Quote:
Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter
A. I actually am in favor or stem-cell research, but whether you are for it or against it, it still raises ethical questions.
B. I was saying that the scientists knew that the drug could be fatal, and yes people who are terminally ill do consent to having drugs with a lot of negative side-effects, but it's (IMO) unethical to test a drug on someone that you knew could cause death as an effect of the pill.
|
If they were aware of the possibilities and they gave consent why would it be immoral? In fact I'd feel just the opposite. If a sane individual is willing to risk his life (his terminally ill life nonetheless...) because of a chance of a cure, or at the very least scientific process towards the cure for future people how can you deny him that option? What gives you the right to tell him what he can and can't do with his life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter
C. It is not a fact that jews are any less human than anyone else, but it was the viewpoint of the nazis that they were no better than lab rats to be experimented on, so from their perspective they were operating amorally, but from our perspective they were operating immorally which means that innately there are ethics in science.
|
Do Jews have hearts? Are they bipedal? Do they have brains? What I'm saying is, are they homo sapiens? Science points to the answer being yes, so I feel safe in saying they are no less human than you are or I regardless of what the Nazis think. So they're assumption of superiority was based on nothing factual. Even if it was it still wouldn't make what they did amoral. If Nazis had seen performing experiments on human subjects as amoral they wouldn't have bothered taking an inferior race (in their eyes) to experiment on. The fact they were specific in their race and made sure the race was lesser shows a sense of morality, a delusional one sure but there was still a standard of right and wrong there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter
Even the fact that you say "as long as you're not interfering with someone else's life (without it being permissable)" means that science innately has ethics. I'm not debating your ethical stances on science, I'm simply saying that science has ethics.
|
That doesn't show science is a moral process, that shows I think scientists should show restraint in regards to what they do. Science itself is a completely amoral thing. It doesn't have a brain. It can't think or contemplate abstract ideals. It doesn't have ethics, the scientists do which is how it should be.