Well apparently nobody wanted to have a go at my statements before. The guy who I responded to chose to ignore my message. Oh well.
First off, KungKras, you're awesome for having read Sam Harris Landscape book. It is quite well done. I kind of agree with you on the invaluability of human "mentally capable" life, except when compared to other human "mentally capable" lives. Of course, all other things being equal, the lives of two people are better than the life of one.
I reply once more to talk about KBG29's point of view, which is quite interesting. However, I must believe it wrong.
1. Dying people with enough of their mental functions can still contribute a lot to society in a real way, I'm not trying to sound like those apologists who say everyone is invaluable to everyone and that kind of bs, but take for example, Frederic Chopin, genius pianist. He was sick all his life and died at 35 years old. However he gave us great music, which is much more than many very healthy people achieve. I do agree though, that for example people in long term comas that have no chance of "reviving" should be let go immediately, no matter the family's feelings.
2. I really hope that by "sick" you meant "mentally very sick". Otherwise there is a huge problem with what you said since everyone is sick at some point.
3. "Mentally very sick" may not even be proper enough, since there do exist savants who have very, very rare skills but are otherwise retarded. Though in my model no "mentally incapable" person is allowed to exist from the beginning, therefore these kinds of savants would not exist either. However, it might not be the best idea to get rid of the ones that are still alive, as they may prove useful under their domain, and so they can overall increase everyone's happiness whether or not they understand such concept (i.e. even if they can't feel happy or sad in the same way we can).
