers. Treat the cure much like some of those cancer test experiments were people volunteer for a new program so studies can be conducted. Basically what that lady was doing with King Shark seems like to be a good idea only expanded by getting the government more involved. Jason
^You don't "allow" people to have rights. Their rights are intrinsic; you just recognize and respect them. If they have powers, it should be their decision whether to keep them.
Children have rights as do people who are mentally imparied. We don't let them choose whether or not they should see a doctor if they are sick. What we don't really know is how these powers effect the mental state of people with these powers. It's very possible they are fully aware of their actions and have complete control on their behavior that has nothing to do with their powers. But then when you see people who were ordinary until getting these powers or you hear about King Shark and how he was literally starting to think more like a shark than human then it really puts to question as to what is going on inside their heads. It's something that needs to be found out before society dismisses the idea of a forced cure because if you don't find out you might be letting innocent people be forced to live in away they wouldn't want to if given a chance even if they refuse that chance if asked because they don't comprehend how much that "choice" is being made by powers and not their own free will. Jason
I get all that disbelief stuff but it’s getting really jarring now. These writers need to take better care in their scripts.
Actually, you are factually wrong on that point. Legally, if you demonstrate that you are a threat to yourself and/or others your rights can be stripped. There is an inherent social responsibility and contract regarding those rights. They are "rights" because every citizen receives them automatically - not because you get to keep the no matter what. With all due respect, I sincerely doubt that. You (and others) are thinking about this in the abstract. If a villainous meta killed one of your loved ones your answer would be different. If we actually lived in a world of metas, and you weren't one, you'd be afraid. Very afraid, and rightly so. Whenever one went on a rampage you'd be screaming for the state to do all it could. How do you react when you learn there's been a mass shooting? What are your thoughts regarding the guns or gun control? What are your thoughts regarding the shooter? You really going to give him sympathy at the expense of his victims? What about Sandy Hook? Now considering that the meta cure is non-lethal, well, I would say that would be a rationale and humane solution (especially if the alternative is the death penalty).
Actually, no. I’m not wrong as I’m not making a legal statement, but a moral one. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or moral. For example, slavery. Just because the government has passed a law that takes a right away doesn’t make it constitutional. That can only be determined if a case is brought before the Supreme Court. And who is going to advocate that a felon should have the right to carry a gun? They aren’t inalienable rights if they can be taken away. That’s a contradiction.
I was actually thinking of the British Laws about homosexuality that existed in the twentieth century. Regardless, you must see the analogy that is being used in the series. As I mentioned earlier, it is similar to A Clockwork Orange. Does society have the moral right to alter the nature of someone's being through force for the betterment of society? Cutting off a hand, chemical castration, forced conversion therapy is more closely related to taking away super-powers than limiting someone's social interactions or privileges. What you are arguing is similar to electroshock therapy or lobotomies forced on psychiatric patients that is now considered unethical in the Western world. What you are arguing for is pretty close to the practices that are allowed in fascist or dictatorial regimes (in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, the Philippines, etc.) But thanks for the thrill of getting to debate with a real life Purifier.