Logic and Morality
This is very random, but it doesn't seem like I've heard this point made nearly as recently or frequently as I've heard of situations in which it could apply, and I find it an interesting conflict.
If someone dies accidentally and their death provides knowledge which can be used to save other lives, we say they died for a noble cause. But if someone is killed purposefully, against their will, and the result is the same, we say it is immoral to use the knowledge gained because doing so implies that the murderer was in the right.
Morality-wise, it makes sense, but simple logic suggests differently. Using the knowledge still saves lives, no matter how it was acquired. Thus it still gives a purpose to the death of the individual. Murder itself is immoral, even when done in an attempt to save others, but once it's done, it's done. The killer is at fault, but that doesn't make the knowledge any less valid or useful. What's more, if refusing to use that knowledge means the loss of lives that could otherwise be saved, isn't that just as destructive as what the murderer did?
If someone dies accidentally and their death provides knowledge which can be used to save other lives, we say they died for a noble cause. But if someone is killed purposefully, against their will, and the result is the same, we say it is immoral to use the knowledge gained because doing so implies that the murderer was in the right.
Morality-wise, it makes sense, but simple logic suggests differently. Using the knowledge still saves lives, no matter how it was acquired. Thus it still gives a purpose to the death of the individual. Murder itself is immoral, even when done in an attempt to save others, but once it's done, it's done. The killer is at fault, but that doesn't make the knowledge any less valid or useful. What's more, if refusing to use that knowledge means the loss of lives that could otherwise be saved, isn't that just as destructive as what the murderer did?