That's actually incorrect.  Setting aside the outbreaks in the US due to anti-vaxxer idiots.  There are a number of scientific and military installations that have samples of all of these virii.

As far as eradicating disease, I think it's ethical to inocculate the citizenry against such things.  Absolutely, it is most certainly ethical to try to prevent the mass suffering of children, as best we can.  Roll back the clock to before the polio vaccine, and take a look at how awesome life was for kids.

Well, they're great for scientific study, that's for sure.  But, Smallpox, Polio etc... are already frozen at numerous sites for just such a reason (also, in case a future outbreak occurs so we have samples on hand).

I'm always tempted to use viri or virii aswell, but viruses seems to be the correct plural as viri is the plural of vir (= man) in latin, while -ii is the plural form of words that end on -ius.

No, we can't just say they're part of the animal food chain, because the organisms listed certainly are not (Come up with a few viable examples and we can discuss those).  It also doesn't jive with our willful destruction of Apex predators, who keep populations of certain species in check far more than virii.  Like, in Vermont for example, Bear, Wolves, Coyotes, and Catamounts 'were' all part of the ecosystem, to keep the large herbivore (Deer) species in check.  The wholesale slaughter of those species requires the State to have a yearly cull, because if the deer population isn't kept in check, every scientific model suggests the ecosystem will collapse as the deer population explodes and consumes all ground level vegetation.

So, it's a great thing to talk about, but there are better ways to allow nature to control itself, and few seem to care.

Not surprised to read some of these responses; quite frankly, its a sickening testament to the human race that there's even a portion of us who think they have the god given right to control what lives and dies, sputtering out "survival of the fittest" when our society is the prime example of the completely opposite situation. (Our culture necessitates survival of the WEAKEST!)

We should not say what lives or dies. REAL survival of the fittest will choose that for us by killing off the weak through natural selection.

The only way I can condone making these kinds of decisions, as OP quoted me on, are species that are alien in nature to this planet.

It depends on what effect it has on the planet in general. Killing one thing will effect the other in some way and in this case this is food for other creatures. Creatures that eat these might have a positive effect on humans so by killing one you might kill the other in the process and thus create a worse threat to humans than we have already.

Humans always come first though so if it can save millions of live then yes do it kill the bastards and if there is a problem why not introduce a different species that do not carry these diseases as a food source for whatever ate the old ones

I believe maximizing the utility of human lives is the most important thing if we are to speak from a consequentualist perspective. For that matter utility might be minimized if the planned extinction of a species were to take place or it might be maximized. To separate human beings from nature is a fallacy in my opinion. We are just as natural as anything else, and the extermination of dangerous species fits quite fine with the Darwinian view of survival. It is just a long-term, planned survival - which is what our intelligence is good for.

So no I don't think it is wrong ethically to kill off bacterial diseases or even mosquitoes if it will save many human lives or the lives of other more valued species. Sure it might lead to unforeseen consequences, particularly in the latter case, but this is true for any activity any individual makes in any situation. There is a calculation problem in how this might affect the environment otherwise, and if negative effects are so debilitating a portion of the population would preserve such things through spontaneous action, not planning.

That's sympathy, not empathy. And it's more instinctive.

If we're talking about getting rid of the harmful microbial organisms and diseases, then yes. Killing off living beings that carry said infectious microorganisms? It depends from what viewpoint it's being watched. I don't think any species should be wiped out. Controlling them is a more morally appropriate approach, and one that can help sustain the ecosystem.

Does (domesticated) show strong empathy skills. They track human eye patterns and induce chemical reactions based on the emotions of their owners. In fact, Dogs are more empathetic than Chimps, with a detailed set of theory of mind skills.  They essentially were bred to be empathetic and in tune with human emotions. It was necessary for their survival.