Question

Mayank Negi for You okkkkkk​

Answer 1

Answer:

jshzns8zbe8zbe8zhsiw

Explanation:

wmzhwldgeidhsjsu

Answer 2

Answer:

Because it is the moral thing to do.

Here is a clever twist: if we can figure out a legal way to kill them off, then we are not saddled with the burden of helping them.

If we can figure out a way to kill them off, AND define the killing as moral, then we get the best of both worlds: we get to be moral, and we don’t have to shoulder the burden of helping them out, which we cannot otherwise escape since it is a moral imperative.

Currently, we have two major ways we kill off the physically or mentally challenged, and we frame this killing in moral terms, so that we are free from criticism or reproach.

Another twist is if we declare that there are no morals, that “morals” is oppressive fiction developed to subjugate us to “religion” then we do not have to behave in a moral way. A world of totally immoral behavior is not acceptable to most, so we need a way to make an immoral world acceptable.

One way to do this is to shift the discussion from “morality” to “utilitarianism.” Utilitarianism is the life philosophy or political philosophy where we make choices not according to whether things are more or less moral, but whether they provide more or less utility.

This allows all sorts of mental tricks. We can argue that we should kill off the physically or mentally challenged since they weigh down the rest of us as we go along with our lives doing — well, it doesn’t matter what we are doing, just that a price tag can be attached to the burden placed on us, with all of us assuming the effort would be better spent elsewhere. So, I want to buy a nice television, but if I am burdened with charitable contributions of time or money, or I am taxed, I don’t get to watch my telly.