So they turn out to be a harmful effect on the population. Passing this situation in your morality filter, killing them would be 'good'. Do you agree that this is the case in reality ?
This is not the case as watching old people die or infact killing them would make people feel bad because they feel empathy. This is harmful to us so your point is moot.
The less affected ones will be able to have a social production and probaby pass down his genes. However, even in this case, it is harmful since his production will be less then a healthy individual and so letting his disease spread in the population is a risk. Once again passed through your morality filter, letting the first group to die would be good, and letting the second group to live but not reproduce would be good. Do you agree with this ?
We react more strongly to what is right in front of us than to abstract concepts. When I see hungry children on TV dieing I don't really care as I've seen it a million times. If however, it that were to happen in front of me I would be driven to help.
One of the side effects of having a culture that rewards altruism is that we don't let the sick die young. Having such a culture has a net beneficial result for the society even if some of it's side effect have a negative effect.
So protecting the weak is out weighed in terms of benefit by having a generally caring society.
™ Version 4.2
