quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Actually I had no idea that the allies utilized data. In fact I did not even know that data was found. I started thinking about this because I heard of some of the experiments that japanese officials conducted on chinese people during WW2 (I think it was WW2 - do not hold it against me). The reason why I am hesitant to endorse use of the data is possibly due to a mental defect on my part. It goes somewhere along what TranceGiant said (no offence intended): If we use the data, we accept that it is useful, and then we accept that the goal of the evil-doers (as Bush would label them) is worth pursuing (although not necessarily in the same fashion). From this point I cannot determine whether endorsing the goal lends some kind of credit (or justification) to the acts of the evil-doers. If so, then I feel that in some cases the moral cost of this assignment of credit would outweigh the physical benefits gained from the data.

Look, judging by your posts I'm even proud to share the same mental defect as you You got that right, that's what I was trying to say: That by usying the result you somehow justify the act. Of cours if you view it ex post you've got irreversible facts and have to make the "best" out of the new situation. But considering the whole situation from the beginning is another story. Your exaggerated example surely hepled to illustrate that dilemma.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant no, if they fully agree (being totally aware of their decision ). It is their life, it's their personal choice so what's the essential difference between donating organs and agreeing to be experimented with?

However, how do you fully prevent people being cajoled into taking part, or poor people, for example, undergoing dangerous experimentation just to make money? (presumably participants would be paid)

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The reason why I am hesitant to endorse use of the data is possibly due to a mental defect on my part. It goes somewhere along what TranceGiant said (no offence intended): If we use the data, we accept that it is useful, and then we accept that the goal of the evil-doers (as Bush would label them) is worth pursuing (although not necessarily in the same fashion).

No, here you make a mistake. If we accept that the information gained is useful, we don't need to accept that the goal was worth persuing. It's more like minimizing the damage already done. Like, if I have a cow that gives me a lot of milk and it gets hit by a train, I can either mourn over the death of a cow, because the milk it would have produced would ultimately bring me more money than the meat itself, or I can try to minimize the damage already done and bake myself a medium rare steak. I'm good at writing analogies at 2 in the morning, eh?

___________________
1+1=10

I don't see any reason why you can't condem the experiments and take information that is useful at the same time. Just because something bad happened, doesnt mean you should ignore it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Like, if I have a cow that gives me a lot of milk and it gets hit by a train, I can either mourn over the death of a cow, because the milk it would have produced would ultimately bring me more money than the meat itself, or I can try to minimize the damage already done and bake myself a medium rare steak. I'm good at writing analogies at 2 in the morning, eh?

bring on that steak

___________________