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
( Read more... )
My examples were purely hypothetical, and could be changed any number of ways as long as the point is still intact. Should knowledge gained from an immoral act be used to benefit others
( ... )
Hm. Then in that case, I guess it comes down to how strongly you believe the ends justify the means. I can't say I WOULD know exactly where to go with that, as in a story, I'd probably see it quite as pointlessly as you do. It's just specious reasoning to simply say that all people would feel the same way, particularly when its their reputations or loved ones or friends on the line particularly when I have not been in that situation before.
A logical agrument can be made, however, that accidental deaths are by their nature something that is not created by man, and thus there is always a limited supply of bodies to be used for science and it becomes impossible to predetermine that someone will be killed. While a murder is a repeatable incident.
Thus, off of that premise, murdering a person against their will for science creates a precident. Even if the murder is illegal, and the murder punished, the dead body has still been made avalaible for scientific use. Thus, by saying that accidental death is allowable but that murder is not, it creates a disincentive to kill people to use for science or medical research.
Yes it is more moral to use a murdered body than to let information that could be used to save lives to go to waste, but it is less moral to create a chain of events that stand a reasonabel chance to lead to the taking of lives. And when it is unclear that the knowledge WILL save lives or that the Precident WILL cost lives, then the moral decision is to to do
I am not saying that the ends justify the means in the case of the murder, or that anyone should believe so. My example and opinion only apply when the event has already taken place, despite all preventative measures, and something useful has been learned from the victim. Not could be learned, given an autopsy and tests, but has been learned. Then I think there is no logical reason not to use that information to save lives, and it would be wrong to let more people die because of a purely moral issue.
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thus, off of that premise, murdering a person against their will for science creates a precident. Even if the murder is illegal, and the murder punished, the dead body has still been made avalaible for scientific use. Thus, by saying that accidental death is allowable but that murder is not, it creates a disincentive to kill people to use for science or medical research.
Yes it is more moral to use a murdered body than to let information that could be used to save lives to go to waste, but it is less moral to create a chain of events that stand a reasonabel chance to lead to the taking of lives. And when it is unclear that the knowledge WILL save lives or that the Precident WILL cost lives, then the moral decision is to to do
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment