This will possibly get very controversial, but as adults I hope things can be kept civil and understand this is for debate rather than actual action
#How Far is too Far?
cloud turtle
Are half measures enough to do what they are intended to fix?
Are problems solved unless the root is removed?
Do people actually change for the better or only get worse as time goes on?
How many can die for the greater good? (discussions on how that is decided are welcome)
dense nacelle
All of these statements/questions are very vague and would need separate analysis.
For the first:
What is a half measure and what context are we talking about.
For the second:
Extrapolation onto all problems will almost certainly yield a no for absolutes are rare indeed and there are often some edge cases one could concoct to invalidate the claim.
It is more beneficial to tackle each problem individually and then build pattern groups that can be used to select a certain approach for a problem based on prior experiences while keeping in mind that other solutions might exist.
For the third:
This is a loaded question that already presents only two answers as a possibility while in reality it might be a lot more complex. What is good or bad? Why are we only given the option of getting better or getting worse. What about alternating, growing individually or shifting towards a different social circle?
For the forth?
Who defines the greater good?
Are the ones who are dying part of the greater good or are they excluded?
If the dead ones are no longer counted will the definition of the benefactors change?
How do they die. Are there ways to prevent their death?
cloud turtle
First of all glad to see interest on the topics
-
Half Measures are all the things being done that cannot accomplish their goals and over time lead to a greater amount of suffering for generation after generation suffer
-
On solving the roots of problems I can easily agree its easier said than done, but more absolute measures also have a higher degree of effectiveness
-
On the Betterment/worsening of people I do suppose its a loaded question that I also have a good deal of bias for, but its not a question nesserialy of morality and instead is more intended about the effective/efficient use of resources/energy
-
As for the greater god the best way to take it in society is the largest amount of mostly agreed sentient beings for other answers tend to have a greater energy cost and/or push the matter to the side resulting in half measures
On to the dead unless they can directly effect the living then I would not include them as anything other than a price. but that could be more showing of my own bias rather than be a solid point
rapid lion
I think these questions are posed as being black and white when they're a lot more complex than that
For instance, some problems can absolutely be fixed by just treating the results when the results are predictable enough, whereas some need to be tackled at the root. Consider an architecture problem that I saw in a science museum years ago: the rumblings from a nearby train threaten to make a building collapse. Does this mean we have to remove the train? No, we can just make the building more quake-resistant. But I think it's no question that serious illnesses have to be treated at the root to be solved rather than just suppressing the symptoms.
And the way people change over time varies massively by the person's circumstances and beliefs