Social Question

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

Hypothetical Question: Is it ethical to allow the Ghostbusters to shoot spirits with particle accelerators?

Asked by Imadethisupwithnoforethought (14348 points ) October 19th, 2011

Please consider the following in this hypothetical scenario:

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and the Pope announce at a news conference this evening that it is true, ghosts exist, and produce copious peer reviewed evidence on the web for review.

Doctors Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler start a business shooting them with proton packs and carting them to ghost containment.

Is this ethical? What rights do the ghosts have? Is this a war crime?

If you start to write a sentence with “I don’t believe in…” fight that urge and move on.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

Some_Ghost's avatar

It’s wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

thorninmud's avatar

You can’t have habeus corpus if there’s no corpus. Just sayin’

Blackberry's avatar

Yes, it’s wrong. Since the ghosts are there because they haven’t settled problems before death, we would put them to work, tax them, and make them take therapy to settle their problems and go back to the astral plane.

picante's avatar

It’s certainly mean-spirited ;-)

I suppose (hypothetically, of course) that the sins of the people follow them into ghosthood. Hitler’s ghost would be tried for crimes against humanity, and when found guilty, we would shoot him 6,000,000 times with the proton packs and cart his sorry ghostly ass to the containment chamber.

wundayatta's avatar

Does it all depend on what “existence” consists of with respect to ghosts? And perhaps the definition of “ghost” might have something to do with it.

Let me put it to you this way. If it appears that ghosts are sentient and can do thinking more complex than a human baby, I’d have a problem with the particle gun. Otherwise, who gives a shit? I mean, can you even make a meal out of a ghost? Or 100? Or one million?

mazingerz88's avatar

Only the mean ones who might cause heart attacks or steal US secrets and give it to the Chinese. Or steal hotdogs or hover in the room while you’re on your honeymoon.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I’m GLAD you asked this question ! !

Prosb's avatar

It depends on whether there would be only human ghosts. If there were only human ghosts, then as @wundayatta said, if they are sentient have at least a modest thought capacity, they should dealt with is a more humane way than blasting them with particle accelerators.

If they don’t seem capable of thought, or are apparently only around to screw with stuff/people, go to town.

King_Pariah's avatar

Are you kidding me? I make a killing selling ghost skin clothing. Any laws preventing their killing would ruin me!

Bluefreedom's avatar

It’s ethical when the ghosts, spirits, forces, or whatever you choose to call them can be dangerous to humans. The Ghostbusters summed it up well in their movie:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

SuperMouse's avatar

I agree with @Blackberry we need to treat these ghosts with compassion and kindness rather than sticking them in their own eternal Guantanamo. Give them what they need and let them entire the afterlife in peace.

Brian1946's avatar

I submit that it’s ethical only if the J Lo Hewitt approach doesn’t yield the desired results. ;-)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther