If we start out with a Nazi ideology and disregard the concept of human rights, then yes, we might "logically" arrive at your conclusion that everybody who can not "contribute" to society should be eliminated because they are a "drain on ressources". This is what led to Eugenics and the murder of millions who were deemed "unproductive".
I am happy that the majority of people does not think like you.
That's hardly nazi ideology (closer to utilitarianism), at best certain aspect of it that pretty every single functioning society shares (not counting substitutes existing in larger ones perhaps). Jingoism, extreme nationalism and ridiculous supremacist racial ideology were far greater factors in ideology to leading to it. It ain't like for an example Jews were unproductive in the first place, issue was they were too productive as a collection of individuals.
Yes, it is actually a horrible attitude. Old people built today's society, and their pensions are essentially money they paid in taxes. Also, you can use the same "logic" to justify Social Darwinism and the exploitation of animals. It's a path to a society in which I don't believe many people want to live.
That's sentimental attitude. Hammer could have built your house and yet when it breaks and you can't use it you most likely throw it away because you recognize a fact it's of no use to you anymore. You could but as you said it isn't society many would want to live in but that doesn't change fact that old people are "expendable", let's say of little use and in fact net negative in the present and future until they remain. You simply appeal to self-interest as reason against social Darwinism, not contradicting notion concerning old people.
Don't forget that it was the 'old people' that at one time were also young. Not only did they work and contribute to society but also bought up children who are in their twenties, thirties and forties today. Did young people contribute to society whilst they were in nappies ?
I may be also considered as old but certainly am not useless and still help others.
I think that it's called the circle of life.
As above, do you keep a broken hammer or throw it away? I doubt you or at least vast majority of people would consider past service of a hammer in terms of keeping it and focus on whether you could use it now and/or in the future. Young people are different case while they may not contribute in the present they most likely will in the future. To make simple to understand analogy children are like mineral deposit they don't produce anything at the moment but have potential in the future, adults are like mines they produce in the present but will run dry in the future and old people are like dried mines with no resources of value to produce left.
Aside from being an anecdote, even if true I've addressed it in my previous comment,
You needn't "simplify" it for me. I understand your position. I happen to disagree with it.
Why then ask if I would feel differently if I would become older in context of what I've said? Me growing older wouldn't change truth of what is being said as I've explained.
Why are you veg*n? The purely utilitarian arguments you present certainly don't allow for a vegan mindset - they call for exploitation of everyone who can usefully be exploited.
Well, I've my reasons but they aren't really relevant in this topic. However, I could think of many arguments on various basis as for which various types of utilitarians could be vegans .
