 |
| |
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:32
|
|
I recently came up with this question and I am undecided on how to judge.
Okay assume the hypothetical scenario that an evil force carried out lots of medical experiments on a group of people: the victims. Ofc, mostly died under these conditions or still carry severe disabilities and ofc the victims were forced to the experiments.
After several months/years of torture the evil people came up with a new medicine that could cure a widespread, severe and painful lethal illness (AIDS, cancer, or maybe something affecting half of the population...).
So after they found the cure, your forces moved in, killed all the evil guys and rescued the remaining victims. They also retrieved the documents regarding the medicine and now you don't know what to do with them. All the evil guys are dead but still the value of these documents is pretty clear without understanding it.
Use, Give away or Destroy are the options you have, if you store them somewhere and never look at them, that's like destroying, if you store them somewhere and look at them at some time in the future that's the same as using (even after another cure has been found and you just want to compare results).
You have to decide if you should keep the research and profit from the evilness of someone elses terror, getting your hands involved in their evilness for yourself and in turn victimize the evil guys, who would be perceived as having sacrificed themselves upon trying to find a cure that would heal more people than would suffer.
Wether you should destroy the cure and lose a precious moment to relieve the world of a great burden for several years to come. Since a cure exists it will be found at some time in the future.
Or to not being able to handle it and give away the document of power, but to home?
To further the difficulty of the descision in the scenario you can assume two positions by the remaining victims: a.) they want the documents burned or b.) they want to create a big corporation out of the documents and sell the medicine for exorbitant prices to the social upperclass only
or a mixture of a.) and b.) equally distributed among the victims
What would be the most ethical thing to do in this case? What if there are no victim survivors and the information has been obtained after the last victim died?
Would your judgment change wether the victims being tortured and killed is unified and has a common ideology or is loosely affiliated so that the remaining victims could possibly not judge for those who died?
My argumentation would be a kind of purifying approach and in any case taking any rights the victims would want to hold. I'd say use
Ofc, I'd want to aid mankind with it creating a non-profit organizations, but let's just assume there aren't enough resources for this and in the end someone always profits.
Final note: please keep any real-world associations for yourself!
edit: a moderator please make a poll out of this? (add a banana option as well)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
USE
If a cure for cancer is found, you use it regardless of how it was obtained
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
if there are victims still around, why not ask THEM what they think should be done? Shouldnt they OWN the results - not just in terms of monetary benefits, but in terms of decision making?
edit: your scenario of factions etc doesnt really matter. Its still up to the victims, in some fashion. No more right to take it away cause you dont like their decision than for someone to enslave YOU to make a cure.
I HOPE youre not using this hypothetical as cover for a
the real question of research by Nazis on their victims.
Edit:your request to avoid real world associations is silly. There IS NO veil of ignorance. Better to deal with the real world ethical dilemma as we find it, than to pretend to an abstract objectivity.
Last edited by lord of the mark on 05-04-2005 at 00:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
Use.
The victims should be compensated, but not above being "made whole" (inasmuch as that is possible). The research should be released into the public domain, but if there is profit by sales of the drug, I would pocket it as spoils of war.
Edit: I would even say that the spoils of war could extend to other areas besides drugs. I fully supported our plundering of NAZI know-how on rocketry, for instance, even though slave labor was used to make V2 rockets that were used as terror weapons against civilians in the UK.
Last edited by DanS on 05-04-2005 at 02:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
A friend of mine is doing a college assignment for his philosphy and ethics class and he asked a bunch of us to help. I'm currently thinking about how I will respond and I thought it might be interesting to see what people here at poly thought. Here we go:
quote:
Tip: Answer the question of what HE should do and not what YOU would do.
The Heinz Dilemma
In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease,
a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging 10 times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about $1,000, which was half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the Druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Questions:
1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not?
2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?
3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug? |
So what is your anwser?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not?
If there was no other way to obtain the drug legally, yes. He should be prepared to pay a price for it, but if it saves a life, that's what matters.
2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?
I don't see why this makes a difference. Would he? Probably not. Should he? Yes.
3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug?
If I was the selfish ***** that the doctor was, then yes, I'd probably be upset. But were I the doctor, the man would have gotten the drug without having to steal it in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not? |
It depends upon your definition of "should." If meant in the legal sense, then no, because the theft is a crime. If meant in the ethical sense then yes. The value of the wife's life is greater than the value of observing the laws against burglary, and the injury inflicted upon the doctor is minimal.
quote:
2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?
|
Yes. Whether he loves her or not has little impact upon the above equation.
quote:
3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug?
|
I'd be upset about the burglary...it leaves one with the sense of being violated. I'd probably rationalize away the loss. "If the burglar had all the money, he'd have paid full price. But rather than go away, he stole a product which cost me $200 but left me $1000. I just made an $800 profit on a sale which I would not have otherwise made." 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2005 23:43
|